It's not really the expectations for me though. I deal with expectations by being true to myself and having a very subversive streak, which, admittedly, has damaged me in the past. Besides, masses of money never makes anyone happy…
Hachette sues Seth Grahame-Smith
- Thread starter Brian G Turner
- Start date
Cathbad
Level 30 Geek Master
No, money can't buy happiness, but it always galls me when a rich dude or dudette bitches and moans because money had ruined their lives.
Probably because they thought it would make them happy! (And I'd be glad to take it off their hands!)
Boneman
Well-Known Member
But you still walk away with the advance - their money, that they felt was a wise investment in you, with the expectation of a decent return for both parties, so all concerned could stay in business and prosper. (And live long...?)
I dunno. If we asked Stephen King, J.K. Rowling, and George R.R. Martin if they're happier now than when they were poor and struggling, I'm betting they'd say yes.
Getting an advance that guaranteed I would not need to work a day job for 10 years, and I could devote myself to family and my writing, would make me a pretty happy guy.
Getting an advance that guaranteed I would not need to work a day job for 10 years, and I could devote myself to family and my writing, would make me a pretty happy guy.
I have to agree that his agent wasn't looking out for him when they agreed to the joint accounting clause. For that matter, the author was showing a lamentable ignorance of things that any writer, represented or not, ought to know before signing a contract.
That said, I believe joint accounting clauses are not unusual in boilerplate contracts. I imagine they are there as a negotiating point, and it's more or less expected that you'll object. Or maybe it wasn't negotiable because such large sums were involved. We'd have be privy to the actual negotiation to know.
But if you look at the contract, it states that the first book was to be a sequel to Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer, and the second was to be on a subject that had to be approved in writing by the publisher. So clearly they were not contracting for something along the lines of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. This time they wanted an original work, not a rewrite of an 120 year old book. If he tried to palm them off with something like that -- well past the deadline -- no wonder they wanted their money back.
That said, I believe joint accounting clauses are not unusual in boilerplate contracts. I imagine they are there as a negotiating point, and it's more or less expected that you'll object. Or maybe it wasn't negotiable because such large sums were involved. We'd have be privy to the actual negotiation to know.
But if you look at the contract, it states that the first book was to be a sequel to Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer, and the second was to be on a subject that had to be approved in writing by the publisher. So clearly they were not contracting for something along the lines of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. This time they wanted an original work, not a rewrite of an 120 year old book. If he tried to palm them off with something like that -- well past the deadline -- no wonder they wanted their money back.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 873
My understanding is that these days, you only get the promotion, expensive ads in the NYT etc if you're already a multi-million seller and don't actually need them. All other writers have to do their own promotion and marketing, same as self published authors.
It's true that publishers have never spent much on ads, since they found out a long time ago that you can't sell books the same way you can sell other products. It's word-of-mouth that sells books, and if it was something they could buy, you can bet they would because it's incredibly valuable, whereas the return they generally get from advertisements is usually small. So for the average author the big publishers spend very little on ads.
With the multi-million selling authors it's different. When they buy an ad for a book by a wildly successful author, where readers have been eagerly waiting for anything new from that particular author or for the next book in that particular series, the ad is not there to say, "Here is a book you will want to buy." It's to say, "The book you already want to buy is here." And since they are already buying the ad, they try to make it attractive enough to bring in some new readers, because what the heck? But that's secondary to announcing to readers who already want it that the book is now available.
Still, it's odd to see a clause that says specifically that the publisher may not be spending anything on promotion, especially in a contract with such a large advance. With that kind of advance, you'd expect the book in question might be one of the books they'd be advertising: "Look, here is the next book by that author whose book you liked so much." But if they didn't expect they'd be wanting to do that, there was no need to say it in writing, because they were in no way obligated to promote the book whether the contract addressed that issue or not. So that part is just weird. I can think of no explanation for that at all. Someone more knowledgeable than I may be able to shed light on that, but I have no clue.
For some of the other clauses that weren't favorable to the author, the agent (and the author) might have agreed to them in exchange for a large advance. I don't know this, of course. It's just speculation. But that's the way that book contract negotiations often go. You agree to something you'd rather not agree to in return for more money up front. It's a risk, because you might be losing money further down the line, but whatever you get as an advance is a sure thing (providing you meet your deadline and turn in a satisfactory book), because even if sales turn out to be disastrous you get to keep that money.
On the other hand: More moderate advance and the book earns out or at least makes a good profit for the publisher = publisher likely to buy your next book. Big advance but the book doesn't sell as well as hoped and the publisher makes far less money than they thought they would = probably no contract for the next book you write. So there are risks either way, and even the publisher doesn't know whether they or you will be the one to regret some of the things you all agreed to. (Although if the book sells a million copies and there is plenty of money to go around, then everyone will probably be so happy they aren't likely to fret over the details.)
With the multi-million selling authors it's different. When they buy an ad for a book by a wildly successful author, where readers have been eagerly waiting for anything new from that particular author or for the next book in that particular series, the ad is not there to say, "Here is a book you will want to buy." It's to say, "The book you already want to buy is here." And since they are already buying the ad, they try to make it attractive enough to bring in some new readers, because what the heck? But that's secondary to announcing to readers who already want it that the book is now available.
Still, it's odd to see a clause that says specifically that the publisher may not be spending anything on promotion, especially in a contract with such a large advance. With that kind of advance, you'd expect the book in question might be one of the books they'd be advertising: "Look, here is the next book by that author whose book you liked so much." But if they didn't expect they'd be wanting to do that, there was no need to say it in writing, because they were in no way obligated to promote the book whether the contract addressed that issue or not. So that part is just weird. I can think of no explanation for that at all. Someone more knowledgeable than I may be able to shed light on that, but I have no clue.
For some of the other clauses that weren't favorable to the author, the agent (and the author) might have agreed to them in exchange for a large advance. I don't know this, of course. It's just speculation. But that's the way that book contract negotiations often go. You agree to something you'd rather not agree to in return for more money up front. It's a risk, because you might be losing money further down the line, but whatever you get as an advance is a sure thing (providing you meet your deadline and turn in a satisfactory book), because even if sales turn out to be disastrous you get to keep that money.
On the other hand: More moderate advance and the book earns out or at least makes a good profit for the publisher = publisher likely to buy your next book. Big advance but the book doesn't sell as well as hoped and the publisher makes far less money than they thought they would = probably no contract for the next book you write. So there are risks either way, and even the publisher doesn't know whether they or you will be the one to regret some of the things you all agreed to. (Although if the book sells a million copies and there is plenty of money to go around, then everyone will probably be so happy they aren't likely to fret over the details.)
Are there any instances of authors refusing large advances in favour of a better royalty share on sales? Or even, an ordinary royalty on sales? Because that's what I'd do.
I come across references that imply that some of the biggest-selling authors may have special agreements - but what those are, and what they entail, is being kept confidential - presumably because every other author might then think they are entitled to similar agreements.
A high advance from a publisher implies the promise of high sales quantities. I'd love to be in a position where I could say, "nah, just pay me the money when it comes in." I wonder if a publisher would then put in the work though…?
Similar threads
-
Is any one using Grammarly and have they had any issues with it?
- Started by DAgent
- Replies: 8
-
-
-
-
