"The Good News is You Write for Harlequin...."
"The bad news is, you write for Harlequin." This was one of my favorite lines from the RWA conference. Super Agents Gottleib and Steve Axelrod said it during the PAN keynote address on the State of the Union.
This was their answer regarding the outrage a lot of Harlequin authors have and had about the change in royalty rates for digital books. For those that didn't know Harlequin has been paying the same royalty rate for digital books as print, while the rest of the industry has been paying % of net sales. This has outraged Harlequin authors and for pretty good reason - it's less than the industry standard. So, before Nationals, Harlequin changed it to 25% net for single title authors and 15% for category authors. And they made it retroactive.
Harlequin thought they were doing a good thing - and they were. Making it retroactive was more than they needed to do. But still...there was outrage.
1. Harlequin handled it in sort of a ham handed way. They sent a letter to agents. Almost no author got a letter directly and many authors don't have agents. So, instead of handling the release of this new information - it exploded on author loops where rage and paranoia breed like crazy. And I think because Harlequin thought they were doing a good thing (and they are) they had in the letter an opt out date. So, if you don't want the 25% you have to notify us in writing. Well, for people who have been writing under one of the most unchangeable nonnegotiable contracts in the publishing world - this was sort of...laissez-faire.
2. The discrepancy between category and single title was a shocker for a lot of writers. I don't think a lot of women knew that there was a discrepancy in royalty rates between HQN/MIRA and series imprints. Harlequin's rationale is that reader's of series romance read according to line - not according to author. And so some of that money needs to be kicked back to maintaining the brand.
This is true is broad strokes. For the most part people don't seek me out. But they sure as hell seek out BJ Daniels or Karen Templeton. But I think Harlequin starts to fall apart when it comes to this mandate and the digital world. Sure, lots of people do a one click buy of all the Presents books in a month - but that is changing by the minute. By. The. Minute. And I think Harlequin knows that. There sure as hell are plenty of authors hammering on their doors willing to tell them.
All the publishers know that. Another one of my favorite lines was Steve Axelrod telling the publisher of St. Martin's that everything will change when publishers realize they've been underpaying their authors on digital rights.
Right now romance digital sales are keeping Economic textbooks in warehouses and paying the printing costs of those literary novels no one ever reads.
Part of the optimism felt by everyone at Nationals was due to everyone feeling like they've cornered their role in the digital world. Authors can self-publish, agents can help authors do that, and publishing houses have all opened digital first lines, hoping to get new talent and new money in their doors.
I'm a sit around a wait kind of gal. Or maybe it's lazy. Or maybe I don't see the point of getting too riled up until we really see how things are going to shake out. I don't know, but I can't get super wound up about the 25-15% thing. Maybe it will change. I hope it will. I hope the women shaking their fists understand the repercussions of waking up the monster. Because the only thing I really know is - 'the good news is, I write for Harlequin. The bad news is, I write for Harlequin.'
This was their answer regarding the outrage a lot of Harlequin authors have and had about the change in royalty rates for digital books. For those that didn't know Harlequin has been paying the same royalty rate for digital books as print, while the rest of the industry has been paying % of net sales. This has outraged Harlequin authors and for pretty good reason - it's less than the industry standard. So, before Nationals, Harlequin changed it to 25% net for single title authors and 15% for category authors. And they made it retroactive.
Harlequin thought they were doing a good thing - and they were. Making it retroactive was more than they needed to do. But still...there was outrage.
1. Harlequin handled it in sort of a ham handed way. They sent a letter to agents. Almost no author got a letter directly and many authors don't have agents. So, instead of handling the release of this new information - it exploded on author loops where rage and paranoia breed like crazy. And I think because Harlequin thought they were doing a good thing (and they are) they had in the letter an opt out date. So, if you don't want the 25% you have to notify us in writing. Well, for people who have been writing under one of the most unchangeable nonnegotiable contracts in the publishing world - this was sort of...laissez-faire.
2. The discrepancy between category and single title was a shocker for a lot of writers. I don't think a lot of women knew that there was a discrepancy in royalty rates between HQN/MIRA and series imprints. Harlequin's rationale is that reader's of series romance read according to line - not according to author. And so some of that money needs to be kicked back to maintaining the brand.
This is true is broad strokes. For the most part people don't seek me out. But they sure as hell seek out BJ Daniels or Karen Templeton. But I think Harlequin starts to fall apart when it comes to this mandate and the digital world. Sure, lots of people do a one click buy of all the Presents books in a month - but that is changing by the minute. By. The. Minute. And I think Harlequin knows that. There sure as hell are plenty of authors hammering on their doors willing to tell them.
All the publishers know that. Another one of my favorite lines was Steve Axelrod telling the publisher of St. Martin's that everything will change when publishers realize they've been underpaying their authors on digital rights.
Right now romance digital sales are keeping Economic textbooks in warehouses and paying the printing costs of those literary novels no one ever reads.
Part of the optimism felt by everyone at Nationals was due to everyone feeling like they've cornered their role in the digital world. Authors can self-publish, agents can help authors do that, and publishing houses have all opened digital first lines, hoping to get new talent and new money in their doors.
I'm a sit around a wait kind of gal. Or maybe it's lazy. Or maybe I don't see the point of getting too riled up until we really see how things are going to shake out. I don't know, but I can't get super wound up about the 25-15% thing. Maybe it will change. I hope it will. I hope the women shaking their fists understand the repercussions of waking up the monster. Because the only thing I really know is - 'the good news is, I write for Harlequin. The bad news is, I write for Harlequin.'
No comments have been added yet.
