RWA & The Case of the Lack of Vision
Letters of Opinionbook business / Conventions / digital publishing209 Comments
In the most recent RWR, a monthly publication put out by the RWA, Diane Pershing’s president’s letter contained a very wordy assessment of RWA’s commitment to its 10,000+ membership which can be condensed into this: digital publishing is not a legitimate business model and those who are in digital publishing are not sufficiently “career-focused”?
How do we accommodate changes in the publishing industry environment without diluting RWA’s focus on “career-focused” writers and standards for professionalism?
….
In other words, that publisher’s business model is of benefit to all its authors (RWA members). The fact that a publisher might not offer an advance but pays a 37.5 percent royalty rate is inconsequential; that business model is only favorable to the few–or even the several– who manage to sell enough books to make decent money, or at least the $1,000 required for Published Authors Network (PAN) membership. It is not favorable to the rest of its authors (RWA members) who earn very little money, if any at all. When an individual author (What is good for me and my career?) posts on a loop that she’s earned thousands of dollars, really likes her publisher’s royalty rate, and doesn’t see the need for an advance, good for her. RWA is always pleased when an author earns decent money for her work. But–and this is based on real examples, not assumptions–all the authors signed with that publisher will not make decent money; most of them won’t.
I never blogged about this because Diane Pershing is two months away from her presidency expiring. What was the point? Several others responded however here, here and here. Deidre Knight responded with an eloquent and cogent argument on E-span, the electronic publishing chapter of the RWA.
Knight argued that to make the argument that advances are the only legitimate business model fails to take into consideration the changing business environment facing the industry. As Knight pointed out, HarperStudio, the experimental arm of HarperCollins, is testing the no advance, no return, profit sharing model that has long existed in digital publishing.
Publishers’ Lunch reported NYT bestselling author Glenn Beck made a “multi-title co-publishing deal, covering an unlimited number of titles over an undisclosed term with ….BECK’S COMMON SENSE, “channeling the spirit of Thomas Paine,” for publication as an eBook original and then a trade paperback original, in June 2009, also to include picture books and fiction for children and YA books, said to be a 50/50 profit sharing deal with Threshold Editions, an imprint of Simon & Schuster.
Jason Epstein’s keynote speech at Tools of Change this year argues that the “radically decentralized marketplace” is changing the traditional publishing infrastructure.
Like American automobile manufacturers traditional publishers will persist in their traditional mode as long as they can, but they cannot indefinitely defend their institutions against disruptive technologies any more than the monks in their scriptoria could withstand the urgency of movable type. As factory based production and distribution gradually give way to web based production and marketing the cost of entry for publishers will decline to practically zero. Such traditional publishing functions as publicity, design, marketing, legal, record keeping and so on will be sub contracted as will web marketing and design. Talented editors require only minimal managerial services and in the digital future will require even fewer provided they resist inducements to expand or merge. Today’s unwieldy conglomerates, trapped in a bad economy within their Gutenberg mode and motivated only by profit rather than the intrinsic value of the work itself — the joy of publishing distinguished books, the primary motive of successful publishers — will deconstruct, leaving their surviving imprints to fend for themselves under diverse ownership or vanish. Resourceful agents may become business managers for groups of like minded editors and authors whose imprints will become recognizable brands, distinguishing their content from the great sea of helter skelter digital content while authors, as stakeholders along with their editors, may opt for profit sharing arrangements rather than traditional royalties. Best selling branded authors who require only minimal publishing services beyond manufacturing and distribution may become their own publishers, retaining their agents as business managers, subcontracting essential functions, and forgoing today’s unsustainable guarantees in exchange for the entire net proceeds of their titles. Customers will pay less but pricing must still cover traditional author royalties, residual publishers’ overheads and profit.
At Book Expo America, the biggest buzz word of North America’s biggest trade show was “digital publishing”. (This one is a great sum up of one of the digital seminars held at BEA ’09).
Diane Pershing’s response to Deidre Knight was posted today. In it Pershing suggests that Knight’s motivation for speaking out in favor of digital publishing and against the current position espoused by Pershing was because Knight’s Butterfly Tattoo is not eligible for a RITA. Pershing states that only two digital publishing seminars were ever brought to RWA’s attention: one offered by Angela James and one deemed not up to snuff by RWA’s seminar committee.
Pershing goes on to state that for all the complaints that members may appear to have about RWA, the organization has not suffered in terms of membership or money. Pershing notes that while authors might not get the advance paid right away, when the career focused author is ready, money in the thousands will be waiting for them.
Even so, most career-focused authors have books in various stages of completion and publication, so there is a steady flow of money to them. And whenever the money does get there, there will be money, in the thousands of dollars. It is guaranteed. Can the same be said for the digital model?
Here is what I think about this whole hub-bub. Why care what RWA thinks? Why advocate for RWA to change? Why not simply withdraw from the organization. It does nothing but to offer a contests, conventions, and help polishing your first three chapters. I don’t know of one editor who cares whether the submission comes from an RWA member. I don’t know of any reader who cares whether the book is from an RWA member.
In what measurable way does RWA help an author a) sell books or b) become published? There are plenty of ways to meet editors and agents. They go to Lori Foster’s events or Lora Leigh’s events. They might be at ComicCon. They might be at RT. You can even go to the RWA convention without being a member.
RWA is not forward thinking as Pershing states. If it was forward thinking, it would recognize that its duty to its membership includes equipping the authors with information about all the ways in which authors in the romance industry can make money. It would tell them that a digital publisher offers higher royalties against no advances thus making that publishing path more risky but with possible better reward. It would equip authors to go forth and seek out digital publishers armed with the knowledge of how to distinguish between a good and bad digital publisher.
But why work within the the RWA? RWA doesn’t make the money an author makes with digital publishing less real. RWA only serves to delegitimize an author if she allows it. RWA’s failure to recognize digital publishers makes RWA look bad; not the digital publishers or the authors that choose that model. For the authors who aren’t aware of the avenues of success from digital publishing or know and don’t want to take advantage of that model, so what? More publishing slots for those who are in the know.
The market will change and evolve regardless of RWA. The only people it harms are those wedded to the RWA philosophy and you know what, let them go the way of the dodo bird.
Allison Said:
Can you imagine the auto workers waiting for their pay checks until the car they built was sold by the dealer? Or a teacher to wait for their pay check until the student they educated graduated? Why is the products of creative artists treated any differently? As I've argued with some editors who stated publicly that advances aren't important because the author gets royalties, would an editor wait for their paycheck until the book they edited sold? Or accept a percentage of payment based on the sales of a particularly book?
But this argument is flawed. The auto workers are not self-employeed. Authors are. And anyone who has owned a business knows that they only make money when a customer walks in and buys something.
Why should authors be any different?
@Jo Vandewall:
I sell my book to the publisher. The publisher is my “customer” since I don’t sell directly to readers. I enter into a contract with the publisher that I will produce X number of words in Y genre by Z date and in return they’ll advance me $$ against future royalties based on how well they think that book will sell–based on their internal analysis of like books, etc. It’s not a perfect system. It works.
I’m self-employed, and I understand the point you tried to make, but most self-employed businesses start with capital–and it’s not theirs. They get a small business loan based on market analysis that such a service or product is in demand in a specific area. If I wanted to open a book store in Elk Grove, I would show to a bank that I had retail experience, that I’ve managed staff, that there is a need–based on demographics that I may commission a marketing firm to put together. I would pick a location that based on the proposal would be the best for my venue. Then I would share the risk with the bank in that they would loan me money if they felt the business was viable. If the business fails, they know they won’t get paid back. Business bankruptcy is far different than personal bankruptcy.
Publishing is the same. They see the product they’re going to invest in, rather than a loan that won’t be repaid if there is failure, they give an advance that isn’t repaid if there is failure. Which is why publishing is truly a partnership with both the publisher and the author taking risks. The publisher puts the best “package” together for the project and sometimes throws it out there and hopes for the best, and sometimes pushes the book believing they can easily find an audience. But without sharing the risk with the author, they can dump more books out hoping something will stick.
If you read my previous comments, you’ll see I have no problem with the e-publishing business model–that’s a completely different thing that print publishing and the advance structure. I was responding to comments that advances were inferior to higher royalties. I don’t believe this is the case, and I don’t think that it’s an either/or situation.
I have to disagree, Allison. The publisher is not your customer. It’s a joint venture. What you’re putting up is sweat equity. What they’re putting up is manufacturing and distribution.
If an author can cut a deal that gets them money up front, that’s great, but in no way can an advance be equated to wages that come from a job. To be in business for yourself is to take a risk. Anyone who wants or needs the security of a guaranteed paycheck gets a job. Self-employeed people get profits (if there’s anything left over after expenses.) To say that an author is entitled to a specific wage is trying to create a class of entrepreneur that is radically different from any other out there. Being self-employeed means taking risks. There is no entitlement to a salary when you’re self-employeed.
And I just don’t see the validity of comparing an advance to a business loan because, unlike most advances, whether the business folds or not, you have to pay back the loan or declare bankruptcy.
I don’t want to get in a tit-for-tat argument, but I don’t agree with your comments or your interpretation of what I said. Maybe I wasn’t clear. I’ve never said that an author is entitled to a specific wage. Authors who choose to enter into a contract for no advance can do so. Authors who choose to not sign a contract that doesn’t have an advance have the right to do so. It’s my choice, your choice, every author’s choice, provided that a publisher wants to publish the book. I don’t want a salary, nor a wage. I do want an advance. I’ve never said on this thread or anywhere that all authors should only sign contracts that have an advance. I take plenty of risks–if an author has excessive unearned advances (unless you’re a mega author) then you don’t get another contract–sometimes even if you are willing to take a lessor advance. That’s a huge risk for an author who is dependent on writing income. Maybe the business analogy wasn’t perfect, but it still relates to the over-all sharing of risk. You don’t have to pay back the advance if you flop, but you may not have another contract. You don’t have to pay back the loan if you fail in a business (i.e. bankruptcy) but you may not they get another business loan.