Lower advances, higher royalties

MsGneiss · Jul 2, 2009

Wondering whether you saw this article about a proposal to raise royalties and lower advances. What do you all think about that?

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/07/01/proposal-to-raise-bo.html

Shadow_Ferret · Jul 2, 2009

To me (not having been published yet) it wouldn't matter. I get the money either way.

But it makes sense for them since the publishers often get burned on high advances that don't pan out.

Kathleen42 · Jul 2, 2009

Another unpublished fish, but I think it makes sense. It's highly unlikely that any advance I get will be enough for me to quit my day job.

unicornjam · Jul 2, 2009

I'd still take the higher advance, lower royalties.

NicoleMD · Jul 2, 2009

I'll take my bird-in-the-hand, please.

Nicole

ChristineR · Jul 2, 2009

I've heard that most publishers are willing to negotiate this--but remember, the advance is an advance against royalties. They calculate your advance based on expected sales. They're not going to pay you a much higher percentage, because they are already planning on paying you a certain percentage--you'll just get some of it in advance. That hypothetical publisher who offered a higher royalty with a smaller advance must have been expecting to sell more books.

maestrowork · Jul 2, 2009

higher advances are better for authors -- that means, well, cash in hand, and also mean the publishers have a higher stake in promoting and marketing the books. But lower advances are better for the publishers to cut down upfront costs. In this bad economy, it's probably a good idea. However, that is if the royalties are consistent. I think a 20% royalty would make the publisher balk because that is a potentially higher payout in the backend. The better the book sells, the smaller the publisher's profit margin (considering the book does earn out). The only way the publisher is going to save is if the book doesn't earn out -- that that's detrimental to the author.

Ken · Jul 2, 2009

... agree with everyone on higher royalties being better.
Yep, bad economy as MW says. So let's just count our blessings that both advances and royalties aren't being lowered.

kaitlin008 · Jul 2, 2009

I think that John Green's blog entry about this was very interesting, though. I had never really questioned in my mind whether or not I thought it was better to get a big advance, but he made some really good points.

Still, I think I would probably want a decent advance, but it's something to think about.

Not that I have any knowledge in this area, but I still like to speculate.

SPMiller · Jul 2, 2009

Traditional publishing tends to be a low-margin, slow-growth industry. Costs would have to go down an awful lot before royalties could increase. That means e-publishing.

For now, I'd much rather take my chances with the NY system.

popmuze · Jul 2, 2009

Usually an advance is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If they figure you'll sell 5,000 copies, unless you sell them all in a couple of months, by the time you sell the 5,000 in a year or so and earn back your advance, the publisher is not going to spring for a second printing.
I'd always go for as much as possible up front.
Of course, if there's no choice, I'd vote for getting another book out.

FOTSGreg · Jul 2, 2009

In a day when any half-baked so-called celebrity can command $10 million as an advance on book that the publisher absolutely knows will not sell through its advance (or even come close) while newbies get a paltry $5k and probably won't sell through that advance, what's a writer to do?

Take the money and run, of course. The chances are that a new writer is not going to be offered $30k let alone $300k for a first book or even 3. He or she's going to be offered $5k and a single book deal and an offer of "Come see me when the next one's done, if that happens."

Four out of every 5 new authors supposedly never sell through their advance so a newbie should take the money and run.

maestrowork · Jul 2, 2009

Mid-list or unknown authors are already not getting big advances. I think it's a good idea to cap advances for celebrity and named authors in favor of higher royalties. That way, the risk is lowered for the publishers. No more $8 million duds such as Charles Frasier's Twelve Moons, and that means more books could be published.

Cranky · Jul 2, 2009

Personally, I'd rather take the lower advance and higher royalties. I'm looking for a career, and if they pay me a huge advance and it *doesn't* pan out, I'm sure they'd be reluctant to invest the same sort of money in my work again. Lower advance, less hype, maybe less pressure...and a better chance of getting another contract.

I'd rather take four or five (or even more) books before I get a big advance than get the advance up front and then flame out when my efforts don't either earn back the advance plus and/or my sophomore effort isn't as well-recieved. It just seems safer to take the lower/higher approach, in terms of longevity. IMO, of course.

mscelina · Jul 2, 2009

I'm torn.

Cranky's argument has merit. It was the way I always said I'd prefer to go. Now I'm not so sure. Zeros before the decimal point look good in my bank account, even if there are only three of them. For me, I suppose, it would depend on the amount of the advance offered and my own expectations for the book--whether I believed it was possible to earn out.

But I'll tell you one thing. I will NEVER turn down a hundred grand. EVER.

Cranky · Jul 2, 2009

Dude, Cel, I would have an awfully hard time turning it down myself. *daydreams*

Maybe my argument springs from a lack of confidence in my work. If I truly felt that I'd written something that justified a big advance, I might not mind so much. (i.e. feel intimidated by expectations) And it really is lovely to look at that many zeros before the decimal, I would imagine.

FOTSGreg · Jul 2, 2009

Yeah, There is that whole "I can be bought, but I ain't cheap" thing going.

Greed and the security that money can bring can be an awfully tempting thing...

timewaster · Jul 2, 2009

I'd take the money up front - in case sales were not as high as anticipated. Yeah they might not publish me again, but they may not publish me again if I didn't earn out a low advance either and I'd rather be notpublished again with more money in the bank! There is a correlation between ad spend and sales but it isn't complete and publishers can be wrong.

badducky · Jul 2, 2009

The thing about a high advance is not just the money invested, it's also the committment of a publisher in a title that forces them to promote a book through their sales and marketing team.

A low advance, low risk title leaves the lion's share of the promotion upon the author. A high advance, high risk title forces the publisher into a situation where they are encouraged to promote a book.

It's a risk either way. It's always a risk. Still, as a writer, I'd prefer the risk that comes with the strongest push possible.

If the industrywide trend led to lower advances and higher royalties, I'm on board for that. Without a large, industry-wide - or, at least, company-wide - trend, I'm going to try and get as much money possible up front. That's the company's money. They don't get it back if they don't earn it back by selling copies of my book.

scope · Jul 2, 2009

I'm not really for the idea, but I could live with it providing it did two things:

1. I'd have to know just how this publisher strategy is intended to help writers get published and benefit the industry given the chaos it's now in. The obvious seems too obvious to me, if you get my drift.

2. I write nonfiction for adults and/or children. In my case that means a lot of my time and an awful lot of research and out of pocket expenses (e.g. buying reference books, making trips, and much more). Chalk up my time as I might, its important that any advance I receive at least covers my expenses and yields some kind of profit. If the resultant dollar amount is less than it has been--but sufficient--that could work. Otherwise, if not sufficient, no.

James D. Macdonald · Jul 2, 2009

Here's the rule that every working professional knows: The advance is the only money you're ever going to see.

Q. How many publishers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A. Three. Two to hold down the author ....

Alpha Echo · Jul 2, 2009

I'm not published, so I don't really care either way. I can see both sides of the story. But even if I do get published, which of course I do want to, I don't see myself quitting my day job. The money to me is just icing on the cake. I just want to see my name on the bookshelves at Borders.

ORION · Jul 2, 2009

It's not a choice you are given - I know my agent would scream if I told putnam "gee you can give me a smaller advance..."
The thing is a bigger advance often times is caused by more than one publisher wanting your novel...

Cranky · Jul 2, 2009

But publishers sometimes get that wrong, don't they? Predicting the success of a given novel? We've seen that before, and honestly, it would worry me (though it would be very flattering in some respects) to have a really high advance offered for my work.

Odds are good that I'll likely end up going with a smaller press and never write a blockbuster type of novel as a result, and that means finding an agent who is on the same page I am. Or submitting to publishers directly where I can. (Shoot, odds are excellent that I wouldn't write a book like that anyway, who am I kidding, lol)

A bird in hand might be worth two in the bush for some, but not all.

And there are some smaller presses putting out really excellent books, publishers I'd be honored to by published by, but they don't --by and large-- offer enormous advances. Algonquin comes to mind immediately. Doesn't mean that they won't, just that they normally don't.

Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick here, I don't know. But frankly, I'd be thrilled to get a book contract in the first place, so....

Team 2012 · Jul 2, 2009

Taking points instead of upfront money is basically putting on a little tag that says, "I believe in myself and my project".

Eliminate advances and pay top rates on royalties...all for it. Why should a writer get less percentage on a work than the agent gets of what the writer makes?

Less huge advances, more new writers signed.

Lower advances, higher royalties

Court Jester

crushing on fictional characters

Onomatopotamus

What happened?

Fear the Death Ray

Seeing newness all the time

Prodigiously Hanged

Last of a Dying Breed

Today is your last day.

Fear the Death Ray

Teh doommobile, drivin' rite by you

Today is your last day.

present

No Time For Chitchat, Kemosabe.

Commonsensical Maverick

Your Genial Uncle

I should be writing.

Sailed away years ago