Published Authors fighting back!

[Nia]

Hi there 8-)

just listened to an interesting piece on BBCR5L. Apparently published authors are now harassing publishers for better deals (apparently 10% or less is the standard royalty although it only mentioned paper copies); publishers are fighting back with there are now a lot more authors and ebooks are redefining the market.

What do people think? Is this published ebook authors (supported by editors and marketing depts) or are they talking about us?

What do you think, fellow authors?

[W.]

I think the paper publishing business has got to be frightening. That an ebook can be sold with the only investment by them being the one-time conversion to the right format, would be a godsend, as they already have the distribution and market recognition.
That this has not been the case, does not make it the author's fault. Traditional book publishing is a business and most authors will never be in a position to make a better deal for themselves. That is just economics: there are millions of us and only the snow-white 5 and a few hundreds of dwarves. Let's not pretend this has anything to do with fairness or equitability.
It depends on whether writing is a commodity or not. If it is a commodity then the only thing to do is form a union, like the AFL-CIO. Not likely to happen; all authors, including this one, believe we produce a unique product, and, as such, deserve a uniques deal. The only way to verify that is to get thousands of people to vote that as true by using their own money. The only way to even get onto the ballot is by convincing a BUSINESS to make a BUSINESS decision in our favor.
And around we go again.

[Joe]

You have to ask yourself: would you trade 60% of your royalties (assuming you are earning the 70% from Amazon) in exchange for the marketing power and reach of a traditional publisher? If given the choice, I think most of us would. It's hard to see this from the other side; maybe many traditionally-published authors don't know how hard it can be to sell books yourself.

[Nia]

Joe wrote: "You have to ask yourself: would you trade 60% of your royalties (assuming you are earning the 70% from Amazon) in exchange for the marketing power and reach of a traditional publisher? If given the..."

Indeed! Is it that they are the gatekeepers, sifting the best from the worst, or is it that they have prevented thousands of talented authors from entering the market? Ebooks open the market but only by vastly inflating it to the point where it is very hard to have your book be noticed at all

Reading appears to be on the increase, so someone is reading something.

[Christina]

Joe wrote: "You have to ask yourself: would you trade 60% of your royalties (assuming you are earning the 70% from Amazon) in exchange for the marketing power and reach of a traditional publisher? If given the..."

I would disagree. As has been stated by many, the traditional houses do not offer that marketing power and reach to any but the very top earners of their stable. Most traditionally published authors know exactly how hard it is to sell their books themselves. I'm happy to see that they are fighting for a bigger share, but I don't think any of them are going to get it without embracing independent publishing.

[Joe]

If that's true, Christina, then they'd be wise to embrace indie publishing anyway. They're never going to get 60% more royalties if their publishers don't even think they're worth advertising.

[Wisteria]

Here's the link to the guardian article. In it you will hear mollet, the head honcho of the Publishers association, whining about shrinking margins & how there are just so many more authors (implying that that number is decreasing the average annual income of writers).

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016...

Christina is correct: indie is the way forward; w/the advent of ebooks and Internet distribution, the big publishers are dinosaurs just like the music industries were to musicians.

[[deleted user]]

My impression of going with a traditional publisher is that, for a new writer, you may (or may not) get a little promotion for your book, and you may (or may not) sell a respectable number of copies, and even in that best case your book will be remaindered and publication ceased when the exposure for your book is barely started. You may luck out and your book becomes a blockbuster, but you don't need a traditional publisher for that; witness The Martian, originally a self-published book. Would I sign a contract with a big publisher? If I did, it would be more of an emotional decision for me than a rational one. Others may think differently.

[BR]

"Published authors"? I don't have a contract with a large publishing house, but I still have seven novels published. All the whining by the trad pubs and their indentured authors reminds me of the angst over what motor cars would do to the stable business a hundred years ago.

[Martin]

I believe:

The power and influence of large publishing houses and the old school gatekeepers, are fading because the last few commercial book store chains are failing.

I'd bet money that Barns and Noble bookstore won't exist in 10 years.

And the best part is the rise of Indie Published Authors and Mom and Pop Used book stores.

I have an editor, a lawyer, an accountant and an audio book producer. They all work for me.

It would have to be a really sweet offer for me to change.

[April]

Joe wrote: "You have to ask yourself: would you trade 60% of your royalties (assuming you are earning the 70% from Amazon) in exchange for the marketing power and reach of a traditional publisher? If given the..."

Traditional publishers now expect authors to do their own marketing. Trad publishers are doing less and less for most mid-list and lower-list authors. Only the top list authors get the full treatment, and even then they're expected to do marketing.

No, I wouldn't trade my 70% royalty for marketing help. I do my own marketing, and I find the results are excellent. I hire my own editors, proofreaders, and book cover artists. I love being indie.

[Shane]

The thing about business is that if you don't adapt to the times you get bulldozed, like blockbuster. Blockbuster had the opportunity to buy Netflix for $50 million! Now Netflix is worth $33 billion (Oops!) But blockbuster was stubborn and thought that chain stores were still the way to go, needless to say they got annihilated.

A couple of weeks ago there were thousands of taxi drivers protesting Uber in our city. You can do all the whining and protesting you want but why should people be paying more for the exact same service? And like Blockbuster If the taxi drivers don't adapt, they to will be bulldozed by progress. Traditional publishers have every right to be scared. Like Martin said, Barnes and Noble stores probably won't exist in 10 years.