I read this on an agent blog today and light of the events that have happened to Sidney Somers at New Concepts Publishing, so I had to ask whether this is normal because it sounds strange to me.
Apparently the agent has two clients who have started their own erotic epress. The agent is editing down her clients’ works to fit into the new epress’ guidelines. The agent is also editing an anthology for the epress.
I have even heard a rumor that the agent is actually starting her own epress. So is it normal for an agent to edit down the work of her clients so that it fits into an epublishing venture started by two of the agent’s clients? I know that some authors refuse to work with certain agents because the agents themselves write. How about agents who edit? Or who own their own epress?
At first glance, while it seems odd, there doesn’t appear to be a direct conflict of interest so long as her clients know that a) she is doing the editing and b) she is being up front about her connection to the epublishing venture. Of course, if many of the work that is being submitted goes first to the epress and not out to other houses, that can be a conflict.
Agents understandably have their main focus on making sales, which usually involves producing books similar to what has proven successful in the past. Therefore they may not be open to a writer trying to move beyond cliche: pushing the boundaries of literature and trying new things. I’d be inclined to fend off an agent who wanted to do too much editing, especially if the editing involved a lot of content issues and not big obvious things like slow beginnings and weak endings.
Okay…an agent’s job is to MAKE MONEY, yes? So how does targeting a client’s work toward a start-up epress…where everyone knows the money is iffy at best…work in the client’s best interest? And actually editing work to fit guidelines…why doesn’t the author do this? That is OUR job.
Yes, this is odd. I can’t imagine someone like Robert Gottlieb or Meg Ruley doing something like this. Seems to me the agent isn’t so into agenting as they should be.
Of course, isn’t Richard Curtis, the well-known agent, involved in ebooks in some capacity?
Hmmm…
I have to say that sounds like an absolute conflict of interest.
Your agent should not be there just to sell your books; she also exists to smooth things out between publisher and author. What if you get an editorial letter that you absolutely disagree with? Your first line of action is to talk to your agent, who will take the job of playing bad cop with the editor. Your agent’s 15% should not just be a cut for getting you a deal; it is also her cut for being involved in her career, and for being a buffer, when things go wrong, between you and the editor.
If you ask an agent for help editing, that’s one thing. If she has suggestions for you to help make a book more saleable, that is also fine, because your goals are united. But when she is the editor, that’s something else entirely–it’s seriously bad news, because if she does something you do not agree with, her interest is on the side of the e-press, not squarely with you and your authorial vision and your view of your career, as it must be. How can she moderate between author and editor, if she is the editor?
Now, if the agent is not acting as editor for her clients’ books, I don’t think it’s any more of a conflict than an agent writing. But if she is editing her clients books, then she simply cannot do her job as agent for her client–or it demonstrates that she thinks that her job as agent is simply getting sales, and not focusing on careers. Either one does not impress me.
If she is *purchasing* her clients books for the e-press, period–even if she is submitting it elsewhere and not giving that press preferential treatment–that is also a conflict of interest, because the point is not just to sell a book, but to act as an advocate for the author’s rights once the sale has been made. She should be making sure that the author gets favorable option clauses, reversion of rights, royalty percentages. She also will help the author out if the author gets a horrible cover, and can push the editors to try and treat the book more favorably in other ways, e.g., featuring it on the front page, or include the title in marketing. If she is financially beholden to the e-press, I don’t see how she can be as aggressive as she needs to be in negotiating the contract.
Agents do more then sell, and while editing and purchasing a client’s book may not be a conflict of interest with the “making sales” part of the agent’s repertoire, it sounds like a pretty clear conflict of interest with every other part of an agent’s job. I would steer very, very clear of any agent who did this. Either she’s got a serious conflict of interest, or she’s not doing all the work for her clients that they deserve.
Val, I respectfully disagree:
Yawn. This is the same argument used by unpublished writer after unpublished writer simply because they can’t get an agent or sell to a publisher who is willing to pay them generously. It is, however, an insult to writers like J.K. Rowling, Sherrilyn Kenyon, JD Robb, Scott Westerfield, et. al, who have come up with fresh, new, innovative stories that have totally upturned their various genres and subgenres over the course of recent memory.
Agents make the most money (as I said in my previous post, this is their main objective) when they discover the new, fresh voice. They may publish tried-and-true books as well (and tried-and-true and cliched are not synonymous to the reading public,) but it’s my experience that agents are rabidly looking for a client who will be a trend-setter in their given genre. Unfortunately, those writers also have to know how to WRITE in a marketable way. And that’s the trick, isn’t it?
All that being said, I just reread the text and I’m not exactly sure what’s happening here. If the agent is editing work to try and make it work with the e-press–and she is not getting anything for it but the standard commission–that could be well within her job as “making sales.” That her clients also own the e-press isn’t that big a deal.
As long as she isn’t making money on both sides of the transaction, and isn’t functioning as an editor for the e-press, but as an advocate for her client’s work, I think it’s okay. If this story is just, “Such-and-such agent helped her client make work acceptable for publication to X,” that is just part of the job.
But the questions at the end threw me. If she is actually functioning as an editor for the e-press, or owns the e-press itself, I think that it’s forbidden.
Good point, JulieLeto. I’d always thought it was the editors who were “rabidly looking for a … trend-setter” in that I see the editors as having the long view over genre trends and the agents as being more like sales reps/business advocates for the writer. But then what do I know, ha, ha! I like your main point that good writing trumps all.
I think it’s fairly common for agents to give their clients overall feedback, possibly even a few line edits if certain things really jump out at them. But developmental editing, in my opinion, should be done by editors.
I had to go back and read the beginning of this three times to figure out what exactly was going on. So, if I understand correctly, this agent has two clients who are starting an epress and she is now editing her OTHER clients’ work to suit this epress’s guidelines.
Have I got that right?
If I have, the next question is…do her other clients know she is changing their work for the purpose of making it marketable to a single publisher? If they don’t, it’s clearly unethical. But if they’ve given her permission to edit their work for the sole purpose of selling it to this epress (I personally can’t imagine that…I have an agent for the purpose of getting my work in front of multiple editors and multiple publishing houses…and preferably established ones that can pay me a reasonable advance and/or substantial royalty payments), then okay, more power to her.
I just can’t figure out what’s in it for her unless the two clients you’ve discussed are PAYING her for it. (And if they are, did she tell her clients THAT?) Because frankly, royalties on books with epubs (with a few notable exceptions) are small enough that it’s hard to imagine her 15% royalty cut make the endeavor profitable enough to be worth her while.
I didn’t mean to be so oblique. I should just link to the blog post itself, but I didn’t because I don’t have confirmation that the agent is involved, financially, with the epress. I asked, but didn’t get clarification.
However, it is as you say, Jackie. The agent has two clients that started an epress. She is editing down her OTHER clients’ work to meet the new epress guidelines. The epress is an advance and royalty paying publisher. So I assume that the agent is being paid for her clients’ works.
There are agents with editing backgrounds who can offer valuable constructive critiques to make an author’s work more marketable. There are authors who actively look for such agents in order to take their careers/works to the next level.
This has my spidey sense tingling. I’m not saying it’s wrong or right since I don’t have all the info. If it was my agent, I’d ask 1) did she send it to everyone else out there first, including successful, established epresses, before deciding to sell it to her other clients; 2) is she getting paid from her epress clients to send these manuscripts their way; 3) does our agent agreement cover her making changes to my manuscripts for any reason.
If the agent talked to her other clients about this new publishing opportunity and all it required was editing the books appropriately and that she’d handle it and they agreed, then that’s on the authors not the agent. Me, I’d want proof that I got rejected by everyone else before signing on with a brand new epub that’s got to work twice (or thrice) as hard as others to win readers.
And I’d still be the one editing my work, because hey–I’m the writer.
If she’s actually editing an anthology for them, she’s way more involved in the operation of the e-press than merely helping clients prep their manuscripts to fit the guidelines. It’s like she’s their employee or subcontractor or something.
I think I know which agent this is, and I made up my mind a while back to steer clear. The sometimes sneering tone of her blog posts and the craptastic grammar were enough to put me off.
And this person is now hanging out her shingle as an editor?! Oy.
I wouldn’t doubt the epress would pay royalties, but advances? That’s pretty rare in the epublishing industry (though certainly not unheard of), but for a start-up, that would be surprising. There must be some deep pockets back there if they are, in fact, paying advances on contracted work.
Notwithstanding, I find it hard to believe this agent’s ONLY financial interest in the edited works is her 15% cut of the advances/royalties. If that were her only interest, I doubt she’d make the changes herself. But that’s just a guess. My spidey sense, like Seressia’s, is tingling…
Val, I think you’re right that agents have to find balance between taking on a new voice and finding something that is marketable. That is why agents are considered the first line of defense against the unwashed masses (ie, writers!) who are submitting to publishers. Editors trust that certain agents, at least, have an eye for spotting good stuff–fresh voices that are also marketable and who can write well.
Of course, all that is subjective to some degree, but then, what part of this industry isn’t?
An agent editing their client’s work is normal; my agent made several editorial suggestions on my book before submitting, and every other writer I know’s agents did the same thing.
But it appears this agent is indeed acting as a straight-up editor, in so far as she is putting together anthologies and posting calls for submissions to these anthos on her blog, without any mention of taking the authors of the chosen subs on as clients. In other words she is working purely in an editorial capacity and is presumably making some money from the whole thing. Presumably that money is coming from the publishers, as the payment on the stories is $1 per page(?!) and 38%.
Personally, ANY agent who submits to epublishers is an agent I would avoid. My agent doesn’t touch my epub stuff; s/he (I’m being ambiguous, my agent isn’t a transexual) has much bigger fish to fry. That’s fun short stuff for me, side projects to fit in between other work. S/he did look over my contract (I only write for one epub house) as a favor and to make sure it didn’t conflict with any of the NY stuff, but that’s it.
Any agent not savvy enough to know that start-up epublishers are a BAD bet for a writer is an agent I would worry about. Any agent so desperate for sales they’re submitting their clients’s work to such houses is an agent I would worry about. Any agent submitting their clients’s work to houses of which the owners are other clients? Man. Something is seriously fishy there.
I was unable to find any info about this new publisher. No owners are listed on the site, no submission guidelines, no nothing. It’s not due to open for several months yet, and what is there looks nice and professional, but it’s clearly only ebook, and that’s a glutted market already (I mean erotic romance ebooks, not ebooks in general, sorry).
Bottom line is, I’d always heard this agent has a good reputation, but I’m starting to wonder if something is rotten in Denmark.
Oh, and I gotta go with Julie here. With all due respect, Val, I believe the book that got me my agent pushed some serious boundaries and tried some very new things; that’s why s/he signed me, and that’s why s/he sold my book(s).
I think there are two separate but related issues here (at least):
First there is the issue of the agent acting as editor (dual roles). That may not be an automatic conflict of interest as we usually think of it, but if the role of editor compromises the role of agent, or vice versa, then it’s just not good (and a COI).
Then there’s the issue of the agent working both sides of the deal (dual clients) as it relates to the questions of consent and disclosure. If all parties are aware of and have knowledgeably consented to the deal then it may not seem like a great idea to others, but those who are participating are doing so cooperatively and that’s their business, so to speak.
Back to the first issue of the dual roles, this would be my concern as an author considering any agent. I tend to think it can get difficult when one person occupies a number of different roles, because the various responsibilities are not always going to be in concert, and an author should be able to count on an agent to represent her *to* the publisher. In this case, it’s *to* and *on behalf of* AND *from* the publisher, which just seems like too many hats to be wearing comfortably or stylishly.
Why would anyone use an agent if they want to submit to an e-press? [blink] I certainly don’t use an agent with mine, and I can’t see any reason at all to pay someone 15% for what’s always been a very straightforward business transaction. It’s like paying an agent to submit your shorts to magazines — why?
If this person’s clients really want their agent to do e-press submissions for them, then fine, whatever. But if they’re handing manuscripts to their agent with the impression that they’re going to be submitted to New York publishers, and they’re not only going to e-presses instead, but are being edited down for at least one of those e-presses, then IMO that’s a huge violation of ethics.
Another issue is just who’s doing the work. This:
for an agent to edit down the work of her clients
gives me the impression that the agent is actually doing the editing, not just sending notes to the writers telling them to tighten up the beginning and cut Chapter Ten. I’d be very upset with an agent who actually edited my work for me, rather than making suggestions. Although again, if the writers involved are fine with this, then I guess it’s up to them.
It just all sounds very squirrely to me. :/
Angie
I am a client of the agent in question—-who by the way, is one of the top agents in the industry in terms of sales. (She has sold literally thousands of books to the big NYC houses over the past 20 years, and has numerous NYT bestsellers to her credit). She was upfront about her connection to the publisher, and left it up to me whether I wanted my work placed there or not. The epress is paying advances, and also offering the most generous royalty split in the industry.
The new epress in question has been started by two former editors at a major NYC publishing house. Those two editors had a combined experience of several decades in the big publishing industry, and chose to break away from traditional publishing because they felt it was not publishing the kind of erotica the market demanded. The publisher has substantial investment capital behind it, and there will be a huge media marketing push behind the launch. Because of the high level of credibility of the agent and editors behind this, I was confident in allowing my work to be submitted there. And the agent in question continues to submit my other work to print houses. (I should note that the work she submitted of mine didn’t need to be edited down; it was already the right length for this press).
An agent’s job is to make money for her clients. If editing her clients’ work is what it takes to get the deals, that works for me.
I recently fired my former agent of four years for not getting the job done in terms of sales. My new agent (the one in question on this post) has already gotten me more sales in one month than my former agent did in four years.
You might also want to check out the parent company of the new epress, Hollan Publishers:
http://www.hollanpub.com
They are already established as a publisher of high-quality print books.
Just out of curiosity…but why all the secrecy with names? What epress? What editors?
Jill Elaine Hughes said:
Well, if “established” means being in business since fall of 2006. :-)
I second Julie’s question.
While the information we’ve received from Jill makes it appear this is all very much on the up and up, I have to admit that I’m still a little boggled over the idea of an agent actually “editing down” her clients’ work.
Normally, when an agent wants her client to change something in a work prior to submission, she sends the client a revision letter detailing the changes she thinks should be made. Ditto publishers. The editor sends a revision letter to the author requesting changed and the author makes them and/or accepts/rejects specific line edits. The author is involved in the process every step of the way because the book is HER work and will go out with HER name on it.
This isn’t to say what the agent is doing is wrong. Just that, as an author, I would not want my agent “editing down” my book for submission. I’d want to her explain to me what changes were needed and then allow me to make those changes myself, should I agree with them.
‘Nuff said.
So they are a non-fiction publisher breaking into the fiction market by launching an erotic romance epublishing house.
They certainly seem to have publishing experience, which is more than some epubs can say. But ero-rom is a tough market, as evidenced by the many companies that have imploded over the last couple of years. I certainly hope that they are successful–viable publishing options help us have careers.
As for the agent, like I said in my earlier post, if the clients received full disclosure and are satisfied (as seems to be the case with Ms. Hughes), that’s on them. Some writers wouldn’t be comfortable with that, just as some writers aren’t comfortable with their agent writing in the same subgenre they do, and some writers beleive the agent’s job is to find a viable market for their work and the editor’s job is to edit. It’s part of what a writer has to decide when they are searching for and signing with an agent. We are all different and we all have different comfort levels.
Lynne, Ravenous’ “sensual lifestyle” coffeetable books (which are shelved in the Human Sexuality section of most bookstores) have all been bestsellers in their niche. (50,000-150,000+ copies), which are HUGE numbers in such a short time for coffeetable books. SO I don’t think the lifespan of the publisher should be in question if it is pulling in those sales numbers in print books within 1 year of launch. Also, their print books are done in partnership with Sterling, a major publishing imprint.
And the ebook publishers that imploded did so because the people who started them had no background in publishing and had absolutely no idea what they were doing. I think it’s pretty clear that Hollan/Ravenous knows exactly what they are doing.
It is my understanding that my agent is only editing down books by her authors who have specifically given her permission to do so. Some other authors are making the changes themselves according her suggestions.
There’s no secrecy: just visit http://www.hollanpress.com or http://www.ravenousromance.com. They only accept agented submissions, and don’t post editors’ names on their site—-just like the major houses.
Actually, 38% is NOT the most generous royalty rate in the business, as anyone getting into epublishing should know. If I’m not mistaken there are several who pay 40%, including The Wild Rose Press (with whom I am in no way affiliated, and who I normally don’t recommend simply because they’re small and sales are low. But to be fair, they do offer a better split than “Ravenous Romance”, and they’re not the only ones.)
And what sorts of advances are we talking about here?
Look, Jill, if you’re comfortable with this that’s great. But publishing paperback art books and non-fiction is NOT like erotica/erotic romance epublishing. The fact remains that your work has been sold to a brand-new epublisher, with no name or connections in the epublishing world, by an agent who is also functioning as an editor for that house–which is in itself a conflict of interest no matter which way you look at it and no matter how big a name the agent has or had at one time. Epublishing readers tend to buy from the ehouses they’re familiar with; they don’t branch out as much. To succeed as an epublisher you need to know how to reach that audience and what they want, and believe me, competition is extremely stiff. Erotic romance ehouses are a dime a dozen; only a few are big enough that their authors earn more than pocket money.
I sincerely wish everyone involved luck, I do. I like to see new houses succeed and I like to see people trying new things. But that doesn’t mean I think what’s going on here is right.
Ahem. Their PRINT bestsellers by far have all been erotic “sensual lifestyle” cofeetable books. And these editors have 20 years experience in the NYC publishing world. They have already demonstrated they can deliver big sales in print in a very, very short period of time.
The 38% split is only for domestic sales. There are several other markets which will also be exploited, at various royalty rates. And I’ll take 38% at a house that is actually capable of selling books over 40% at borderline, struggling Wild Rose any day.
Furthermore, it is my understanding the marketing push for this new imprint will include full-page ads in Romantic Times, Publishers Weekly, and other major magazines, as well as major broadcast media. There will also be a huge presence at the Romantic Times conference in October.
Say what you will, but this thing is going to be very, very big. My agent wouldn’t be touching this with a hundred-foot-pole if she didn’t think the numbers are going to be huge.
Even if their sales are at the very top end of erotic romance epublishing (a few thousand copies) the involvement of an agent strikes me as odd and unnecessary, let alone the number of hours editing would take. And, no matter what their credentials are, an epress’s sales will not be at the top end while they are a start-up.
I would be inclined to assume the agent had a motive other than the rather slim financial motive of, at best, a few hundred dollars. Agents typically paddle in richer waters than that. IMHO.
The prediction that it will be very big seems odd given that it is currently very, very obscure–and the erotic ebook market is very, very crowded. Where is the niche? Where is the huge market?
Many presses have splashed on print ads only to discover it is a misdirected and expensive habit given how few of the subscribers to big print even know what an ebook is, let alone want to read one.
I agree with Anion, I don’t think these people understand the romance ebook readership. Or at least they are going to have some swirling mixed press online before they even get out of the blocks.
Her motive is the expectation of extremely high sales, the highest ever seen in epublishing, and the resulting commissions on those sales.
I can see that most of you are skeptical (so was I, at first), but those of us with the inside info on this publishing house are convinced they will blow the competition right out of the water from very early on.
I have ‘outside’ info on the size of the erotic romance ebook reading public–and the number of companies already feeding it high quality product ( erecsite.com/PLIST.html ). I look at what Ellora’s cave, Samhain and Loose Id are doing and I think they are pretty much hitting the market that is there ( erecsite.com/SALES.html , brendahiatt.com/id2.html )
So far the only evidence of Hollan’s ability to sell ebooks in the 10,000+ range is they are rather good at doing something else, and they plan to advertise in venues where the majority of readers are not very interested in ebooks (an approaches others have tried in the past many times). If there is more to it I would like to know. I think it would be unwise to underestimate what the top epublishers are already capable of, and to assume any company will certainly (or even probably) do an *order of magnitude* better.
If there is a large untapped market we have all been ignorant of you will have my abject and sincere apologies for not seeing it. At all. The ebook reading publish is small, growing slowly, and I can’t see any way it would support those kind of figures over the next few years.
I believe that is because the existing ebook houses that are keeping their heads above water (i.e., Ellora’s Cave) were not founded by people with a background in traditional publishing.
In fact, even Ellora’s Cave’s founders admit to flying by the seat of their pants most of the time. I think this lack of knowledge about publishing and reaching target audiences (and the slow growth of those audiences) show that even the successful epubs have not exploited all avenues for building readership. I’d rather have a seasoned publishing executive with 20 years experience publishing books that sell big behind a startup publisher than a an unpublished housewife like the head of EC was—who has indeed been successful, but probably not at the level she could have been had she had a solid publishing background.
Then how do you explain the similar scale of sales by eHarlequin?
I agree that publishing experience is great. But print publishing is different to ebook publishing. Mainly due to the ebook readership being much smaller and demographically much different. Not to mention the small issue of format and distribution.
Time will tell.
eHarlequin’s Spice Brief sales are doing well, is my understanding. And Harlequin is primarily a print publisher, so its readers are still buying all the titles it puts in eform in print. I don’t think eHarlequin has done enough to create and promote an e-line that is online only. And Harlequin’s sales are down in general—mostly because it has been slow to adapt its lines to changing market tastes.
There are a select few EC authors who earn mid-six figure annual royalty incomes from their Ellora’s titles alone, by the way (mostly those who write BDSM). And several of those authors are my agent’s clients.
I’ll close by saying that I can understand the concerns that several posters have with this startup given what has happened with New Concepts, Triskelion, etc. But unlike some of the e-houses of the past (which are mostly run by insane idiots like Madris dePasture) Ravenous is just plain different. It’s been founded based on a solid business plan drawn up by seasoned, experienced publishing executives who have a solid track record of publishing high-selling books. It has significant investment capital behind it (which they could not have obtained had they not had a well-thought-out business plan.) They are working with top literary agents to acquire their titles. In other words, they are a real publisher and not a fly-by-night operation founded primarily to showcase the amateur founders’ own unpublished books (which even Ellora’s Cave was at its start).
We’ll see how it goes. I sincerely hope that the house becomes very successful not for my own sake, but so many of my fellow authors can have a lucrative, professional, and viable option for publishing.
One thing I learned from collecting sales figures is that ‘very well’ doesn’t convey anything substantial. I haven’t got specific figures but a few reports of ’similar to Ellora’s Cave’ and ‘not better than Ellora’s Cave’. maybe they have picked up since then with the give-away promotion.
Let me put it another way. Ebooks are largely an online phenomena, that is where they are bought (predominantly straight from the publisher) and largely where they are marketed. So… is Ravenous e-books online launch going well? Because whether they intended it or not, their branding just started hitting their potential readership.
Personally, I am not seeing the savvy. But that could (sincerely) just be me.
I think you need to get the audience here better. I am not concerned about Ravenous going bankrupt (they might, they might not, but it certainly wasn’t my point). I just don’t for a second believe they will average sales in the ‘needs an agent’ range of 10,000 copies or higher. At least not for a good many years.
Ravenous is not unique in having executives, capital and a plan. I see no evidence that they are boldly going where no epublisher has ever gone before, or that they are packing warp.
And after having poked around Hollan’s site and the Ravenous Romance site, I also see no evidence that they are making any significant push to attract either readers or writers to the new e-imprint. There’s nothing anywhere online I can find regarding guidelines for manuscripts–this seems to be a trade secret. Perhaps, because they don’t take unagented submissions, they feel it’s unnecessary to disseminate this information to the broader public, but to me, holding one’s cards so close to one’s vest hardly seems indicative of a new publisher making a push that will result in a big splash.
Could just be me, though….
April. RT is in April.
http://www.rtconvention.com/
Oh, riiight, I see. It’s because Jaid Black didn’t have a background in traditional publishing that readers aren’t faster to adopt a reading format they don’t want. It’s because the existence of ebooks in general is such a sneaky secret. We were hoping Amazon might draw attention to the existence of ebooks when they came out with the Kindle but, man, they just didn’t put any money into promoting that thing at all, so I guess it’s got nothing to do with what format readers prefer.
EC does well more than “keep their heads above water”. Over 11 million a year in sales is much more than “keeping their heads above water”. And those EC authors who make that kind of money? Have dozens of titles, in all different subgenres–not just BDSM, and the benefit of EC’s familiar and large name and reputation behind them.
I don’t know why I’m bothering to respond here, honestly. You obviously know better than any of us who’ve actually been involved in epublishing for years, especially Emily who’s made almost a second career out of studying the business and educating writers on it.
It’s not as simple as “a lack of knowledge about publishing”. As we keep trying to tell you–we, who have years of experience in this specific area–epublishing and print publishing are different beasts. EC practically invented epublishing. They fly by the seat of their pants because that’s what trailblazers DO. (And despite anyone’s personal opinions about EC or its founders or the direction of the company, I think we can all agree that they created an industry, and NY followed, right?)
Also, 50,000-150,000 copies sold is a bestseller in any niche. Could you please share those titles with us? Surely we’ve heard of them, seen them on the lists? I’d love to check out some of the company’s bestsellers.
I looked at Ravenous’s print books sales ranks. The best of them is #60,822 and most are more than #100,000–and that includes recent releases. Note, although it is not an exact science, one copy a week works out at about #50,000. That is only one distributor, admittedly. But combined with other online discussion about the founders career history I would not rush to choose them over Jaid (and I am not one who would rush to choose Jaid).
Here’s an article from the Boston Globe on Hollan’s bestselling sex titles:
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/smut_for_sophisticates/
The article is from some time ago, but gives some background on the press and its future directions. I believe the titles it has put out that qualify for “blockbuster” status are :
The Cosmo Kama Sutra and its somewhat perplexing spinoff, Cosmo’s Aqua Kama Sutra,
69 Ways to Please Your Lover
Diary of a Sex Fiend.
Also, I misspoke regarding the RT conventoin in October. I meant to say that in addition to a huge marketing push in the RT’s October issue, there will be a huge media/convention push for Ravenous in October, which will include author/publisher appearances in some major venues. I don’t have a lot of into on that right now since I’m not slated to be one of the authors making public appearances (as I’ll be out of the country for most of October) but if you watch Lori Perkins’ blog as well as the Ravenous site, I’m sure the details will be posted there soon.
It seems no amount of evidence I post here will convince the naysayers, so I guess we’ll just see where the sales go once the imprint launches. There were a lot of people (including writers) who said Ellora’s Cave wouldn’t get off the ground, too. Just saying.
And since the press is getting all its titles from agents of its own choosing, that would be why they aren’t advertising for submissions right now. They might in the future, they might not, I don’t know.
Amazon sales rank is not a reliable indicator of actual-copy sales, especially for coffee-table books, the vast majority of which are sold in bookstores. 75% of print book sales still come from booksellers.
Following this thread with interest (and not saying more than that ;-), but have to agree that Amazon sales rank numbers mean virtually nothing unless you’re talking major, major seller. Series romance numbers, for instance, are generally abysmal for the rank-and-file category writer, because most copies are purchased in stores. And because the numbers reflect RECENT activity more than NUMBERS, an older book ranked in the millions might well have sold in the mid-five figures when it was new.
Indeed, that is quite true. But it interests me that Sterling/Ravenous print books sell worse, on Amazon, than print books from many epublishers (like Samhain, top seller #2,762). And epublishers make the majority of their sales in an entirely different format. Amazon is a rough measure, but 100,000 is a very big number. Add 75%, add 95%, it will still not be a very large figure.
I am not really feeling convinced that Hollan/Ravenous are on a higher plan of ability even in the world of print. Of course I will be happy to see how many of their books are stock in my local Borders, maybe a few other will do the same (or to be extra fair, Barnes & Nobles, which has a special connection with Sterling)
Wow. Just wow.
Is there any reputable publishing house that limits submissions by advertising its guidelines only to its “favored” agents? I am well aware that many editors prefer working with some agents over others and give certain agents’ submissions preference over others, but as far as I know, most publishers that accept only agented submissions don’t restrict which agents can submit to them.
Basically, what this publisher is saying is that only authors who are represented by certain agents can submit to them. If you have an agent, but it’s not one of their “approved” agents, you’re out of luck. And, of course, just as it’s not telling you whether any of your work might fit its guidelines, it’s not even telling WHICH agents are on its list.
Maybe I’m naive. But for now, I’m just flabbergasted.
I don’t think you understand, Jackie. We’re clearly dealing with a company so exclusive, so incredible, so perfect in every single way, that the rest of us are simply incapable of processing it. This is something the likes of which has never been seen before, don’t you get it? It’s clearly not for peons like us to say anything. We’re just rabble.
As I’ve said, I genuinely wish everyone success. I like to see new publisher succeed. I’d love to see a great new venue for writers. But I’m also realistic and understand the business of epublishing, and I think I have a right to wonder.
Oh, Jill, could you please share with us the names of some of the writers whose work will be the debut titles of Ravenous? That would probably help the rest of us judge what sort of stories we can expect.
And to be fair, when one’s agent is also the agent of both owners of the press, there is bound to be a natural mutual understanding
agentinthemiddle.blogspot.com/2008_08_10_archive.html#2337294159433917276
I know that my agent, Lori Perkins, has sold several of her clients’ works to Ravenous, including my own. And since Ms. Perkins is currently the USA’s top agent for erotica (i.e., she reps the bulk of the erotica authors whose print books consistently sell 10,000+ copies in print), you can bet that it’s top erotica authors. As for which ones she’s sold to Ravenous, you’d need to ask Ms. Perkins herself, but I know for a fact she reps the following authors:
Alison Tyler
Jenna Jameson (yes, the porn star)
Wendy Diamond
Polly Frost
Kirsten Lobe
Cecelia Tan
Kimberly is absolutely right. Amazon sales rank is totally meaningless as far as actual copy sales go. (Nielsen Bookscan has to-the-minute actual copy numbers). And most ebooks are still purchased direct from the publishers, not via Amazon.
I frankly don’t see how the publisher only choosing to work with certain agents is a big deal. Plenty of big houses do just that. And the fact is, very, very few agents are representing erotica right now. So it would make sense to me that they would only work with agents that have an existing stable of published erotica clients (and there are only a couple of those). Any legitimate publisher has the right to be highly selective and publish only the best quality available, and by going directly to only those agents that rep proven authors that write exactly what the publisher is looking for, that is good business sense to me. If they open themselves up to unsolicited, unagented submissions, they’ll get flooded with a bunch of crap, and will then in turn take insane lengths of time to wade through the crap before they can actually publish anything.
I think I am now hearing something that sounds a lot like sour grapes.
Any legitimate publisher has the right to be highly selective and publish only the best quality available, and by going directly to only those agents that rep proven authors that write exactly what the publisher is looking for, that is good business sense to me.
I’ve never heard of any publisher who only chose writers from certain agents. While there are well-known agents with excellent stables of writers, no tiny pool of agents has ever had anywhere near a monopoly on the “best quality available” in writer-land. That attitude just sounds whacked to me.
I think I am now hearing something that sounds a lot like sour grapes.
Ad hominem, dear. I don’t see sour grapes at all, but more incredulous blinking. Those of us who are primarily e-published don’t have agents, so there’s absolutely no “sour grapes” in our being all o_O over your new e-publisher taking only manuscripts from certain, choice agents; it doesn’t affect us one way or the other, and no one here is saying, “But my agent is worthy!!!” It’s just that the whole idea is a bit weird, in general. [bemused smile]
I do hope this works out for you all. I’m just not betting any cookies at this moment.
Angie
oops—typo. The correct spelling of one of the above authors is “Cecilia Tan”.
FWIW, Ms. Perkins is looking to expand her stable of erotica clients, so if you write erotica (epubbed or print-pubbed), and need an agent, query her.
As I said, maybe I am naive. Maybe this IS common practice. It’s just that when I go to publisher spotlights at RWA, what I hear is not “We only accept submissions from certain agents” but “We only accepted agented submissions.” The implications are pretty different, yes?
Of course, that was not my suggestion. They have a perfect right to accept only agented submissions. I have no issues with the notion of accepting only agented submissions. But there is a difference between “agented submissions” and “submissions from only these agents.” I just think that’s limiting the pool so much, the publisher could be shooting itself in the foot.
Perhaps it’s a great model, though. Time will tell.
And it’s certainly not sour grapes. Just concern that a startup publisher may be overselling its prospects to authors who are represented by agent(s) with whom it has a particularly cozy relationship.
I don’t know for sure, but it could be they are only limiting themselves to certain agents for their preliminary set of books at initial launch. This may or may not be their practice once the house is up and running.
But whatever they choose to do or not to do, legit publishing is a buyers’ market, and when it comes to buying manuscripts, the buyers make the rules. This is the way it’s always been. If this is how they choose to acquire their books, aspiring writers really aren’t in any position to tell them no. As someone else already pointed out, there are plenty of other epublishers out there. Go submit your work somewhere else if you don’t like this house or don’t like the way it does business.
I guess what’s most perplexing to many of us (and I think Veinglory touched on this point above) is the assumption that this publisher is somehow going to convince the hordes of readers who don’t read e-books for reasons that have little to with editorial content that these books are worth plunking down $$$ for an e-reader, ignoring the tactile issues that keep many readers firmly in the print camp, etc. Were they to launch in both print and e-book, it would make more sense. But only in e-book format?
Not getting it. Hence the skepticism.
And that’s not sour grapes, but simply flags going up for a number of us who’ve been at this for a while, too. Not to say the model can’t/won’t work, that perhaps there’s something at play here the cynics among us aren’t seeing. But when you figure in this idea that they’re only accepting from a limited pool of agents — which I assume means they won’t even look at queries from other agents — it just looks…off.
Sorry.
The thing that will finally settle all of this controversy is sales numbers. I’ll check back in next January or so with a report.
I think at this point the only evidence that will convince naysayers will be actual sales numbers. Because saying it’s going to have 40% sell through or kick other established e-houses in the wallet is all well in good, but you still have to get readers to come knocking–and buying.
Those who purchase ebooks is small portion of the market. If we take Ms. Hughes data, 25% of sales still come from brick and mortar. Even if we’re generous and say that Amazon owns half of all online books ales, there’s still a smaller number that is electronic sales, and that’s with them hawking the Kindle left and right (on their site, of course.)
I also don’t think one can say publisher A is going to be gangbusters in an area they aren’t known for (Sterling) then bash another publisher B with the same model (Harlequin) especially when Publisher B is a known and decades old name in romance. Cause I think we can say Harlequin knows what from marketing.
It is entirely possible that there will be crossover between coffee-table book buyers and erotic romance ebook buyers. 100% crossover, the law of averages says not. Otherwise, Harlequin would have 100% crossover on its titles (as in one Spice sold for every Blaze or Desire), as would all the other major houses with e-titles.
I think the only true success story of an ebook is Stephen King’s The Plant, which grossed over $700K for six installments, with profit at just over $400K. But that’s Stephen King and dude’s got millions in print. And he did stop that experiment.
Based on what’s been presented here, Ravenous is a publishing house created by clients of one agent, and is only taking submissions from clients of said agent. That’s the only thing that seems to be different from other epublishing ventures at the moment. Again, I hope Ravenous goes like gangbusters. The spidey sense, though, she’s still a-tingling.
Mea culpa. It’s looks like we’re talking straight erotica, not erotic romance. Perhaps therein lies the difference.
Although that does make one wonder why they chose to call the imprint “Ravenous ROMANCE,” doesn’t it?
I have to admit, I’ll be following this publisher’s progress with interest. Not because I hope it doesn’t live up to expectations, but because it would be so marvelous if, for once, the caveat “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn’t” didn’t prove to be accurate.
there will be straight erotica (of all kinds, including M/F, M/M, F/F, BDSM, and all levels of kink), romantic erotica, erotic memoir, and sexy romance.
to put things another way, they are selling porn. ;) And porn is by far the most lucrative thing on the Internet.
Ah, is it time to break out the ‘Romance is not porn’ flashcards? If, as Perkins claims on the blog entry you linked too, Ravenous is an “erotic Romance” publisher, I hope everyone involved understands that genre Romance, even erotic Romance, is not the same thing as erotica. Or porn, for that matter.
Quite honestly, what comes across to me most strongly in this thread is that everyone involved in this venture is looking for the quick buck — that it’s a get rich quick in publishing endeavor, not a let’s publish some really good quality erotica and hopefully get rich doing it venture. And while I’m not so naive to believe that publishing isn’t ultimately about profit, we’ve seen the casualties of straight greed in the myriad dead small print and all-size electronic publishers. Now it may be that the goals are not primarily those of profiting from porn, as your last post suggested, but that’s what I’m picking up, especially given the close quarters Perkins and Ravenous currently occupy.
What comes across to me is that maybe some of the people participating in this new endeavor haven’t done very much research at all into erotic romance epublishing as it currently exists, respecting what it is and its readership (*especially* respecting the readers), and coming up with a practical plan to do it different and better. Because eventually someone will break through the sales volume glass ceiling for erotic romance ebooks; I just wouldn’t count on it being Ravenous.
I don’t think calling ero