Philip Pullman: writers deserve bigger royalties

[Brian G Turner]

market forces dictate that a person gets paid 'x'

Yep, that's the problem I alluded to in the opening post - that publishers are never going to be short of submissions in the near future, so the laws of supply and demand mean they have little incentive to revise terms.

 

[MWagner]

Agreed that trade published authors are screwed - not to put it politely. But that's the deal they chose. They are gambling that in getting less they'll make more by selling more and having a big company behind them to push their work. It's a valid choice - not necessarily the smart one these days.

But the underlying problem is that people aren't paid according to what they deserve. They're paid according to market forces. The trade publishers can do this because they're always going to have a lot more authors knocking on their doors - (supply) - and they only need a few - (demand).

This is a wider topic, but how can you arrive at what someone's work is worth except by market forces? The only alternative would be to pay everyone the same (or have a committe of some kind deciding the value of various types of labour). I could spent 5,000 hours writing a symphony, and it would be **** and no one would want to listen to it -- would my work then be worth anything, to anyone?

I agree that market forces in the trad publishing route might decree that someone's writing is worth next to nothing, when self-publishing might reveal that to be not at all the case. But the self-publisher is still deriving his income from the market.

Agreed the only way to arrive at the value of work is by market forces. So let's look at the market.

The earnings of novelists are declining. Yes, there are still a handful of mega-star writers who make millions. But mid-list and debut novelists today earn less than mid-list and debut novelists did 30 years ago.

Has demand gone down? From what I can gather - somewhat. The number of novels read per capita in the Anglo world is declining. But not steeply. And not as steeply as writer earnings have declined.

Has supply increased? I have no numbers to back this up, but it's reasonable to assume that is also true. The advent of desktop publishing has made it much easier to sit down and write a novel. And the explosion of self-help books for writing fiction suggests there are growing numbers of people who think they have a commercial novel in them.

On the other hand, we also know that as earnings go down, supply goes down. It is harder today to earn a livelihood from writing novels than it was 30 years ago. Harder than just 10 years ago. And if the market is functioning transparently, and writers know that the value of their work is declining, fewer people will choose to write. Or rather, fewer people will choose to write as a vocation.

Is this happening? It seems to be. The declining value of fiction is only now becoming clear to professional writers and those who aspire to be professionals. So expect fewer people to choose to write as a vocation.

What does that mean for the market? It means a decline in fiction produced by dedicated writers. I doubt we'll see much, if any, of a decline in debut novels - everyone starts as amateurs, and a great many people can and will take a run at getting their books on shelves. But it seems pretty clear to me that we're entering an era when fewer people will be writing fiction full-time in order to keep a roof over their heads. If that first novel doesn't sell very well, it's back to the grindstone of being an insurance adjuster, journalist, or teaching assistant.

So what does that mean for the market? It means lower quality - a greater proportion of clumsy works on the shelves (or virtual shelves) written by neophytes, or churned out by self-publishing writers impelled to ramp up quantity to grind out a livelihood. It means the days of a writer being afforded a couple novels to find her sea legs are over. It means writers desperately trying to find an edge beyond the writing itself to attract attention to their books.

Will readers notice or care that quality is declining? It's an interesting question. Probably not. I have a sense that the differences between a work written by aspiring amateur and a master novelists matter less and less to readers. But I suppose we'll find out.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I thought it was nearer 50p for mass market paperbacks? Before agent's commission and tax, of course.

But the rate via Createspace isn't much better...and they can't get you into bookshops.

It depends on the sort of deal you have, how your share of the royalties is calculated and what vehicle you're selling through.

If you get a share of the cover price of the book, that's fantastic, but such deals are rare these days. Instead, what most authors get is a share of the book's profits after production (note those production costs should be only the physical costs, not editing etc) and the outlet's take.

So, a large bookseller in the UK takes 50% profit for launches and such like of non-stocked titles. If a publisher has a book for, say, 9.00, perhaps 3-4 of that will have gone on costs, between printing and distribution. But 50% of the cover price of the book is going to the retailer - so the publisher will only be getting 4.50 for that book from the bookseller. Once you take off the charges, you have what's left to be split - and that's what the author gets the share of. It can be as little as 15p very, very easily, with the bookshop getting 4.50.

By comparison, another bookshop has taken 30% of the cover price of my self published book. Even after costs I'm clearing about 1.50 on that. And another chain is asking for 40% (which is close to the norm) and I'm making about 1.00. But I have to shift 500 books to cover my initial costs and my time costs are somewhat higher as everything is being done by me.

Please note, this is not an unusual contract at all for books and has been pretty much the standard offered by most indie publishers that I've come across now.

By comparison, on Createspace the same book might net the author about 60p.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

Once the 15p has lost its 15% agents fee its not far off the 7p and if he's including his marketing costs and other expenses... maybe it does indeed work out at 7p a book. He definitely said 7p and I checked the literature for the talk. This is a fairly well known author. I think another one on a similar level quoted the 15p if she was lucky. Both are self publishing the books they're not under contract for. These are authors making enough from their writing (admittedly not just their books) to live off. The amount of work they put into their writing and work isn't much different to the self publisher I have as a mentor in fact he seems to be making a better living with less diversification needed and fewer books sold.

 

[aThenian]

On the other hand, we also know that as earnings go down, supply goes down. It is harder today to earn a livelihood from writing novels than it was 30 years ago.

Thing is, writing seems to be something many people are keen to do, regardless of the likely financial rewards. Either because they are driven by other motives (the itch to write!) or perhaps because the knowledge that some writers do make it big keeps them at it - a bit like buying lottery tickets, the expected return is not always the determining factor, it's that tiny chance of becoming a bestseller (or just a writer who makes a living).

In this way it's a bit like acting, or other "creative" industries. There's a flood of people trying to enter the market, despite the low rewards. One of the potential problems with this is that it becomes the preserve of people who don't have to make a living through it - as seems to be happening with acting and music also. That's arguably quite impoverishing culturally, if all the creators are coming from a narrow background.

Trouble is, what can be done about it?

 

[psychotick]

Hi MW,

There's just one problem with your analysis. The market is hugely overstocked with new writers and books. Previously in this subforum there was a thread about an author having a 0.03% chance of being picked up by an agent. That was based on one agent acceoting 2 authors in a year from over 6000 queries. Even if a few would be authors do decide that the returns aren't worth it to them, the agents and publishers will still clearly have plenty of choice available to them. Quality won't really change. And neither will the rewards given to authors by publishers.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[pambaddeley]

Thing is, writing seems to be something many people are keen to do, regardless of the likely financial rewards. Either because they are driven by other motives (the itch to write!) or perhaps because the knowledge that some writers do make it big keeps them at it - a bit like buying lottery tickets, the expected return is not always the determining factor, it's that tiny chance of becoming a bestseller (or just a writer who makes a living).

In this way it's a bit like acting, or other "creative" industries. There's a flood of people trying to enter the market, despite the low rewards. One of the potential problems with this is that it becomes the preserve of people who don't have to make a living through it - as seems to be happening with acting and music also. That's arguably quite impoverishing culturally, if all the creators are coming from a narrow background.

Trouble is, what can be done about it?

Just had an email offering four free POD cast lectures on 'easy' ways to make a fortune from writing a book. Naturally, these are a lot of unsubstantiated claims with the clincher of 'sign up for my course' but it shows how the perception that writing a book is 'easy' and can be done in a couple of months even by a person who 'hates writing' and is no good at it, as he says, means that there is no shortage of gullible people willing to pay for the equivalent of snake oil salespeople who will sell them the secret of fame and fortune.

 

[MWagner]

Thing is, writing seems to be something many people are keen to do, regardless of the likely financial rewards. Either because they are driven by other motives (the itch to write!) or perhaps because the knowledge that some writers do make it big keeps them at it - a bit like buying lottery tickets, the expected return is not always the determining factor, it's that tiny chance of becoming a bestseller (or just a writer who makes a living).

Yes. But this was true 30 years ago, and yet authors could make a much better living 30 years ago than they today. What changed?

In this way it's a bit like acting, or other "creative" industries. There's a flood of people trying to enter the market, despite the low rewards. One of the potential problems with this is that it becomes the preserve of people who don't have to make a living through it - as seems to be happening with acting and music also. That's arguably quite impoverishing culturally, if all the creators are coming from a narrow background.

Not just culturally, but even in a strictly market sense. Stephen King had a young family to feed when he wrote Carrie. If he hadn't been able to sell it for enough money that he could quit teaching and still pay his bills, it may have been his last book. And all those people who enjoyed all those Stephen King books would have been out of luck.

There's just one problem with your analysis. The market is hugely overstocked with new writers and books. Previously in this subforum there was a thread about an author having a 0.03% chance of being picked up by an agent. That was based on one agent acceoting 2 authors in a year from over 6000 queries. Even if a few would be authors do decide that the returns aren't worth it to them, the agents and publishers will still clearly have plenty of choice available to them. Quality won't really change. And neither will the rewards given to authors by publishers.

As I said, I don't doubt there's a glut of new writers, and that the glut will persist even as compensation for writers goes down. The question is how many of those debut authors will stick with writing as a vocation if they can't earn a living from it? The prospect of getting a book published will keep many amateur writers working on that first book. What will keep them writing a second or a third or fourth if each book only earns them $7,000?

Maybe we're moving to a market where 70 per cent of the books on the shelves are by debut novelists, and the other 30 per cent are by a handful of established superstars. If that's the case, I'd suggest readers are going to see a drop in quality, because few writers are at their best with their first novel. And if the only way to earn a living is to win the lottery and break into the superstar ranks, writing will become even more derivative.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Just had an email offering four free POD cast lectures on 'easy' ways to make a fortune from writing a book. Naturally, these are a lot of unsubstantiated claims with the clincher of 'sign up for my course' but it shows how the perception that writing a book is 'easy' and can be done in a couple of months even by a person who 'hates writing' and is no good at it, as he says, means that there is no shortage of gullible people willing to pay for the equivalent of snake oil salespeople who will sell them the secret of fame and fortune.

I did a podcast at the weekend - link later today, I hope - and the podcaster said he was getting so many of these at the moment, it was unreal.

 

[pambaddeley]

There are a lot of folks out there who are jumping on the bandwagon of making money out of the naive would-be self publisher (speaking as a hopefully clued up would-be self publisher). For example, there is a roaring trade in paid for reviews although this is against Amazon's TOS, and a lot of sites offering overpriced packages offering to do the cover/formatting etc for you and 'publicise' it afterwards, which means some ineffectual spammy tweets and maybe hosting an entry on their company website. More or less vanity publishing, masquerading as self publishing.

 

[aThenian]

Yes. But this was true 30 years ago, and yet authors could make a much better living 30 years ago than they today. What changed?

Well, in the UK the abolition of the Net Book Agreement definitely made a difference. Before then authors would have made a much higher royalty per book. But I'm guessing even in the countries like the States, the demise of small independent booksellers and the rise of chains/supermarkets/Amazon, have meant that the retailers are driving much harder bargains with publishers. The publishers have responded by squeezing the share going to authors.

At the same time, there has been a polarisation, so that more sales are going to a few authors - the demise of the midlist. I think this is also driven by the change in retail outlets - fewer outlets means a smaller range of books getting shelf space, and tends to push sales towards the same few authors. (the exception is Amazon, which stocks everything, but which doesn't really help the midlist because it doesn't introduce readers to new books and authors - you need to know what you want). (The really big authors still do well, but they will still earn significantly less royalties per book than used to be the case.)

I think there's actually a case for subsidising small bookshops in some way. They are an important cultural and community resource, and people really love to have them on the high street, but it's hard to sustain them through the market alone. Readers browse in the bookshops - then go and order the books cheaply from Amazon.

 

[Toby Frost]

On a similar subject:

Guy Walters - Penny for Your Thoughts

I'm glad that there seems to be a bit of a movement building up about this. Hopefully it will make writing a bit more valued.

 

[Brian G Turner]

It depends on the sort of deal you have, how your share of the royalties is calculated and what vehicle you're selling through.

I dream of being traditionally published. But I can't imagining signing a publishing contract that treats my work as an affiliate activity, rather than as a supplier. I should have better business sense than that.

 

[Serendipity]

As I said, I don't doubt there's a glut of new writers, and that the glut will persist even as compensation for writers goes down. The question is how many of those debut authors will stick with writing as a vocation if they can't earn a living from it? The prospect of getting a book published will keep many amateur writers working on that first book. What will keep them writing a second or a third or fourth if each book only earns them $7,000?

Talking from experience here... I spent a good eighteen months writing a science fiction novel with guidance from my MA Creative Writing course tutors. The novel got short-listed at the end of the course as being one of the most promising novels from the course. Add to this that the MA was one of the top five creative writing courses in the country. So you would think it had a chance of being published, wouldn't you?

Guess what? Not a single agent or publisher I sent it to showed any interest (though one agent did say she'd be interested in seeing more of my work).

So I'm now back working as an engineer and have very little writing time.

I'm sure there are others who have taken similar courses of action and ended up in similar situations. It does mean there are less and less writers with experience writing novels.

...I'll leave the rest of the follow-on consequences to your vivd imaginations...

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I dream of being traditionally published. But I can't imagining signing a publishing contract that treats my work as an affiliate activity, rather than as a supplier. I should have better business sense than that.

How would you define that? In this case it is the retailer doing the damage, not the publisher. Often royalty rates on gross are very low and a higher royalty rate on net works out just as good....my business sense is pretty good as is my understanding of business expenses. If it was as cut and dried as your comment indicates, things would be easy. But the market has changed, markedly, in the last 5 years and I think your view of what is realistic and on offer from the wider market - except the biggys - is possibly out of date.

Also, to say again, ALL publishing contracts I have had offered (bar one which did include editing etc) were on the net model and pretty much all indie publishers operate on it. To date I've had 6 offers....

 

[Brian G Turner]

How would you define that?

My understanding - perhaps in need of revision - was that rates were ordinary set on list price. So if your novel was ordinarily to be listed at £5.00, then you'd receive (for example) 7% of that price - regardless of what the retailer set it at. In that example, the author would get £0.35 per book sold, regardless of the actual retail price.

If there's an argument that you will only earn 7% on whatever the retailer decides the price is, then the writer has become an affiliate, not a supplier. And I struggle to accept that in my mind.

 

[ratsy]

Could you imagine if your royalties were paid based on what every different retailer sold a book for regardless of the MSRP, or list price set from the Publisher? It would be a nightmare...how would this data be gathered even?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Could you imagine if your royalties were paid based on what every different retailer sold a book for regardless of the MSRP, or list price set from the Publisher? It would be a nightmare...how would this data be gathered even?

But under a net agreement that's what happens - you get your royalties as a percentage of the profit - which goes down if the book is cheaper.

Brian, thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure how that works under a gross royalties agreement.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Could you imagine if your royalties were paid based on what every different retailer sold a book for regardless of the MSRP, or list price set from the Publisher? It would be a nightmare...how would this data be gathered even?

But under a net agreement that's what happens - you get your royalties as a percentage of the profit - which goes down if the book is cheaper.

Brian, thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure how that works under a gross royalties agreement.

Also, just to remember, it's not always about the price a retailer sells it at but the percentage they want of that book's cover price.

 

[ratsy]

But don't the bookstore chains buy from the publishers at a defined cost? In that case you already know what the net royalty will be before they decide what to retail it at. But you have worked in a bookstore so you may be able to shed some light on this.