On Avoiding Getting Scammed (by Kristine Kathryn Rusch)

I'm not even sure what to say to this blog. Different strokes, I guess. I think it's incredibly poor advice.

I will admit there are times (like backlist, as she mentions) when a non-techie writer will want to hire someone to work out the details. I might come to that point myself. But they make the techie stuff with Amazon and Lulu pretty idiot-proof. I think I can figure it out. But I will admit I'm not a cover artist. I don't pretend to be, so when/if I decide to self-pub something, I will hire one of those. I'll pay real money for the same cover art I expect from my publisher. Because that's what it takes to get the same response from readers. It's all about what the reader wants. Not what the author wants. If the author wants to be a publisher, then go for it. But understand it's always about the READER. Go in with that firmly in mind and it'll all be good. Hire the talent you need and pay fairly. Be as good a publisher as you plan to be an author.

But isn't Joe Konrath paying his agent/etributor/whatever 15% and all that right now? And he's fine with it?

Hmm...

Alessandra Kelley said:

I thought she was saying that if an author didn't wish to deal with publishing his or her own work, then a flat-fee service was less of a ripoff than someone who takes 15% of your profits in perpetuity.

Click to expand...

Yes, but that's the poor advice I'm speaking of. If an author wants to self-publish, then self-publish. Own it and take responsibility for the publishing part. If not, then go with a publisher who can get the books in the stores or at least to the readers. That's the trade off you pay the 15% for. If you want to pay a flat fee to someone who ISN'T a publisher, then you get what you pay for.

I don't even mind her friend offering a service to load the stuff up on the web. It's something not everybody knows how to do, or cares to learn. It's a valuable skill that is probably profitable.

It's when those services extend into cover art, or copy editing or such, as she suggests in her blog, that there's problems. I could probably copy edit. I strongly thought about hiring myself out for that service. But I have no training other than writing my own books. Even *I* would be a scam, so I decided against it.

It depends entirely on how much that 15% is worth to you. Konrath is going with the percentage model to see how well it works. He has plans to update his books with additional content and new editions fairly often. Plus, if a book isn't selling well, he can talk with his service and figure out if it needs a new cover, new content, etc... Essentially, he has outsourced the self- in self-publishing. If it lets him get an extra book out each year, I'd say it's worth it.

Kris Rusch is saying that, to her, the 15% is not worth it. She has outsourced the self- for a flat fee. Again, if it lets her get an extra book out each year, I'd say it's worth it.

Now, which is better? Hard to say. I don't know what level of service each of them is getting for their 15%. If they're getting identical service, the flat fee is superior, because, assuming you get any sales at all, 1% paid out forever will eventually out-grow the flat fee paid now.

As with all things in this business, it's a judgement call. I think that's the part a lot of people sweat. You might be wrong. You might make mistakes. You might look silly. In fact, you probably will do all of these things. But none of these things will kill your career.

Cathy C said:

I don't even mind her friend offering a service to load the stuff up on the web. It's something not everybody knows how to do, or cares to learn. It's a valuable skill that is probably profitable.

Click to expand...

Exactly what Kris Rush is talking about. The point she is trying to make - IF you hire somebody, then only pay him a flat fee, not a percentage. Pay the help fairly, but don't grant them a percentage for infinity just because they uploaded a file someplace once ...

I'd be able to take these articles a lot more seriously if they weren't so full of fallacies and misinformation. But there you go.

Which parts ring false to you?

PulpDogg said:

Exactly what Kris Rush is talking about. The point she is trying to make - IF you hire somebody, then only pay him a flat fee, not a percentage. Pay the help fairly, but don't grant them a percentage for infinity just because they uploaded a file someplace once ...

Click to expand...

Yep, that's what she's saying. I agree with her, too.

efkelley said:

Which parts ring false to you?

Click to expand...

I don't have time to do a full line-by-line for you: but I can give you a few pointers. Take this para, for example:

Honestly, that’s a good and logical question. I know that many writers, particularly established writers with multiple deadlines, haphazard income, and lots of health or time issues are asking the same question. Most of them are defaulting to their agent, someone they “know and trust,” to do the backlist work for them.

Click to expand...

It's in the context of whether writers who need help e-publishing should pay a flat fee to someone for that help, or should ask their agents to do it in return for that agent's usual 15%.

Ms Rusch goes on to mention the ethical problems of agents becoming publishers. What she doesn't point out is that most agents are not publishing their clients' backlists so if they get those e-books out there they'll do so via a trade publisher, not by publishing them themselves. And if they're going to find a deal, negotiate the contract and manage that contract for its life, then yes, they deserve their 15%.

Agents do so much more than just find deals for their authors: but that's not discussed in the article, and the implication is that they're taking easy money that they don't deserve.

Skimming on through the article, how about this bit?

Nor do the writers draw up a legal agreement with this 15% person. They rely on the person’s word.

Click to expand...

Now we're discussing people who use a self-publishing service to get their work out there. All the self-publishing services that I've looked at have clearly defined terms and conditions attached to using their services and that constitutes a legal agreement, and yet there's no mention of that: just a lot of stuff about how dangerous this could be as you don't have the right to see any paperwork (I thought we were all digital now?) to check that you're being paid properly.

Ms Rusch might well have a good point, and at first glance she makes her arguments very convincingly. The problem is that she bases her arguments on fallacy, and so once you look at them closely they fall apart. I wish she'd rely less on rhetoric and more on hard fact, and I wish she'd pay more attention to detail and make fewer sweeping statements. I'd find her articles a hell of a lot more compelling then.

I see what you're saying. Thanks for taking the time to look it over.