This Week….. Publishing……
Not a whole lot of news in publishing this week, so let’s start with a cheerful reminder: I’ve been getting so so so many questions like, “How do I find a literary agent,” “How do I write a synopsis,” “What are your submission requirements,” etc. etc. If you look to the right side of the page you will find a set of links called “The Essentials,” which will tell you all the basics. You will also find FAQs, which have much more than the basics and contain blog posts on nearly every question I have ever been asked. You can also Do A Google with my name and the subject you’re interested in. Since time is tight, I’m afraid I’m going to have to ignore questions that are easily answered in this fashion.
Cool? Cool.
Now then. On to the links! Starting with….. you guessed it, more layoffs (subscription). This time at Borders, who is cutting 12% of their corporate employees.
And speaking of layoffs: haven’t heard from your editor lately? Well, as Editorial Anonymous explains, in the wake of layoffs the projects of the departed are dispersed to the remaining editors, which creates a great deal more work.
In cheerier news, the indispensable Cynthia Leitich Smith, who runs one of the absolute best writing blogs out there featuring interviews and Cynsational News and Giveaways, will be on Second Life on February 24th! She has an awesome space set up, so if you prefer your book parties to be virtual, here’s your opportunity.
Probably about 25% of the projects I pass on result in a follow-up question asking for a recommendation for another agent. I’m afraid I have to delete these without responding, and Jessica Faust at Bookends wrote a post today addressing these questions.
And finally, via Andrew Sullivan comes one of the most amazing YouTube videos I’ve seen: driving into a dust storm.
Have a great weekend!
Nathan Bransford says
Thanks everyone for chiming in on the discussion, but I think let’s let this one rest. I’m all for a lively discussion, but don’t want things to get personal.
Ink says
Reason Reanimator,
Your arguments seem illogical, if I may say so. People aren’t querying agents because they’re obsessed with query letters and there are a lot of sites with info about writing them. They’re querying because they have completed books they want to sell. To me that’s very simple. Now, if they’ve spent a lot of time on a query letter and not enough on their manuscript, well, that’s imprudent. But that’s not the fault of the agents or those with query advice. They’re offering helpful information. It’s not their fault if writers make improper use of that information.
I found it odd that you decried query letters and instead recommend a brief summary of the work along with a few pages… since that’s basically what a query letter is. A writer is always free to submit a few pages (as long as it’s not an e-mail attachment) with a query letter, and the letter itself is merely a summary of the story (as you suggest), hopefully written in an engaging way that reveals the writer’s competence with the language. Stick on a biographical paragraph if you have relevant publishing experience. Voila. I fail to see the difference between what you’re criticizing and what you’re suggesting in its place.
If I’m an actor, and I find some people offering good advice about how to get auditions, and I take that advice, do I then blame these people if I can’t act? Is it their fault if I butcher the audition? Or maybe I’m quite a talented actor and do well, but I’m simply not quite right for that particular role. Also not the fault of those offering helpful advice.
And are queries really all that hard? It seems like the aura of difficulty around the query arises less from agents offering advice and more from writers whining about the injustice of it. It’s roughly three paragraphs, one of which is a very brief bio. Is it that hard to write two paragraphs? If a writer can’t write two paragraphs of convincing language, why should anyone trust them to write three thousand such paragraphs in a novel? And if a writer can’t make their story and characters seem engaging from the get-go then I doubt an extra few hundred pages will help.
Now, I think you might be right in that some people place too great an emphasis on query letters. Really, all you have to do is get the agents interested enough to start reading. That’s it. After that the query becomes irrelevant. No one is signed because of a query or because they know someone (and the point of knowing someone is not that you know them, but that someone with expert credentials honestly believes in your work – that is, the work is being recommended to the agent not because it’s a favour to you but because it’s great). Queries and referrals just get someone reading. At that point the story works for that reader or it doesn’t.
Do writers overdevelop queries at the expense of their novels? I’m sure a few do. But that’s not the fault of agents or the publishing industry. If I send in a shoddy manuscript, it’s my job to step up and take responsibility. Writing is a solitary craft. I have to do the work. If I don’t, well, the buck stops here. Why blame the system?
We’re not entitled to anything. We have no particular rights to have a system that caters to our whims. The system is not designed to support the aspirations of writers: it’s designed to find great stories, to find books which will sell. Agents are looking for these great books. If they don’t find any they’ll starve. The more they find, the better. The writer’s job is to write these books. Then we get those stories out there and the agents can decide if they want to represent them. We’re not owed anything. We have an opportunity to write something convincing, and either we do that or we don’t. If no one is convinced, that’s no one’s fault but our own.
Whether I succeed or not as a writer, I like to think I’ll at least step up and take ownership of my efforts. And I won’t lay it on the poor old query. I’ve written a few successful queries, and they take an hour or two. If it doesn’t work out I’m going to have to look a little deeper than that.
That’s my two bits of copper. Just my opinion, and feel free to smelt ’em down for base metals if you desire.
My best,
Bryan Russell
Ink says
Oops… is that not letting it rest? I was slow to post (putting kids to sleep) and missed your last post, Nathan. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Bryan
Nathan Bransford says
bryan-
Definitely fine because yours is about the broader questions rather than personal.
Ink says
Whew… that’s good. Because I do think the broader questions are interesting, particularly in terms of how writers view the process. We touched on a bit of this before when we were talking about entitlement. I wonder how much of it is just that us writers often don’t like the challenge? You know, a writer spends all this time writing a book, it’s bloody hard, and he slaves over it for a year or three or five… and then he finds there’s a whole gaggle of other folk who have done the same thing, and there’s only room at the finish line for a few of them… So unjust! We wrote the book, what more do you want from us? π
Personally I think we have to embrace that challenge. Give it your best shot. May not be enough, but it’ll be a fun ride. It reminds me of my dreams of pro soccer before I destroyed an ankle… would I have made it? I don’t know. But I liked the challenge. And, hey, I just saw this video the other day of a six year old Algerian kid who has truly mad skills, like he was somehow channeling Zinedine Zidane. Some folks just got it. Some don’t. That’s just the way of it. I doubt blaming anything will ever help.
So, delusional confidence for all of us. We’re all going to be part of that percentile fraction that makes it. Yes, only Bransford Blog readers will be published in ’09. Other folk will just have to wait their turn.
My best, as always,
Bryan Russell
yvettesgonefishing says
I have to say I can empathize with a lot of what Reason Reanimator is saying.
I understand the purpose of a query, but there are a lot of different formats out there, which is confusing, and there’s emphasis on elements that just shouldn’t be in a query–shmoozing? I have written my query and there’s no shmoozing. It’s totally shmooze-less. You’re giving me 350 words to sum up a story–every single word pertains to the story. If an agent is going to reject me because I don’t read their blog or know all their clients’ books, then so be it.
And yes, you can be a good writer who writes bad queries. I’m getting frustrated with the process, only now that I’ve reached the query stage. I keep hearing about all the different things in a query that can sink you well above and beyond that content which pertains to the actual story.
Never thought I’d say it, but I’m strongly considering self-pub and POD. A lot less money, but a lot more control, and no shmoozing or trying to guess the mood and preferences of a hundred or so different agents. Ack.
Mira says
Wow.
Reason, I know from our previous conversation that you and I agree in some ways. I’m new to this, but from what I can see, I’m not happy with the culture of the publishing industry. It tends to view writers as supplicants, rather than suppliers. It doesn’t treat them well, and pays them poorly. It’s much more concerned in maintaining a power base in the market than anything else.
Although, to be fair, that last does make sense – they are a business after all. And I I don’t think other types of artists – actors, painters, musicians have it much easier.
But in our last conversation, Marilyn helped me remember a very important point. Whatever the system may be, the people in it are people. They are trying to function within the system, they didn’t create it.
What that means is that they will often listen to you.
Nathan really did engage you in conversation. He didn’t completely agree with you, and that’s fair. He’s got a different perspective. I thought he made some very good points – as did you.
But – and I really admire this – Nathan also agreed to think about it. He decided to test if the query system could be improved. That’s really admirable.
So, we do have some power. We can talk to industry insiders on their blogs. That is alot more power than any writer has had in the history of the industry.
But in talking to those insiders, I think it helps to remember they really are not the enemy. They’re just people, like we are.
A last point. I realize that you’ve been very angry about this for a long time. But a wise person once said to me – you can communicate anger, or you can communicate ideas. Most people can’t listen to both at the same time.
So I’d urge you to use your skill at communication in the most effective way possible.
When I’m feeling frustrated and powerless, it does help me to remember I can self-publish. In that way, we also have more power than writers in the past did. Much more. If we feel our voice is being silenced, we can go another way.
You wouldn’t feel so strongly about this if you didn’t have something at stake – I imagine your books are as passionate and intelligent as you are. I’m sure someday, one way or another, I’ll be reading them.
Nathan Bransford says
I guess I wonder how much variation in query guidelines there really is. I read all the same agent blogs you guys read, and what I’m usually struck by is how incredibly consistent our advice and reactions are. I very rarely disagree with the other agent bloggers, and am often amazed at how they often talk about the things I’m thinking about simultaneously. Sure, there are personal quirks and preferences, but for the most part I don’t know where the wildly different advice is coming from.
I know there’s a lot of secondary advice out there that muddies the water, but as far as the bloggers go… I feel like we’re not quite as inconsistent as people make us out to be.
Mira says
Oh, and I loved that video. That was amazing.
Mira says
Oh whoops. I also didn’t see the post about letting this rest. Sorry.
Nathan Bransford says
Oh — and on personalization, honestly it’s not mandatory, but it’s not about schmoozing or kissing up. The people who personalize queries just tend to write the best ones and also have the best manuscripts. I pay closer attention accordingly.
The only reason I recommend it is because it works.
Nathan Bransford says
As long as the discussion remains respectful and non-personal I don’t mind that it continues. It was just escalating in a way that I didn’t feel was getting more productive.
Ink says
Mira,
Nicely said. I’m not sure I agree with you about the publishing industry, though. People seem to like to personify the industry, treating it like some big creature with callous or cruel motivations. But really it’s just a system for supplying a product to consumers. They put your book out there. It sells or doesn’t sell. Your success and earning power is based on that. Really, the publishing industry has an extraordinarily beneficial system for writers. They pay an advance before publication. And if your book doesn’t earn back that advance they eat the loss. You keep the money, money they paid you before they earned anything off of your work… they’re staking you. Very generous, really. You earn out that advance and you get royalties, and fair division of the profits. Very nice!
Yes, that’s not often a lot. But that’s not really the publisher’s fault, unless you think they should publish less books, and thus sell more of each title. More sales = more money. But how many aspiring writers want publishers to publish less books? Not too many, I’m guessing. Otherwise, the only thing to do is increase readership and thus the overall number of books sold. And we’d all love that and give you kisses if you did it! Publishers would give you a medal. π
Hard, though. The basic and simple fact is that writing books is not a particularly lucrative endeavor. Sad, but true. We might wish it were not so… but that’s the way of it. If we don’t like it I guess we can play the lottery… hey, we writers are used to long odds, right?
Have a great evening, and my best, as always,
Bryan Russell
Kristy Colley says
Maybe it’s the peacemaker in me, but I’d like to believe both sides can be right. There is definitely more than one way of doing things. I’m sure some agents don’t like querying — perhaps they would be the sort to take up an idea like Steve’s (which by the way, I happened to enjoy). Who knows. I know, I know…it’s resting, sorry Nathan. I’m actually quite surprised by all the reaction.
Have a lovely weekend!
clindsay says
Reason Reanimator –
Since you said yourself that you actually don’t have any trade publishing experience, perhaps you aren’t the best one to act as advocate for its complete destruction. Especially since you don’t actually offer any real solutions to what you perceive as “problems”.
Publishing USED to be just about reading the manuscript. It was called THE SLUSH PILE. And if you think our being inundated with query letters is exhausting, talk to any long-time trade editor who was forced to wade the the literal tons of muck that was dropped onto their desks everyday. At the imprint where I once worked, the editors received upwards of 18,000 unsolicited manuscripts every year. And yet you believe that this is the best use of both an agent’s and editor’s time?
There’s a reason that archaic and ineffective system was replaced.
Anonymous says
Nathan,
I’ve hit every blog and every site I could for a long long time. Sometimes the conflicting advice can come from the same agency or blogger months or days apart. Occasionally it will be opposite advice from two different sites on the same day. As suggested earlier maybe it would be better for authors/writers (whatever you want to call them) to have a central site to post a couple of chapters of their work in their appropriate genres with a brief description (like what is on a book jacket), and make it only available to be viewed by publisher’s and agents. After a month or so the post is removed. If there are no hits the author has the opportunity to improve his/her work and resubmit after a stated period of time. IMO this would ease the frustration of writing a query that is a one time shot to blow your book deal, avoiding so and so’s taste for a business type letter and someone else’s preference of quirkiness.
Marilyn Peake says
Whoa, a rather lively, spirited discussion going on here! Guess Iβll dive in and add my two cents (and apparently mix metaphors as well, unless of course there happen to be pennies at the bottom of the pool when I dive in.)
Thank you, Nathan, for your generosity in sharing information about the publishing industry, and for your witty sense of humor. I love this blog! Iβve cut myself off from much of the Internet while I write a new novel, but I stop by this blog several times every day.
In many ways, writers are now living in a Golden Age. I absolutely do not mean “gold” as in financial wealth; I mean it only in terms of opportunity. The Internet has opened up limitless ways to get published. Never before have writers had such easy access to literary agents, famous authors, and publishing houses. It seems that nearly everyoneβs on the web these days β discussing, answering questions, blogging, holding contests. A writer can learn a great deal, both about how to write better and how to get published. A writer can self-publish on their own website or through a self-publishing company, get published by a small press, or query literary agents in an attempt to get published by the big publishing houses. A novelist can build a strong platform and work their way up to greater success. Authors can do the same with short stories. Even a brief glimpse at Duotrope Digestβs extraordinarily long list of magazines and anthologies actively looking for short stories is enough to boggle the mind. And thereβs a huge range in how difficult it is to get published by magazines, from the most easy to the most difficult magazines at which to have a short story accepted. An author can start with the easiest, and work their way up. In my opinion, itβs a wonderful time to be a writer, even if it isnβt always the best time to make money as a writer.
Laura D says
Janet Reid is hilarious with her reiteration of Nathan’s blog yesterday. “We’re just not that into you.” lol
Laura D says
Btw just caught up with reading prior posts so I want to put in my 2 cents. Someone somewhere (you know who) argued that the statement ‘good writers can write good queries’ can be reversed and therefore dismissed the theory. Actually, being a statistic major in university that is a fallacy. A statistic can only be read one way. For example, 20% of men abused as children grow up to abuse can not be said as there is a 20% chance of becoming an abuser when abused. Capiche? Just like the writing novels/queries. Since a novel would be up on the difficulty scale, it is easy to imagine if one can write a story well they should be able to write a business letter (query) well. It’s less difficult.
As for genres, I write many aspects of writing well. My list goes:
Medical documenting
Personal letters
Professional emails
Poetry
Short stories-sci-fi
Novellas
Novels
Jingles
Raps
I write them all well, but mostly only in the english language.
Business writing is not hard, especially when we have people like Nathan to help us with the format. Your personality shines through, if you let it!
Peace
sheela says
I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Kaylee
https://www.craigslistdecoded.info
Mira says
Ink –
Well, in some ways I agree with you. Publishing is a business, and we should expect it to act like a business.
On the other hand, I do think they treat writers badly, and I’m not backing off from that one. 2% of the profit is just outrageous.
Amazon is offering 30% for it’s kindle self-publishing. I much prefer Amazon. π
I think there is more of a demand for books than we believe. I think there is more of a reader audience than we believe. I think there has been a bottleneck in the industry, and that may be changing. I hope so.
This idea that there are tons of great books that are written, and it’s winning the lottery to get your great book published – I’m not sure I agree. I think if you write a great book, you can eventually publish it.
I don’t think writers are in as much competition with each other than they seem to think. There’s room for lots of great books.
Of course, as always, I could be wrong.
But then, as always, I so rarely am. π
Mira says
well, really, I’m not actually ever wrong.
It’s not my fault if the truth changes after I’ve said something.
Ink says
We do better than two cents on the dollar, don’t we? And we get shiny advances to pay the grocery bills even before we sell a single book! They seem very trusting, those publishers. And there’s always going to be a basic cost ratio. Now, if Publishers were reeling in huge profits and writers were getting shafted everywhere working as indentured servants… but if you look around you see the basic fact that profit margins on books are very small. Stores get their small share, Publishers get theirs, Writers theirs… it’s a wee tiny pie to start dividing up, and no one’s getting a big piece. Which is sad because I love pie! Mmmmmmm… pumpkin pie… whip cream… Mmmmmmm…
MzMannerz says
“It’s not my fault if the truth changes after I’ve said something.”
Mira, I am stealing that gem for sure. LOL
clindsay says
The truth is that the vast majority of books don’t earn out their advances, so the author makes money even though the publisher actually may not.
And re the Kindle self-publishing program: The self-published books there are mostly the same dreck as the self-published books one find in print. There’s a reason that gatekeepers exist; a lot of books simply aren’t written very well. Sure you get 30%, but if only three people download your book, you’re gonna make about enough to buy a candy bar.
Ink says
Lol, clindsay. Too true.
The problem is lots of writers are getting so desperate in these times of financial woe that a candybar doesn’t look too bad! Good calories for a hungry writer…
My best,
Bryan Russell
Mira says
Mz Manners, feel free. π
Clindsay, you’re an agent. Ink/Bryan, you’re a bookseller. I think you have a slightly different perspective on this.
Here’s a typical breakdown as I understand it. (Please correct me if I’m wrong. It doesn’t actually add to 100, but I think this is the ballpark.)
The writer: 2%
The agent: 15%
The publisher: 35%
The bookseller: 45%
I don’t care how small the pie is, that is outrageous. I don’t care if the writer gets an advance on royalties – 2 percent is still 2 percent.
There’s no arguing with that. It’s outrageous. And this discussion is making me very, very angry.
I need to go dump my head in a cold tub of water to cool down.
Mira says
Btw, CLindsay, I don’t quite get your argument.
Are you saying the author shouldn’t self-publish because if their book is ‘dreck’ they won’t make alot of money on it? So they need a ‘gatekeeper’ to tell them not to publish because their book is ‘dreck?’
Or are you trying to tell consumers they shouldn’t buy self-published books because publishers know so much better than they do what a good book is? So they need a ‘gatekeeper’ to tell them what books to buy or not?
Well, I have another question for you. If I write a book that – just for argument’s sake – isn’t dreck – let’s say it’s good, then why should I go with a publisher who gives me 2% of the profit for something I spent years working on, when I could self-publish it for 30%?
Especially since the publisher won’t market me anyway, since I’m a new author? But as a self-publisher, I can market myself on blogs and things like that?
Oh, I’m really angry. And yesterday, I was just lecturing Reason on not talking while angry.
I need to go get that tub of ice water.
Ink says
Those numbers aren’t right, Mira. An agent makes 15% of what the writer makes, not what is made on the book. So if Nathan is your agent and you make a $1000.00 on the book, then Nathan takes $150.00 (though, frankly, I think he can get you a better deal than that :)). He makes money, in other words, off of you rather than the book/publisher. If you’re not doing well, he’s not doing well. Motivation! The agent is basically your employee, advocating for your rights, and you pay him accordingly.
And the breakdown between Publisher and writer is much different than that as well. A publisher basically predicts what they think they can sell on a book, offering an advance for a split of the profit from that many sales. Hit the mark, and both sides come out even. Under the mark, the writer’s clear and free and the publisher takes a hit. Go over and royalties kick in, continuing to divide the profit. Fairly equitable, really.
And I do think there’s room for lots of great books, but not endlessly so, at least not if writers want to be paid well. If the readership stays the same, there is a finite number of books being sold. If more titles are published, the number of sales for each specific title goes down. If less titles are published, the number of sales for each specific title goes up (these are averages, of course – real life is fickle). It’s the ol’ small fish/big pond versus big fish/little pond scenario. So if we want lots of good books published we basically have to accept the fact that most writers will sell relatively few copies. Unless, of course, we expand the readership and overall number of books being sold. Which would rock, but I have no idea how that could be done. Maybe give kids books and electro-shock them if they don’t read? π Dean Koontz’s Lightning would be even scarier…
Anyway, I hope I didn’t make you angry. Not intentional! And, yes, I’m a bookseller, but I sell used books. So to all involved in the publishing industry I’m basically Satan. But it’s cold here, so maybe hell has frozen over! Always a bright side. I hang out here at this blog, though, not because I sell books but because I attempt to write them. I’m desperately ambitious. π So I’m in the same boat as every other writer out there, really.
I suppose in the end it comes down to the fact that I just don’t see how writers are being screwed. It’s a tough and fairly unprofitable industry, really, as all the big media companies have realized. Scraping even and allowing writers to eke out enough of a living to produce good books for people to read… well, that seems about what the market can bear.
Unless, of course, my electro-shock idea is put in play. Then we’ll all be rich. π
Now, self-publishing may start to take up a larger percentage of the books being sold. The problem will be trying to find the good stuff amidst all the clutter. The basic fact is that (on average) the professionally published books are going to be a lot better than the self-published ones. Note: on average. That “on average” is very key here. Yes, there will be exceptions. Yes, some fairly mediocre-seeming books get published. Yes, some real gems will be self-published. But the difference, on average, between the two groups will be huge. Saying anything less only shows a lack of understanding of what a slush pile is really like. Finding those gems among the self-published is the problem, and the challenge for any writer going that route. It’s a valid route, but it’s up to the writer then to show that a) their book is one of the gems, and b) to get this information to readers so that they can find and purchase the book.
Bookstores won’t trust you. They trust publishers because they have a track record. They have a history of providing good books that sell. A self-published writer has none of that. They have to be convincing, and they have to do an amazing job of salesmanship. Not impossible, but certainly not easy. And lots of writers, I’m guessing, are terrible salesmen. It’s one thing to chip in on marketing and help get a buzz so that people go to the bookstore for your book… and it’s another thing entirely to have to force your way into those bookstores on your own, or develop a web presence big enough that you can simply bypass that altogether. I wish the best of luck on anyone who takes that path… but personally my head hurts just thinking about it. I don’t think the writer me could convince the bookseller me to buy my books (remember, the bookseller won’t read the book of every self-pubbed writer. No time. How else do you convince them? That’s the trick). Admittedly, I’m a tough sell. π
My best, as always,
Bryan Russell
Mira says
Bryan,
I’m not angry at you – I like you, and have enjoyed reading your comments. I’m sorry if I made it seem personal I also didn’t realize you sell used books, that’s wonderful. And I wish you great luck with your writing.
You have some good arguments here, and proved me wrong on the part about the agent. I didn’t realize that the agent gets a percentage of the writer’s ‘take.’ That’s terrible. 15% of 2%, that’s just awful. How do they make a living?
When I talk about self-publishing, I mean e-books. The costs to publish in paper form is prohibitive, and the chances of being able to get your self-published book into a brick and motar store slim to none.
Why do I think there is more of a market out there for books? Because of the lack of market testing and marketing on the part of publishing. I believe there is a tremendous market for good books that is untapped.
I really do think Rowling and Meyers proved that.
But anyway, I’m afraid I’m not going to change my stance on this. I think 2% is unforgivable. And I do think the writer is being treated badly.
But let’s not keep arguing. Maybe we can just agree to disagree.
Mira says
Oh, I do have one additional comment.
Let’s say you are really angry. Naturally, you dunk your head in a bucket of ice water to calm down.
My advice – based on experience – is not to do this.
Although it sounds like a good solution, in practice doing this will actually make you more angry, rather than less.
That’s because sticking your head in a bucket of ice water is pretty idiotic. It’s also fairly uncomfortable to boot.
So, no matter how tempted you are, I really advise you not to stick your head in a bucket of ice water.
Just thought some people might find that advice to be helpful.
Anonymous says
I don’t know where this 2% came from, unless the traditional 10% royalty has gone by the boards. I really doubt that agents would find it profitable to take 15% of nearly nothing. I’d recommend that writers here who want to understand the book industry pick up Richard Balkin’s Writer’s Guide to Book Publishing, which, although more than 30 years old, has been updated and is excellent. Balkin is an excellent literary agent, too. (No relation to me, BTW, and did not take my book.)
Tim Edwards says
Ian Irvine, an Australian author, has an excellent article about publishing in which he explains royalties and advances. It is a couple of years old, but I doubt too much has changed since then. He lists royalties for US authors as between 6 and 10%, while Australian authors seem to get between 10 and 12.5%.
https://www.sfwriterstoolkit.com/publishing/
Mira says
well, I read the 2% on the web, so I’m sure it’s true.
But on the off chance that it’s not, I apologize. But I have to say 6-10% is just about as bad.
In the best scenario, 90% of the profit will go to someone else. And the 10% is shared with the agent.
Am I crazy? Am I the only one who sees a problem here?
Maybe I should go dunk my head in a bucket of ice water.
Oh yeah. I tried that. Not a good idea.
Tim Edwards says
Well, I’m not sure if it’s 10% of the PROFIT or 10% of the INCOME. Because if the publishing house is taking a bigger share of the INCOME, then don’t forget they’ve had to pay for the typesetting, design, printing, cover art and so on, so they need to earn that back before they take a share of the profit too.
I’d be interested in hearing from someone in the industry who knows exactly how it is broken down…
Anonymous says
I hope Nathan gets in here next week with some much-needed clarification, since I’m seeing a lot of terms thrown about without much realistic understanding of book publishing. Tim’s right about the publishing house paying for all the operational expenses that go into publishing a book. But 10% refers to the retail price of the book. So a book selling retail at $25.00 would mean a royalty to the author of $2.50. The author’s agent would get 15% of that, or 37.5 cents.
Now, just to see where all that excess money (profit?) goes, consider that bookstores require a 40% discount on trade books (not so much on scholarly books). So the publisher must cut $10.00 off the retail price of the book, and is now receiving a return of $12.50, minus the cost of production, staff, overhead, and printing (say, $6.00 to be completely generous), and is now left with a profit of $6.50 per book. That’s a profit of approximately 25%.
O.K., that sounds wonderful for the publisher. But consider that bookstores can return any copies they don’t sell, and the publisher must pay taxes on all inventory, and the risk factor hasn’t even been calculated into these figures yet. Nor has the number of copies printed (say 7,000 you lucky, lucky author). And you happen to attract 2,000 readers max.
How does the publisher’s profit look like then? More than likely, the publisher can risk these very marginal profits by going for a blockbuster bestseller, which will help pay for the less attractive books like yours and mine.
Hilabeans says
Hold on there, Anon –
“the publisher can risk these very marginal profits by going for a blockbuster bestseller, which will help pay for the less attractive books like yours and mine”
Speak for yourself, buddy – I intend to be a bestseller. π
Tim Edwards says
Thanks for the breakdown, Anon.
I remember reading somewhere that only 10% of Hollywood films actually make a profit. I wonder if it is similar with books?
Anonymous says
Let me elaborate on the matter of books sold, if y’all will tolerate a bit more of my small rant.
Figures again. If the publisher makes $15.00 per book (40% off retail price), and pays the author 2.50 and spends $6.00 (more like $8-10) on the rest, the return on 2,000 copies (which your book maxed out at) is $30,000. You as author have made $5,000 (your poor agent made $750 on your book, including all the costs of placing it), and the production costs amount to $42,000. So the publisher is in a $17,000 hole. The only way the publisher breaks even is if your book sells over 3,000 copies. $15 x 3,133 = $47,000. That’s the break-even cost for the publisher.
Writers should not be constricted by the realities of publication in their creative impulses, but they should not be ignorant of these realities when it comes to selling their books.
DNW
Anonymous says
Hi, Hilabeans,
You said:
Speak for yourself, buddy – I intend to be a bestseller. π
Love your emoticon. Of course, we all intend to publish a bestseller! I’m not speaking for you, because you are certain of the possibilities of your book.
But, after all, most of us are not that certain of such illustrious prospects for our books. Most of all, we’d like to be able to speak to other people in our novels and nonfiction works – making some impact on the world, or at least on a few minds. In the end, that’s the most important thing, isn’t it?
I’m afraid that unrealistic expectations are the bane of writers, actors, inventors, and politicians. And writers are the only people in those groups I like very much. Inventors come second.
Oh, keep on hoping you lost souls.
DNW
Mira says
Wow. I really feel sorry for those poor publishers. First of all they have to choose books that are hand-picked for them by agents that will sell over 3,000 copies. Wow. That seems really hard.
Then, after that, they make 13.50 off of every book. The author makes 2.50 which they share with their agent.
Boy, it’s a good thing you helped me be more realistic about how fair the system is.
Oh, and if the publisher loses money – can’t they do something called a tax write-off? Well, thank goodness for that. I would want them to make money either way.
And I noticed that you didn’t mention how much money the bookstore doesn’t make. I’d like to feel sorry for them too.
I have no idea what Amazon is thinking of, offering 30% to the author. They are obviously in terrible jeopardy of going out of business at any moment.
You call me unrealistic.
Well, I might use another word.
Brainwashed.
Mira says
Um. That was alittle sarcastic.
I’m sorry.
I think I need to stop talking about this.
The buckets of ice water aren’t working, and frankly my scalp is getting all wrinkly.
Hilabeans says
OK β taking a break from writing.
Mira, I like your style.
DNW, so glad you like my emoticon. In response, yes, I am certain that my hard work will pay off, eventually. Where does it get me to think that I’m just a “lost soul?” …That’s right. Now say it with me… all together now… NOWHERE.
In addition, I’m going to choose to believe that you weren’t somehow insinuating that my motivation for writing is purely about the illustrious potential for fame/glory/wealth. As much as I would LOVE all of those, this thick skin braves the harsh rejections for the sole purpose of providing someone else with an escape. I want others to lose themselves in my world, to fall in love with my characters, but most of all, to think about them after reaching, βThe End.β
So, on one point, I agree with you. As a writer, I do want to impact the world.
OK, enough of that – going back to writing.
π (Another emoticon just for you, DNW!)
mantecanaut says
Interesting. Chinkle.
Anonymous says
I do love reading this blog!!
Scotty says
Whoah, there are toys all over the floor in here! :^P
Why does anyone see the query process as anything more than an opportunity to sell your “product”? It’s no more haughty in nature than what we do as consumers every day. It’s up to the manufacturer to find a way to sell us their products by conveying the message of what’s in it for us. The one’s who do it best, get the shot and the dosh. Simple.
What’s more, I don’t know of any that blame us for not buying what they’re making just because they bothered to make it. It’s not exactly the hardest thing in the world to sell your story in a few paragraphs if you work at it.
As far as I’m concerned, I’m extremely grateful when I see “accepts queries” near an agent’s bio. It means I at least have a chance. That’s all I’ve ever asked for, and dammit, someday it’ll be all I ever need.
Hilabeans says
Well said, Scotty!
Meredith Teagarden (The Things We Carried) says
Thanks for sending me to Cynthia’s!
Anonymous says
Excellent metaphor, Scotty.
And let’s face it, folks: your future agent not only wants your fantastic novels, but s/he presumably wants a client who can behave in a professional manner. (That ‘list of ten things, half of which were “keep your mouth shut”‘ comes to mind.)
A query letter is a pretty small way to demonstrate that you can do this, and many of the items on the ‘things not to do in query letters’ lists are unprofessional.
Wanda B. Ontheshelves says
Video subliminal suggestion?
I kind of noticed with the piglet video, the comments tended toward “awww, that’s cute,” whereas with the dust storm video, the comments were stirred up a bit, there were flashes of lightening (anger), visibility was low (difficulty comprehending the point of someone’s comments)…in a previous post, Nathan had mentioned something along the lines of “cocktail parties on rainbows” with agents, (I’m not 100% sure I’ve got the image right, but something like that) – what kind of comments would THAT video generate, I wonder? If there was such a video…