I see the RWA are at it again

I obviously don't know nearly as much about this sort of thing as a should. Can you explain what PAN-eligible is for me?

Sheesh, I hate this and I'm one of those who believes the regs should be strciter. Why penalize authors who don't sell as well at strong publishers? Make the rules for publishers more strict, but don't set some arbitrary goal for earnings.

Sigh... I'm undecided on this. Yes, it seems fair on the face. No, it's not fair to a certain group of authors. But since the goal of RWA-recognition to begin with is to ensure the list of publishers recommended are those that provide the BEST CHANCE for an author to make a living at writing romance novels---then is $2K per book that unreasonable? The group is, first and foremost, an author's advocate for better standards. "Writing for the love of it" really isn't in the charter.

As I say . . . I'm torn.

$2,000

$2,000 seems a pitifully small expectation to me. I don't think this has anything at all to do with penalizing any group of writers. It is, rather a way of ensuring that all members have the most clout possible.

And making the rules for publishers stricter would have exactly the same effect.

And it isn't demanding any lump sum. Read that again. we are proposing that authors who can prove they have earned $2000.00 - in advance, in royalties, or a combination of the two - on one romance novel from any non-vanity, non-subsidy publisher shall be PAN-eligible."

Any combination of the two simply means that a single book must earn 2K in any manner, not as a lump sum.

But 2K is pitifully small, and no professional organization can long survive, or do much good if they do survive, unless fairly strict membership standards are in place.

PAN is doing a lot of good for all writers, and it seems senseless to do harm to such a group because some feel left out. Instead of complaining about the 2K, why not get busy and write a novel that can earn 2K?

Jamesaritchie said:

But 2K is pitifully small, and no professional organization can long survive, or do much good if they do survive, unless fairly strict membership standards are in place.

PAN is doing a lot of good for all writers, and it seems senseless to do harm to such a group because some feel left out. Instead of complaining about the 2K, why not get busy and write a novel that can earn 2K?

Click to expand...

There you go again, James, talking like a professional writer. What's the deal with that?

RWA has been bogged down in this issue for so long I am not sure what it really accomplishes anymore other than a great party conference once a year.

annie - 17 yr member RWA, 11 yr Pan

Hi all gurus:

I have a question, curiosity killed the cat, satisfaction brought it back:

How long is the membership in PAN, hypothetically speaking, if in two consecutive years, an author makes "$2,000" in a romance book royalties?

Just wondering about the time span in the PAN membership.

Just wondering about the time span in the PAN membership.

Click to expand...

Once a member, always a member. (I know there was a kerfuffle ten years ago with the Precious Gems line, and personally I think RWA should have held the line and not recognized those authors, despite some temporary heartache, for the long-term good, b/c the flat fee arrangment didn't meet the criteria, and the stigma might have convinced the publisher to improve its contracts, but, what I started out to say is that, absent kerfuffles, once an author has qualified for PAN it's permanant.)

And note too that PAN requires a NOVEL. Novellas and short stories don't qualify, regardless of what they earn.

I think we all agree that we don't want the infamous scam publishers that are discussed so often on AW to be attending RWA conferences and getting their claws into RWA members. So there's got to be some line, some clear-cut definition, that excludes vanity publishers from the businesses that RWA will acknowledge.

Personally, I don't much care what that line is, as long as it exists and is objective. And I don't really care how they define PAN membership, which has become the be-all and end-all of too many struggling authors' dreams. But I think authors do that to themselves, and can't really blame the organization for it. Writing is a tough biz, and there's not a whole lot of positive reinforcement, and so PAN membership becomes a sort of holy grail. I wonder how many of the authors who get the golden chalice even taken advantage of PAN benefits.

Oh, argh, I swore I wouldn't get dragged into this again, because that way lies madness.

JD

Thanks

PAN isn't my ambition at this point in my writing--and from the sounds of the fracus going on right now, I think I'll just continue thinking about writing and of course, doing it

Thanks Veinglory and Jan.

As much as I love AW Forum it's back to work for me (withdrawing into writing world)

Enjoy.

I can see the point on both sides of the issue. On one hand e-writers want recognition for their efforts, on the other the organizations don't want to deal with those that they might view as being "lightweights" in the industry.

For all the advances in e-publishing, it is still seen as the red-headed demon child of the industry and will likely remain so for some while to come. That's just how things are, and the Powers That Be will be glacially slow to change.

The bottom line in business--and however artistic we are, this IS a business--is money.

Them as earns the great whackin' wodges of cold cash is going to gets the respect.

If one is able to rake it in with an e-book, then more power to you.

I like it. . .

I actually like the change. It enables authors who publish with publishers not on the RWA-approved list but still earn professional-level advances/royalties from those publishers to be members of PAN. There are some pubs that either don't want to apply to be on RWA's list or the RWA arbitrarily decided don't count as "professional" because they didn't like how the books were bound/printed (e.g., New Concepts Publishers), despite the fact those publishers had wide print distribution and paid professional advances/royalties.

$2000 is very little money to make on a novel---advance or earn-out. It's pretty much the bare-bones minimum you should earn, so I think it is a good benchmark.

Gillhoughly said:

I can see the point on both sides of the issue. On one hand e-writers want recognition for their efforts, on the other the organizations don't want to deal with those that they might view as being "lightweights" in the industry.

For all the advances in e-publishing, it is still seen as the red-headed demon child of the industry and will likely remain so for some while to come. That's just how things are, and the Powers That Be will be glacially slow to change.

The bottom line in business--and however artistic we are, this IS a business--is money.

Them as earns the great whackin' wodges of cold cash is going to gets the respect.

Click to expand...

Well said. My .02 to add to this is that though I'm a bit irritated that I have to sell $2000 worth of e-books and prints of my FIRST novel because I'm a NOBODY before I can join PAN, I'll do it. I'm just happy that I can walk into my Waldenbooks and see my ugly mug on the back of the book.

Sonarbabe said:

Well said. My .02 to add to this is that though I'm a bit irritated that I have to sell $2000 worth of e-books and prints of my FIRST novel because I'm a NOBODY before I can join PAN, I'll do it. I'm just happy that I can walk into my Waldenbooks and see my ugly on the back of the book.

Click to expand...

Ummmm...who said you're a nobody before you can join PAN? You're somebody, I promise you. You are Sonarbabe, dammit. <G>

Honestly, sometimes I wonder about all the PAN hoopla. There is no secret you will learn by becoming a PAN member. Your life will not suddenly be sunshine, roses and reams of publishing contracts (and money to go with them) falling from the heavens like manna.

I'm sure you could find some new PAN members who will say, "Meh, you know, I'm not sure what all the fuss was about. I thought I was going to find out all this great new stuff, but you know what? I was able to access most of this information BEFORE I got into PAN."

I'm not saying PAN isn't a good thing -- it IS, simply because published folks really DO have different needs than those folks who haven't gotten a publishing contract yet. They need workshops that will meet their needs.

A quickie history lesson -- PAN workshops were begun because once-upon-a-time, when all the workshops at National were open to everyone, it didn't matter what the STATED objective/topic of the workshop was -- newbies would ask the same newbie questions in every single workshop. Newbie questions like, yeah, but how do I format my ms? These newbie questions caused the folks with more advanced needs to slap their foreheads and walk out wondering what the heck was in it for THEM.

RWA's greatest weakness is that it tries to be all things to as many people as possible -- and RWA's greatest strength is in the number of folks it calls members. So it's sort of a catch 22.

However, the "mission" of RWA is to :

advance the professional interests of career-focused romance writers through networking and advocacy.

Click to expand...

As Gillhoughly said, this is a business. We have writers getting peeved at RWA because said writers accepted contracts from publishers who were on RWA's "accepted" list, and things didn't work out the way they expected -- either they didn't get their book in print, or they didn't make the money they thought they would, or whatever -- and they're blaming that on RWA instead of on their own lack of "doing their homework."

So, on that hand, we have people who want RWA's stamp of approval to mean something. (Actually, IMHO, they want the stamp of approval to mean MORE than it should/does.)

On the other hand, we have people griping that the standards are "too hard" or "too high" or "too difficult to meet."

Make up your minds, folks. Either you want the standards to mean something, or you want it to be one big lovefest where everyone gets into PAN, holds hands and sings Kumbaya together. Of course, at that point, PAN membership really has no significance, so we might as well do away with it altogether.

This new proposal actually puts a lot more control into the writer's hands. If their publisher doesn't want to apply for approved status, it doesn't matter because the writer is free to do so herself. That's sort of nice.

$2,000 off one title isn't all that much to ask, not for a "career-minded" writer. If you think that's too much for one ebook, than perhaps leaving the standards as they are is a better thing. The way the standards are now, the publisher only needs ONE title that's a "great success," and all of their authors qualify to get into PAN if the publisher seeks approval. With this new proposal, each individual author will have to qualify -- that may indeed prove harder and make fewer people eligible.

The point of making $2k off ONE title is to make it clear that publisher should be PUSHING books -- each and every title. (This is why the book with the larger advance gets the bigger push. This is why at Trisk, the books that got those larger advances ARE STILL GOING TO PRINT -- because the publisher needs to try to earn back its money.) This is why RWA advocates this type of standard.

In any case, it IS a lovely can of worms that seems to pop open on a regular basis. That and the GH/Rita contests. What fun! :-/

Susan G. - who hasn't yet decided which idea she likes better, but is really tired of the us-vs.-them stuff.

JanDarby said:

Once a member, always a member.

JD

Click to expand...

Not true--they have kicked folks out. This was my post in the Pub Upheaval thread:

Yep, it happened to me and about 30 other PAN members when they decided they hadn't been handling the recognized publishers the right way. They spent money to have formal letters sent to us by courier a week or so before Christmas. (not sure what year, might have been before 2000)


But Jan, like you, I no longer have the interest in debating it. It's over (for me) and I've moved on, but did want to set the record straight.

Now Novelists, Inc, a group I still belong to, does have the "once you're in, you're in" philosophy.

Oh, one thing I forgot to mention -- RWA issued an "alert" today regarding SImon & Schuster's most recent rights grab -- so it's not just "little publishers" that RWA is keeping an eye on. It's looking out for career-minded romance writers.

Susan G.

Susan Gable said:

Oh, one thing I forgot to mention -- RWA issued an "alert" today regarding SImon & Schuster's most recent rights grab -- so it's not just "little publishers" that RWA is keeping an eye on. It's looking out for career-minded romance writers.

Susan G.

Click to expand...

Hey, if you get over to Paperback Writer's blog she had an interesting, differing POV on the S&S rights grab.

I have to admit that I'm one of the people Susan spoke of here:

I'm sure you could find some new PAN members who will say, "Meh, you know, I'm not sure what all the fuss was about. I thought I was going to find out all this great new stuff, but you know what? I was able to access most of this information BEFORE I got into PAN."

Click to expand...

So far, I'm not impressed. Of course, I joined PAN at the same time I joined RWA. My first National conference was the last time it was in Dallas (what is that--four years ago?) It was during the great "definition of romance" debate, and it WASN'T a pretty time to be joining RWA. I did my best to keep a low profile. But I have to tell you . . . when I entered the PAN meeting near the end of one session, just to hear that only "category romances" should be considered REAL romances, that these "upstarts" in paranormal and erotica and romantic elements should just be asked to leave RWA altogether. Well, I nearly left the organization for good.

Fortunately, several people I'd met told me to bear it out for a little while before I quit. I'd already paid my membership so, , what the heck. I agreed to stick around until I renewed and decide then. But I started to realize that there was a REASON for the discussions, and the reasons were pretty good ones. But I can see both sides, like several others here. Ultimately, I have to fall on the side of caution, and caution means trying to encourage other romance writers to achieve what I have. I'm A FULL-TIME PROFESSIONAL AUTHOR. It's how I make my living. I believe it can be done, so I have to stand up for those guidelines which can help others achieve it.

I did, however, leave Novelists, Inc. for much the same reason as why I walked out of the PAN meeting in disgust. Once you're in, you're in, as Inspiewriter says. But I didn't find the atmosphere terribly encouraging to newer authors. Still, I know plenty who are happy there, so it just wasn't the right fit for ME.

Results will vary with any organization.

... so this would separate the question of whether an author had been published in a significant and professional manner
from the vexing and mostly unrelated question of whether a publisher has been vetted and 'recognized' by RWA.

A quick --
"Did you pay anything to the publisher?' and
"Did you or your mom buy your books?" and
"Show us the royalty checks."
and you'd be in.

It has the merit of simplicity.

I'd set the bar just a bit higher, myself, and allow a second option of '$X from book royalties in a single year' ...


This proposal does seem to level the playing field between e-pubs and print pubs,
in that all that matters is that the books make money.

I've been eligible for PAN for over a year and haven't bothered to apply, so PAN membership isn't that important to me. I'm mostly thinking of people who write shorts and novellas, which don't tend to make as much for the authors because of their lower price.

Also, by this reckoning, authors who receive advances are eligible for quite some time before their epub or low advance friends are, which bothers me too.

We have writers getting peeved at RWA because said writers accepted contracts from publishers who were on RWA's "accepted" list, and things didn't work out the way they expected -- either they didn't get their book in print, or they didn't make the money they thought they would, or whatever -- and they're blaming that on RWA instead of on their own lack of "doing their homework."

Click to expand...

Sorry, Susan, but I have to disagree here. When RWA claims its approval is based in large part on the idea that an author could make decent money at a publisher, then submitting to a publisher based on that recognition isn't "not doing their homework." It's saying, "Okay, they've met sales and professional standards, so they're a safe bet." That's the whole point of the approval.

DecemberQuinn said:

Sorry, Susan, but I have to disagree here. When RWA claims its approval is based in large part on the idea that an author could make decent money at a publisher, then submitting to a publisher based on that recognition isn't "not doing their homework." It's saying, "Okay, they've met sales and professional standards, so they're a safe bet." That's the whole point of the approval.

Click to expand...

Approval doesn't mean everything is going to be fantastic. These are minimal standards. Honestly, writers have to stop expecting anyone else to do their homework for them. It's not just small publishers. Let's just take Harlequin - big publisher. Totally approved by RWA. Pays a nice advance, and okay royalties.

So, just cause they're approved by RWA, I sign the contract without doing further homework, or learning lots of stuff. Later, I'm stunned to find out that I can't sell my movie rights because they got snatched up in my contract. No FAIR, I cry. I have a movie producer all lined up to buy the rights, and now I can't because they belong to Harlequin. Why didn't RWA tell me that???

Because it's not their job. They can't anticipate everything. They can't hold my hand through the whole process.

However, because I do tend to take advantage of all the opportunities RWA affords me to EDUCATE MYSELF, I've already learned about rights grabs, etc. and I signed my contract knowing exactly what I was getting myself into.

Susan G.

Here's why these standards don't seem fair to me.

As an example, I'm using one of "my" authors. (I work for an epub.) She makes about 25-30,000 dollars a year writing novellas for three different epubs. Is that making a living? Yes. You might argue that it's at the low end of the annual earnings scale, but it's still a living.

Now compare this to an author who writes one novel, receives an 8000 dollar advance, and makes maybe 3-4000 dollars in royalties. That's about 12,000 dollars for the year.

Yet she is eligible for PAN, and the author who writes for epubs is not. How is that fair? It's not.

Frankly, I don't care about PAN or the RWA. Their conferences are great, but as an organization they're way behind the times. I let my membership lapse a long time ago. But whether they're useful or not doesn't really matter. What matters is that they're fair to those who wish to join.

Then it's a question of novellas versus novels, which is apples to oranges. RWA may well be behind the times in terms of ONLY allowing novelists to enter. But that really has nothing to do with the question posed here. If the author you speak of is earning 25-30K per year, then the 2K requirement should surely be met (unless she's REALLY prolific--writing in excess of 60 novellas per year.) With that sort of writing skill, and audience, why doesn't she write ONE novel and then go back to novellas?

Novellas have never been on the table, right or wrong, and given the number of novellas out there it's probably shortsighted, but that's not the issue at hand in this change.
The constant clamoring to be taken seriously (and this isn't just epubs, it's work for hire, novella writers, short story people, whatever) or to keep everyone happy or at the very least treat every single person with $75 and a membership app as though she were the next coming of Nora Roberts keeps a once productive organization in constant flux. (Does that mean RWA is fluxed up?_ sorry, I had to say it )
No one can please everyone and when you are talking about a group this large and with this many people wanting their worldview/choices/dreams validated no matter what the cost or implication (if you think RWA hasn't lost respect over this with publishers, agents, other writer's orgs and writers in general then you are not plugged into reality) then no one will ever be satisfied.

I'm with the PAN doesn't mean diddly, really. The Truth is writers no longer have the comradarie of a few years ago - they are wary and tend to stick to close groups reflective of their own status and the friends they have made along the way. Once upon a time PAN meant that people with similar problems could discuss them openly and work toward solutions together. It was a professional move that made sense to everyone - a person on chptr 3 of her first rough draft really doesn't need to jump into discussions of aimed at midlist author's PR issues. But they WANTED in and so...

here we go again
annie