[Publisher] The Writer's Collective

[Joanclr]

The woman in the interview is actually a casual acquaintance of mine from some time back, so I don't think it's a scam or anything of the sort--I know she is very dedicated to her goals and dreams. However, I am curious if anyone knows or has heard anything about the company, its status, results, or anything at all about it?

I'm including a link to an interview with her, and also the link to the actual web site.

www.bigbooksavings.com/pr...uest16.htm (http://www.bigbooksavings.com/profiles/guest16.htm)

www.writerscollective.org/ (http://www.writerscollective.org/)

[CaoPaux]

Well, there's this....

nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/005292.html#51619 (http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/005292.html#51619)

[MacAl Stone]

Ahh! I was about to post that very link, Cao--you beat me to it.

Mac

[CaoPaux]

:grin

Great minds, etc., etc. Are you a regular reader of ML? I am, but I haven't found the courage to join in yet.

[MacAl Stone]

I read ML regularly--I content myself with lurking, because usually one of the regular commenters posts precisely what I would've, only better-articulated:)

I'm a bit of a fan, I confess.

[Joanclr]

Hmmm, very informative. I appreciate the link, thanks a lot!

[MacAl Stone]

When you have a little time, joan--look around the whole site. Alot of it's political, but there is also a wealth of writing and publishing information.

The author of the blog has a truly awe-inspiring command of the English language, as do many of the regular posters. . .It almost always makes me shake my head in bemused admiration.

[wvonwegen]

Hello,

I'm looking for any and all feedback on The Writers' Collective. Any comments, positive or negetive, would be greatly appreciated.

[CaoPaux]

Avoid.

nielsenhayden.com/makingl...05292.html (http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/005292.html)

[dblteam]

For some reason, whenever I go to an article on Making Light, I can only read the the first part of what's written. I know there's more to the article, but I don't get a scroll down bar or any way to go on to a second page (unless I'm dense and have simply missed it). Several of Ms. Nielsen Hayden's articles have been referenced from AW and other boards, and I continue to be frustrated in my efforts to read them.

Has anyone else had this problem, and, if so, is there a known cure? I use an up-to-date version of IE (sorry, don't remember the version number), if that makes any difference.

Thanks,

Valerie

[AnneMarble]

Has anyone else had this problem, and, if so, is there a known cure? I use an up-to-date version of IE (sorry, don't remember the version number), if that makes any difference.

I've had the same thing happen, both on my Pentium II and on my new computer. What I've ended up doing is going to the main page of Making Light and viewing it from there. (I'm not sure if that would work for older oneswhere you have to click the archive link.) Then, if I want to see the comments, I click the link for comments from there, and it works -- I can actually see them all. :eek

[dblteam]

Okay, well, I opened a second browser window, headed over to ML's main page and went about trying to find the article from there.

No luck.

So, I went back to the link from AW in my original browser window, followed that in order to find the date on the article, and lo and behold! I got the whole thing this time.

Maybe the page is just so huge (with replies and all) that it takes time to load and I wasn't patient enough.

Thanks for the quick reply, AnneMarble.

Valerie

[James D Macdonald]

For some reason, whenever I go to an article on Making Light, I can only read the the first part of what's written.

Three possible cures:

1) Hit your F11 key twice.

2) After it's shown "Loading" for a long time, hit the "back" button on your browser.

3) If you can turn off CSS in your browser for that page (I know you can do this in Opera, not sure about other browsers), do so.

[CaoPaux]

Sorry, I keep forgetting to warn folks about that little bug...just minimize/maximize your window (F11 twice on IE) and that should take care of it. Happy scrolling! :D

ETA: Yeah, what he said. :)

[snarzler]

I use Firefox (Mozilla) and have no problems.

Just FYI.

[Ralph Robert Moore]

A few months ago I developed the same problem trying to read her posts. I'd get her post, but the comments would be cut off midway. I switched from IE to Firefox, and have never had a problem since. As Theresa herself says, her guests' comments are the best part of her site. It seems like you need Firefox to read them.

Rob

[wvonwegen]

Thanks CAO,

That's a real eye-opener. Thanks.

P.S.- I got the full page to display correctly on a guest computer with Win 2000 & with my Mac, both with Explorer.

[DaveKuzminski]

How do you get the head to float?

[arainsb123]

" I use Firefox (Mozilla) and have no problems."

I do, too, and also have no problems.

I love Firefox :D

[James D. Macdonald]

The Writer's Collective. (For search purposes.)

Groundbreaking new paradigm or same-old vanity press? You decide.

[veinglory]

I have just asked a zine editor to pull a review of one of TWCs books because a TWC staff member wrote to say I would be committing libel if I refered to the book as self-published and they cannot 'allow' it, and that every mention of 'the Writers' collective' must be marked with a trademark symbol. Frankly I am not longer that worried about whether they are technically a self-publisher (or as Preds&Eds says "vanity"). I won't reprint any of the email because it is private correspondence but I conclude from both its content and tone that this is a company to stay well, well, well away from.

[Richard]

every mention of 'the Writers' collective' must be marked with a trademark symbol.

They said that? Aw, how sweet!

(THIS POST COPYRIGHT 2006, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED)

[Aconite]

Libel?! ROFL! Do they really believe this crap, or are they just trying to intimidate people, I wonder?

[Kasey Mackenzie]

Well, I'd _love_ to see them try and prove libel in a court of law. Truthful statements can't generally be used as libel, and I very seriously doubt that they could prove saying so would cause them any particular damages. Business really should read up on basic tort law before they start making stupid accusations.

[DaveKuzminski]

Seems like we don't have this one listed in the index, so I'm taking a chance that we don't have a topic for this publisher yet.

Does anyone disagree that this publisher isn't a vanity publisher based on their own information given at http://www.writerscollective.org/faq.htm? The section in particular on that page that I direct your attention to is this:
Let’s examine a few current examples and up front costs. Our authors typically pay an average of $2k-$3k for pre-press charges which include a digital galley run. Add another $10k for a 5000 copy print run (hard cover) and $5k for a publicist, and you’re up to about $18,000, paid out over the year it takes to launch the book. If all 5000 copies sold (and we only take on titles we believe will sell at least that many in the first six to twelve months), the author will net $21,920 after ALL expenses. She will break even after the sale of just 2,260 copies sold. And she will still own all the rights to her book.

The author is paying to be published, right?

[Richard]

I think I should be paid for reading all that drivel.

Once we’ve reviewed your manuscript and had a few more conversations, we may tender an offer. By that time you’ll be thoroughly versed in how we do things and what they’ll cost

Yeah, okay. Oh, and semi-related - They say:

And in a way, it was true. With self-publishing as it existed before TWC, every mistake that could be made has been made, like expensive digital runs (the often misnamed Print-On-Demand or POD) that lose money on every trade sale.

Their books page says:

Sacred Link
Joining Fortunes With The Unknown

240 pages
6 x 9 in.
$24.95

I cough.

[veinglory]

I consider them to be what I called a self-publisher. For using this phrase I was berated at length via email and threatened with legal action from the owner of TWC. For this reason I decided not to run the book review in which I used this phrase, feeling no need to provide positve press for this company. I was also chided in what I consider a patronising and aggressive tone for not putting the TM after every mention of the name TWC--which I consider an utterly ridiculous demand. Whatever the business practises of this group their owner and key representative conducts herself in an aggressive, irrational and abrassive way that leaves me feeling no good will towards them whatsoever.

added: At that time their own website refered to them as 'self-publishing'

[DaveKuzminski]

Just in case anyone's interested, this publisher came more to my attention today because they just had a lawyer send me and P&E a cease and desist. Oh my, oh my, what will I do?

Hmmm, my wife said I should use it to finish papering the wall where the others are. ;)

Any suggestions?

[veinglory]

I have no polite suggestions. I strongly advise any rational person to stay well away from this... person.

[Richard]

added: At that time their own website refered to them as 'self-publishing'

While now they don't seem to know what they are.

We’ve tried “Author-Supported” but that feels like euphemism, “Co-op” has been co-opted as a vanity option for some University and small presses, and we are nothing like 99.9% of all “subsidy” presses as they exist today. Come up with something better that means “the best of both worlds” and if we use it in our FAQ we’ll send you a check for $100 dollars.

[DaveKuzminski]

Hmmm, seeing as subsidy is another word for vanity within much of the industry today, I think they're desperately trying to avoid that label of vanity.

[veinglory]

The lady certainly doth protest.

[Richard]

...and has an article section with a heavy focus on self-publishing. I count at least three in the list.

[victoriastrauss]

They have a teeny edge over some of the other fee-based PODs because of their arrangement with Midpoint--but for most of their authors, I doubt that's a major advantage, because even if a book is easy for a bookstore to obtain, they won't obtain it if they don't know it exists.

Vanity publisher. Yeah. If I'm feeling polite, I'll call it a POD self-publishing service.

- Victoria

[James D. Macdonald]

These folks were discussed at length here:

http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/005292.html

[clara bow]

Just in case anyone's interested, this publisher came more to my attention today because they just had a lawyer send me and P&E a cease and desist. Oh my, oh my, what will I do?

Hmmm, my wife said I should use it to finish papering the wall where the others are. ;)

Any suggestions?

well, if you run out of toilet paper...

[CaoPaux]

My bad, I had 'em under "Misc.", since I didn't consider them a publisher. Here's the previous thread, FWIW: <old link snipped>

I'll herd them into Pubs. :whip:

[Sonarbabe]

Just in case anyone's interested, this publisher came more to my attention today because they just had a lawyer send me and P&E a cease and desist. Oh my, oh my, what will I do?

Hmmm, my wife said I should use it to finish papering the wall where the others are. ;)

Any suggestions?

Use it, Dave! Use it! You'll get a chuckle every time you use the bathroom and after all, it's free wallpaper! Win-win if you ask me.

Sell 2,000+ copies and you'll break even? Psssh! If I sell 2,000 copies of my book, I want it to mean that I'll cover my advance! Stinky poo-poo, if you ask me.

[DaveKuzminski]

Oh, now they're calling themselves a subsidy press. From their page at URL http://www.writerscollective.org/faq.htm:


Why would writers of quality choose TWC over traditional publishing?
Bingo. What is the real difference between “traditional” publishing, “subsidy” publishing, and publishing with The Writers’ Collective?

You’re about to read a very shocking statement. Minors should exit the room and writers with weak pens should walk away from the computer. Now. Just. Walk. Away.

Safe to go on? Okay then, here it comes:

ALL PUBLISHING IS SUBSIDY, INCLUDING TRADITIONAL PUBLISHING.

I think they're trying to soften the meaning by spreading it out.

[James D. Macdonald]

Their argument is simply this: Since without book sales publishers wouldn't be able to pay for printing, distribution, art, editorial, or advertising, the authors who write the books are subsidizing the publisher.

Therefore, it's okay for the author to subsidize the publisher directly by writing a check.

That the argument falls somewhere between codswallop and twaddle should go without saying.

[victoriastrauss]

Wow. The level of deceptiveness in that FAQ has taken a big jump since the last time I checked it out.

- Victoria

[DaveKuzminski]

Well, you have me to thank or blame for that. They changed it in the last few days because I quoted from their previous FAQ. Even though they've changed it, doesn't matter. I saved a copy. ;)

[book_maven]

codswallop

I just added a new word to my vocabulary. : )

[James D. Macdonald]

Noticeably absent from their FAQs:

How's that all working out for your authors?

[TWC]

Just in case anyone's interested, this publisher came more to my attention today because they just had a lawyer send me and P&E a cease and desist. Oh my, oh my, what will I do? Any suggestions?

Dear Dave,

What you *did* do - cease and desist labeling The Writers' Collective a vanity press, which they are not - was my suggestion, and I'm glad you took it. :)

Lisa Grant
The Writers' Collective

[TWC]

They have a teeny edge over some of the other fee-based PODs because of their arrangement with Midpoint--but for most of their authors, I doubt that's a major advantage, because even if a book is easy for a bookstore to obtain, they won't obtain it if they don't know it exists.

Victoria,

A mild correction to your misinformation:

-- None of our books are published "POD" (which is a misnomer, in any case, since it refers to a method of printing, not publishing. Random House, for instance, prints many of it's back line digitally, and on demand). The minimum run for one of our titles is 5000 copies, printed offset. Some titles have gone back for second and third print runs.

-- Having a good distributor like Midpoint doesn't merely mean a title is "available" - it means there's a fully paid sales team that sells the book into the chains and independents. Our titles are on the shelves of all the major chains, in good part thanks to Midpoint, and to our publicists, who do national campaigns for each title.

Thought you'd like to know...

Lisa Grant
The Writers' Collective

[TWC]

Well, you have me to thank or blame for that. They changed it in the last few days because I quoted from their previous FAQ.

Dave,

You did, and by misunderstanding what you read - assuming that fees (for printing, say, or cover design) go to TWC instead of going to printers, cover designers, etc. - you pointed out that we needed to add a single sentence that made clear we do not receive any money for this at all. Thank you for helping us make our FAQ clearer!

Lisa Grant
The Writers' Collective

[TWC]

I consider them to be what I called a self-publisher. For using this phrase I was berated at length via email and threatened with legal action from the owner of TWC.

Ermmm... not quite. The Writers' Collective is a hybrid publisher, but - we *are* the publisher of record of the work in question. You were berated - if you want to call pointing out your error by email berating - because you confused the *author* of the book as the publisher. It was carefully explained to you that the author was NOT the book's publisher, that the author's name was NOT listed on the copyright page as the publisher, that the author had NOT registered the ISBN number as publisher, but that in all of those instances, The Writers' Collective WAS the publisher.

That you chose not to correct your error and not publish the review of a work you say you admired speaks volumes more about you than it does TWC.

Lisa Grant
The Writers' Collective

[Tilly]

So, the Writers' Collective is not recommended by P&E.
And with them, you have to pay to be published.

That sounds pretty clear.:D

[TWC]

How's that all working out for your authors?

Quite well, and thank you for asking. We're only a small press - a dozen titles published last year - but we paid our authors nearly $120,000.00 in royalties in 2005. Nothing compared to Harper Collins, of course, but not bad for such a small house.

Lisa Grant
The Writers' Collective

[TWC]

Their books page says:

Sacred Link
Joining Fortunes With The Unknown

240 pages
6 x 9 in.
$24.95

I cough.

Richard,

Please accept a hankie and my condolences if you believe $24.50 is an excessive price for a HARD COVER - or did you somehow miss that information on the page? One of our softcover titles of that size would be about $15.95 of course, which is standard these days.

Lisa Grant
The Writers' Collective

[TWC]

Their argument is simply this: Since without book sales publishers wouldn't be able to pay for printing, distribution, art, editorial, or advertising, the authors who write the books are subsidizing the publisher. Therefore, it's okay for the author to subsidize the publisher directly by writing a check.

I believe that is your argument.

My argument is that the cost of advance, printing, design, editing and sending out galleys is included in each and every spread sheet a publisher creates before making an offer - and that every penny of that money is recouped by the publisher - from royalties they would otherwise pay an author, if the book sells what the spreadsheet predicts it will sell.

So yes, an author can take no risk, lay out no money, and if the book does not do well, keep all the advance. No question.

But if a book does better than expected, it is not the author but the publisher who benefits most. Because the publisher took all the risk and laid out all the money, they get to keep almost all the profit, and "profit" isn't considered that until they have recouped ALL the money they've expended.

So yes, an author can and will make more money if they pay for the printing themselves - if the book is a success. That is my "argument" - and since we've now proven it to be true, by having successfully selling books and paying authors far more for those sales than we pay ourselves, those who choose to dissent may still do so, but I hope they will do it with facts, not opinion.

Lisa Grant
The Writers' Collective

[Tilly]

So, we can go with the Writers' Collective and pay to be published.

Or we can seek commercial publishers who don't ask their writers to pay, but pay them.

Yog's law: Money flows towards the writer.

[Aconite]

So yes, an author can take no risk, lay out no money, and if the book does not do well, keep all the advance. No question.

But if a book does better than expected, it is not the author but the publisher who benefits most. Because the publisher took all the risk and laid out all the money, they get to keep almost all the profit, and "profit" isn't considered that until they have recouped ALL the money they've expended.Your explanation appears to leave out royalties beyond the advance, though.

[TWC]

Your explanation appears to leave out royalties beyond the advance.

What I meant by:

"...an author can take no risk, lay out no money, and if the book does not do well, keep all the advance."

is that:

If a book doesn't do well - let alone "pay back" the advance, which as you know is required before royalties will be paid - there will be no royalties. Just the advance. And which accounts for, by the way, according to Publisher's Weekly - a whopping 90% of all newly published titles.

According to PW, less than 10% of newly published titles will ever "pay back" the advance and earn royalties. Given that fact, and completely disfunctional industry in which bookstores don't "buy" books, they just take them on consignment, wholesalers that pay publishers nearly six months after books are sold, a retailer like Amazon that demands wholesaler discounts, a returns rate approaching 50% for mass market and 35% for trade, it's no small wonder that small bookstores and presses are fast disappearing. Even while the number of titles published annually goes through the roof. PW estimates roughly 250,000 new titles in 2005/2006 alone.

But I digress.

If a book does do well, if it "pays back" the advance and sells even more copies than that, there will be royalties of course, but the *amount* of those royalties are calculated to be small enough such that the publisher will recoup all expenses for publishing the book from the sales amount that the publisher - not the author - keeps.

Hope this is clearer.

Lisa Grant
The Writers' Collective

[Tilly]

This is funny.

You claim you are a publisher that has shifted all the financial risk to the writer. And you seem to think we’ll see this as a good idea.

All the risk of self-publishing, none of the advantages of commercial publishing.

[James D. Macdonald]

You say you've paid $120,000 in royalties. That's great!

How much have the authors themselves paid out? Greater than or less than $120,000?

As I'm sure you're aware, an advance is an advance "against royalties." That is to say, that initial check is, itself, a royalty check. All that it means when a book doesn't earn out is that the author has been paid at a higher-than-contracted-for royalty rate.

[Aconite]

If a book does do well, if it "pays back" the advance and sells even more copies than that, there will be royalties of course, but the *amount* of those royalties are calculated to be small enough such that the publisher will recoup all expenses for publishing the book from the sales amount that the publisher - not the author - keeps.Okay, so what you're saying is that the publisher keeps enough of the gross profit to pay back the expenses of publishing the book. Doesn't that only make sense? That's how net profit is calculated--gross profit minus expenses. If your authors are paying the expenses of publishing, and getting a higher royalty in return, they're doing exactly the same thing--seeing net profit once expenses have been subtracted from gross profit.

[TWC]

You claim you are a publisher...

We don't claim to be a publisher. We _are_ a publisher.

that has shifted all the financial risk to the writer.

And _shifted most of the profit to the writer_ to repay them for that risk.

And you seem to think we’ll see this as a good idea.

I doubt that anyone here will see this as a good idea. And that's fine. Those who are risk adverse should leave the risk-taking to folks who are comfortable with it. Like us, for example. Unlike a subsidy press as Dave K. (and I guess most here) sees it, TWC derives its income from the sales of books, not fees.

But as I'm sure you know it takes 1-2 years to bring out a book from point of ms. acceptance to launch. In that intervening time we act as _unpaid_ project manager - overseeing all editing, interior design, indexing, sales kits, cover design, etc. - and unpaid supervisor to all our freelancers. If we're successful at what we do, the book will sell and we'll cover our risk and expenses of those two years. If we're not, that's time and money forever lost.

All the risk of self-publishing, none of the advantages of commercial publishing.

All the risk? No. As explained above, we take quite a bit of risk as well. It's not possible to bring out a commercially viable trade book without excellent editing, good design and a great cover. We work long and hard to ensure that each of our titles has all that in spades.

None of the advantages of commercial publishing? In what way, exactly? Our books are reviewed by major media including NY Times and Library Journal. Our books have a paid sales staff for advance sales into the chains, libraries and independents. Walmart, et al, too. Our books are on the shelves of the chains and are fully returnable. Our authors all have national campaigns with reputable publicists - one of whom does PR for the NY Times Magazine. If there's some other "advantage of commercial publishing" that we're missing, I'd very much appreciate your letting me know.

Lisa Grant
The Writers' Collective

[TWC]

Okay, so what you're saying is that the publisher keeps enough of the gross profit to pay back the expenses of publishing the book. Doesn't that only make sense? That's how net profit is calculated--gross profit minus expenses. If your authors are paying the expenses of publishing, and getting a higher royalty in return, they're doing exactly the same thing--seeing net profit once expenses have been subtracted from gross profit.

Ah... you're finally on the right track. Yes, authors who pay the expenses of publishing and who get a higher royalty in return ARE doing *exactly* the same thing as "traditional" publishers! Our business model allows them to do just that.

Where the spreadsheet gets interesting is *after* those initial expenses are repaid.

In the case of a traditional publisher who pays 8-10% royalties, they *continue* to pay only that (or in the case of a best-seller, a bit more based on volume) - in which case almost all the sales after break even are wildly profitable. For them.

In the case of an author who has paid the costs and sold enough to "break even" - in other words, paid back those costs - then all those wildly profitable sales after the break even point are theirs. Not the publisher's.

And that is exactly my argument in our FAQ. If you believe your book will just break even or less, by all means have someone else take the risk and lay out the bucks. You will definitely be ahead if you're correct.

If however you believe you will sell many more copies than you need to break even, then you will make far more money if you take the risk and pay those costs yourself.

Either way, the person/company laying out the bucks gets ALL those bucks back if the book sells just enough to break even. And the number of copies required to do that is far fewer than our initial print runs. Which is why we only take on books that we believe will sell a minimum of 5000 copies. Since we give 80% of the net (after wholesale/distribution discounts) to the author, and keep only 20% of the net ourselves, and since we put in a year or two of unpaid labor on each title, we'd never make anything if we didn't sell that many copies.

Lisa Grant
The Writers' Collective

[Tilly]

We don't claim to be a publisher. We _are_ a publisher.

Your authors pay to be published. That puts you in a certain category of 'publishers'. I more regard those as 'middle-men between you and a printer, who takes a cut'. Some are fairly honest, some are downright deceptive. Mostly they're a bad idea.



And _shifted most of the profit to the writer_ to repay them for that risk.

How much profit do your authors make, on average?
How many make no profit?



TWC derives its income from the sales of books, not fees.

But I thought your authors got 100% royalties? You say that on the Making Light thread. So where is your cut coming from?


But as I'm sure you know it takes 1-2 years to bring out a book from point of ms. acceptance to launch. In that intervening time we act as _unpaid_ project manager - overseeing all editing, interior design, indexing, sales kits, cover design, etc. - and unpaid supervisor to all our freelancers. If we're successful at what we do, the book will sell and we'll cover our risk and expenses of those two years. If we're not, that's time and money forever lost.

This is my convinced face. See, I believe you. Honest.



All the risk? No. As explained above, we take quite a bit of risk as well. It's not possible to bring out a commercially viable trade book without excellent editing, good design and a great cover. We work long and hard to ensure that each of our titles has all that in spades.[QUOTE]

The authors pay. They're the ones taking the risk, not you.

Your authors pay to be published.

[QUOTE]None of the advantages of commercial publishing? In what way, exactly?

Well, for example, the publisher paying for editing, copy editing, proof reading, ARCs, cover art, printing, publicity etc. etc. etc.
With you, the writer has the joyous delight of paying for the whole publishing experience. Woohoo!! But unlike true self-publishing, somewhere along the line, you're getting a cut.

Our books have a paid sales staff for advance sales into the chains, libraries and independents. Walmart, et al, too.

And who pays for this?

Our books are on the shelves of the chains and are fully returnable. Our authors all have national campaigns with reputable publicists - one of whom does PR for the NY Times Magazine. If there's some other "advantage of commercial publishing" that we're missing, I'd very much appreciate your letting me know.


Spreading the risk.

Your authors must be spending quite an enormous amount of money. I hope they feel your cut was worth whatever value you added to the experience.

[mdin]

I'm too lazy to read all this. What's the bottom line?

How much does the average author shell out?

[Tilly]

I'm having real problems reconciling this:

And so we pay 100% royalties

and this:

We began at an initial dues rate of $175, but it was our own members who told us we were giving away far too much for far too little, so we've had two small raises in two years - though our renewal rate has remained the same.

with this:

TWC derives its income from the sales of books, not fees.

[TWC]

You say you've paid $120,000 in royalties. That's great!

Thank you. We think so too. And that was just this past year. Last year and the year before was pretty good as well. Not so much before then, as we did not yet have major distribution.

How much have the authors themselves paid out? Greater than or less than $120,000?

Which authors? The ones whose books launched in early 2005 and who have actually been paid for sales already made - since as I'm sure you know publishers don't see a bean from wholesalers or distributors for nearly six months after sales? The authors whose books launched in late 2005, for whose sales we have yet to be paid? The authors who broke even in 2005 and who will become profitable in 2006 and/or 2007?

It would be a grand world for publishers indeed if we sold an entire run of every title months after we printed them, or if we got paid for sales 30 days after we made them, but as you know, it doesn't work that way.

As I'm sure you're aware, an advance is an advance "against royalties." That is to say, that initial check is, itself, a royalty check. All that it means when a book doesn't earn out is that the author has been paid at a higher-than-contracted-for royalty rate.

You are absolutely correct, but if a book doesn't "earn back" the advance with sales, I believe most authors think of it as "keeping the advance" rather than "keeping a higher-than-contracted-for royalty rate."

Lisa Grant
The Writers' Collective

[roach]

*puts on her pedantic beret*

In a debate over what term best describes The Writer's Collective I find it irksome that the meaningless phrase "traditional publisher" keeps getting bandied about. Even worse it is a term coined by a company* to hide the fact that it is a vanity press from its customers. "Commercial publisher" is far more accurate.

*removes the beret and returns to lurking*

*PublishAmerica

[mdin]

Which authors? The ones whose books launched in early 2005 and who have actually been paid for sales already made ... ?


So your answer is "more than $120,000?"

[TWC]

I'm having real problems reconciling this:
Originally Posted by Lisa Grant on Making Light
And so we pay 100% royalties....... etc.

I'm not surprised. When that (and the rest your quotes from me) was written (years ago, before we had major distribution and could sell books in the tens of thousands of copies), it was true. We charged a small membership fee and paid 100% royalties.

Once we landed a major distributor - who demanded commercial covers, editing, interior design, etc., whose creation we had to supervise - that became impractical. We were starting to sell a lot of books, and the only way to be compensated for the time spent helping to create them was to take a share of the royalties. I make no apologies for having grown and evolved as a company.

As to your argument that traditionally published authors have a "commercial advantage" over our authors because traditionally published authors don't pay for editing, etc. and ours do - I'm sorry, but I disagree. Aside from your argument being circular, I believe that traditionally published authors of successful books do pay every penny for their book's publication. They just pay it after the fact instead of up front.

You disagree with this. You're entitled to your opinion.

As to how many of our authors have made a profit, I am pleased to say that as of now (and I can only speak for now, since unlike traditional publishers we don't pull the plug and remainder or pulp a year after publication if a book is taking time to reach an audience - so sales can continue indefinitely) about 50% of our titles have not only broken even but has made a profit. A far better ratio than the 10% of overall titles PW cites. An even greater percentage has *just* broken even.

That's what taking a risk MEANS. And it's not for everyone; clearly it's not for you. We not only do NOT guarantee our authors that they will be profitable (any more than Random House guarantees authors that they will be a best-seller), we try very hard to discourage 99% of everyone who submits a ms. to us, and we certainly tell the 1% whose ms. we love that selling books in this country today - for everyone, Random House included - is a crap shoot. Hell, talk to any VP of any major publishing house as I did at last year's BEA, and they'll tell you the same thing themselves. All you can do is everything right: great editing, covers, advance sales force, national campaign, etc. There are no guarantees in this business that any of it will work.

But those of our authors who have already become profitable, have become very profitable indeed. More so than if they'd gone with a traditional publisher. Which is my point, and for them if not you, the only one that matters.

Lisa Grant
The Writers' Collective

[Tilly]

As to your argument that traditionally published authors have a "commercial advantage" over our authors because traditionally published authors don't pay for editing, etc. and ours do - I'm sorry, but I disagree. Aside from your argument being circular, I believe that traditionally published authors of successful books do pay every penny for their book's publication. They just pay it after the fact instead of up front.

Nope, not my argument. A commercially published author has many advantages over self-published authors. Not least, they are not taking on all the financial risk of publishing a book.

Your authors pay to be published. They take on the financial risk of someone self-publishing. And you take a cut.


But those of our authors who have already become profitable, have become very profitable indeed. More so than if they'd gone with a traditional publisher. Which is my point, and for them if not you, the only one that matters.



We only have your word for that.
Not only do your authors pay to be published and take on the risks of self-publishing, they have to take the risk that you're telling the truth. How can you possibly know that they wouldn't have made more with a commercial publisher? The author's book may well have sold far more copies with a commercial publisher, and the author may have made more money.

[TWC]

A commercially published author has many advantages over self-published authors. Not least, they are not taking on all the financial risk of publishing a book.

Yes, you've said that. Our authors pay. According to you, traditionally published authors don't pay. In my opinion, they do. We've got that disagreement down pat. But what you haven't said is that aside from who lays out the money first (or, according to you, at all), what are the 'many advantages' traditionally published authors enjoy that ours do not?

Your authors pay to be published.

Our authors pay the cost to be published up front. Yes.

They take on the financial risk of someone self-publishing.

They take on about 80% of the risk. We take on the other 20%.

And you take a cut.

They get 80% of all sales - we get 20% of all sales.

I wrote:

"But those of our authors who have already become profitable, have become very profitable indeed. More so than if they'd gone with a traditional publisher. Which is my point, and for them if not you, the only one that matters."

We only have your word for that. The author's book may well have sold far more copies with a commercial publisher, and the author may have made more money.

Yep. Or they may have sold fewer copies and made less money. Or sold more copies and made less money. One thing I can safely state about the unknown - neither you nor I will ever know it.

I didn't come on these boards to convince anyone to head on over our way; lord knows I don't need any more manuscripts to go through, and I don't expect any regular on this board to agree with me. It's clear that your minds are made up, and that you all think very little of what I've tried to accomplish with TWC, and less than that about me personally.

That's fine. My main purpose in writing so much today was mainly to clear up rank falsehoods - that we are a "POD Publisher" for instance, or that we're a vanity press, or that we make our income from fees instead of from book sales - and to leave posts that visitors to this forum can read, so that they can decide for themselves what may be good or bad for them.

As it happens we are winding down (for now) our new title selection, and moving on to Phase II of our business plan, which is to create a very unique distribution system that will end consignment 'buying' (and boy do I use that term loosely), and forever end returns for the publishers whose titles we take on. And as we've also just landed a major European and Asian distributor for our current titles, we'll just continue business as usual, and sell a few more tens of thousands of copies - until we launch the new distribution system and move into the millions of copies sold.

Which I'm sure you won't believe.

Wishing you the very best as well...

Lisa Grant
The Writers' Collective

[Tilly]

No, commercially published authors don't pay to be published. They get paid. That's not a difference of opinion, it's a fact.

I don't think we're under any misconceptions about your business and its model.

According to your FAQ:

Let’s examine a few current examples and up front costs. Our authors typically pay an average of $2k-$3k for pre-press charges which include a digital galley run. Add another $10k for a 5000 copy print run (hard cover) and $5k for a publicist, and you’re up to about $18,000, paid out over the year it takes to launch the book.

[NOTE: These costs are all paid directly to the various printers and publicists involved; none is paid to TWC]

http://www.writerscollective.org/faq.htm

Those are examples of costs. And those costs are not paid to TWC.

To recap:

You are not recommended on P&E.

Your authors pay to be published. And from your FAQ, they pay a lot.

[victoriastrauss]

You did, and by misunderstanding what you read - assuming that fees (for printing, say, or cover design) go to TWC instead of going to printers, cover designers, etc. - you pointed out that we needed to add a single sentence that made clear we do not receive any money for this at all.So...you're doing it gratis? Really? What about the $2-3 K in pre-press charges mentioned in your FAQ? To whom does that go?

I can't figure out the royalty situation. What does "authors make 100% royalties" mean? What royalty percentage do you actually pay?

There's a logical fallacy in your arguments. On the one hand, you point out that according to PW, only 10% of newly-published books sell enough copies to earn out their advances. On the other hand, you suggest that authors who use your services can make much more money than they can with commercial publishers. But if the situation overall is really so dire for new titles, why would yours do any better? Do your books really outsell the industry average? Or are writers actually taking a big financial risk with your company--a risk that has a high likelihood of not panning out?

Also--you say your authors break even at 2,260 copies sold. Thereafter, they start making money at a faster rate than with commercial publishers. But since commercial publishers pay advances, your authors would have to sell quite a bit more than 2,260 books to be better off than commercially published authors.

Can you tell us how many of your authors have sold 2,260 copies?

- Victoria

[James D. Macdonald]

Quote:
Originally Posted by James D. Macdonald
How much have the authors themselves paid out? Greater than or less than $120,000?



Which authors?


How about the authors who made that $120,000 and those in their cohort?

As I'm sure your aware most sales are made by a few books. Speaking of averages can be misleading. How much does your typical author pay? How much does your typical author realize? How many sales does your typical author make?

[Mac H.]

It seems that this discussion is a little confused by the fact people keep quoting old royalty amounts.

As far as I understand it:
* TWC published a dozen titles published in 2005
* The current royalty paid is 80% (So all money is split 80:20 between the author and TWC)
* In 2005, the money paid to authors was a bit under $120k
* TWC derives its income from the sales of books, not fees.
* TWC is not POD. They use offset printing with a minimum print run of 5000.

All are these facts are true, accurate and up-to-date. (As they came straight from TWC posts a moment ago)

That sounds pretty good. I'd be happy with that.

However, combining these facts means that if the authors earned $120k for the year, the TWC only got $30k for the entire year.

That means that they are running an entire publishing outfit for less than the salary of a single employee! (And that's even before costs of running a business). Remember - they don't have any income from fees.

That IS impressive! How does TWC not go bankrupt?

Mac
(PS: These figures were taken from TWC's posts of this thread so I'm avoiding using out of date figures.
(PPS: Another point: The author (not the publisher) pays for the printing of the books.)

[TWC]

So...you're doing it gratis?

Victoria,

If by "it" you mean publishing books, then no - of course we're not doing it for free. We get 20% of the net (after wholesale and distribution discounts) of each sale. The author gets 80%.

What about the $2-3 K in pre-press charges mentioned in your FAQ? To whom does that go?

Pre-press charges consist of editing, cover design, typesetting, etc. The money goes *directly* (not through us) to the editor, cover designer, typesetter, etc. As the FAQ succinctly states (thanks to Dave's initial misunderstanding of it): NONE OF THE MONEY SPENT TO PUBLISH A BOOK GOES TO TWC. As in... none. Zero. And by the way, to answer someone else's question about who pays the sales staff - all reps in the book industry (whether in-house for a huge publisher or on the staff of a major distributor) work on commission. If our distribution sales reps do not sell our books into the chains and indies, etc. - they don't get paid. Neither does the distributor, since under our contract we pay no warehousing or shipping fees, etc.

Yet, and this is important - we spend a year or two preparing each title for publication (which is why we're so choosy about taking on a title; it's a lot of up front, unpaid work for each one!). That's a lot of time and effort for which we are NOT paid. We do ALL the project management, co-ordinating with all the freelancers, distributor, wholesalers, etc. - and all the paperwork (small publishers out there will know how much that is!) too.

And we don't make a dime unless we've chosen our title wisely, worked liked dogs to get out a great book that sells - and then we only see some money at least six months after a book goes to print. The money we do get can take years to come in, if a book sells slowly.

There's a logical fallacy in your arguments. On the one hand, you point out that according to PW, only 10% of newly-published books sell enough copies to earn out their advances. On the other hand, you suggest that authors who use your services can make much more money than they can with commercial publishers.

IF the book is a success. If it's not, we clearly state in our FAQ that an author is better off with a traditional publisher if they can get one, because with them they will make some money (though their book will be dead) and with us they will lose money in that case. It really is important for all authors to do risk assessment and spreadsheets, which we encourage, and unlike traditional publishers we try hard to teach them the business side of the business. That's why 99% of all authors who submit to us, who we reject, say that the conversation we have with them is a "major reality check." As well it should be.

We talk about the need to know their _real_ target market. The need for a national PR campaign - and eternal promotion after that (we've developed some unique and successful ways to do that, which we share with our authors). We emphasize that writing the book was the easy part: selling it is the hard part. That it's a huge risk. That they'll need to sell half their run just to break even and that there are no guarantees. A talk that every publisher should have with every potential author - but do not, which is what helps to lead, in my opinion, to that dismal 90% failure rate. A GREAT BOOK ISN'T ENOUGH ANYMORE TO GUARANTEE SUCCESS. Authors need to work their butts off to help sell those books.

Any author with a great ms. and not needing smelling salts at that point is a possible candidate for publication, because what I've learned over the years is that only an author smart enough to know the odds and tough enough to be willing to work hard for years after publication is someone likely to sell. And may be worth taking the 1 to 2 year unpaid risk we must take on them because they are someone who will help us help them beat the odds. And yes, we have beaten those 90/10 industry-wide odds, and now perhaps you understand why. We don't just toss spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.

Lisa Grant
The Writers' Collective

[TWC]

It seems that this discussion is a little confused by the fact people keep quoting old royalty amounts.

As far as I understand it:
* TWC published a dozen titles published in 2005
* The current royalty paid is 80% (So all money is split 80:20 between the author and TWC)
* In 2005, the money paid to authors was a bit under $120k
* TWC derives its income from the sales of books, not fees.

All are these facts are true, accurate and up-to-date. (As they came straight from TWC posts a moment ago)

That sounds pretty good. I'd be happy with that.

However, combining these facts means that if the authors earned $120k for the year, the TWC only got $30k for the entire year.

That means that they are running an entire publishing outfit for less than the salary of a single employee! (And that's even before costs of running a business). Remember - they don't have any income from fees.

That IS impressive! How does TWC not go bankrupt?

Mac
(PS: These figures were taken from TWC's posts of this thread so I'm avoiding using out of date figures)

Mac,

Someone with a calculator! I'm impressed. :) Yep - that $30,000 is so close to what we made (and mostly spent in expenses) it's eerie. How do we not go bankrupt? Easy. We're still small enough that after learning Excel at an age when a lot of women are learning to knit, I do the royalty statements myself. Ditto for learning enough about great editing, cover design and typesetting to do the supervision over same - and remember, those good folks are paid directly by the author, not us.

The first two years of building the company I held a full-time job in addition to doing this. The last three years the company has made enough to pay my basic expenses, though I still do not receive a paycheck. I'm thrifty (still driving my 1990 Dodge), don't need much in life besides the satisfaction of a job well done, and the company is in the black. It's been in the black for the last three years, a fact of which I'm very proud.

My goal for the first phase was to create a new way to successfully publish books without going broke or dipping too much into my retirement fund (I started TWC on my own, without a dime in loans), and I've done that. My goal for the second phase (soon to come) is to create a new way to sell and distribute books - not just ours, but major publishers' books too - and I plan to make a boatload of money doing that. I tend to be a long term, 10-year plan thinker, and I intend to use what I've learned about current industry weaknesses to build a better mousetrap.

I understand the cynicism of our times all too well: who the hell would work for five years with no paycheck or big bucks? Who would not want to scam writers if given a chance? Who does things any more just because they feel it's the right thing to do? If your answer is "no one" - then it's easy to understand all the hostility and disbelief on boards like this - and I do understand it. I just refuse to let it get to me, or indulge in the same cynicism myself. I'm convinced it's why I continue to look ten years younger than I am - or so I'm told. {g}

Lisa Grant
The Writers' Collective

[Tilly]

Yet, and this is important - we spend a year or two preparing each title for publication (which is why we're so choosy about taking on a title; it's a lot of up front, unpaid work for each one!). That's a lot of time and effort for which we are NOT paid. We do ALL the project management, co-ordinating with all the freelancers, distributor, wholesalers, etc. - and all the paperwork (small publishers out there will know how much that is!) too.
:e2violin:


And we don't make a dime unless we've chosen our title wisely, worked liked dogs to get out a great book that sells - and then we only see some money at least six months after a book goes to print. The money we do get can take years to come in, if a book sells slowly.

You do paperwork. You 'coordinate'. Uhuh.
But you're terribly risk adverse. It's your authors who invest spectacular amounts of money to get published with you.

IF the book is a success. If it's not, we clearly state in our FAQ that an author is better off with a traditional publisher if they can get one,

If they can get one? But you only take the best! That small percentage of the slush pile. Just like commercial publishers. Except they take on the financial risk.

because with them they will make some money (though their book will be dead) and with us they will lose money in that case.

If an author goes with a commercial publisher and the book tanks, it's a shame. But with you, the author has lost a huge amount of money. Because you pass all the financial risk to your authors.

That's why 99% of all authors who submit to us, who we reject, say that the conversation we have with them is a "major reality check." As well it should be.

I'll bet 99% won't be able to afford the cost of publishing with you.

Do authors get to choose their editors, or do they have to go with one you select or from a list you've selected? Can they choose their own publicist, any publicist, or do they have to go with one you've chosen or from a few you've chosen?
Have you heard of Edit Ink?

We talk about the need to know their _real_ target market. The need for a national PR campaign - and eternal promotion after that (we've developed some unique and successful ways to do that, which we share with our authors). We emphasize that writing the book was the easy part: selling it is the hard part. That it's a huge risk. That they'll need to sell half their run just to break even and that there are no guarantees. A talk that every publisher should have with every potential author - but do not, which is what helps to lead, in my opinion, to that dismal 90% failure rate. A GREAT BOOK ISN'T ENOUGH ANYMORE TO GUARANTEE SUCCESS. Authors need to work their butts off to help sell those books.

Well, yes. Because your authors are self-publishing. Except, instead of truly self-publishing, they're going through you. So you can take your cut.

Any author with a great ms. and not needing smelling salts at that point is a possible candidate for publication, because what I've learned over the years is that only an author smart enough to know the odds and tough enough to be willing to work hard for years after publication is someone likely to sell. And may be worth taking the 1 to 2 year unpaid risk we must take on them because they are someone who will help us help them beat the odds. And yes, we have beaten those 90/10 industry-wide odds, and now perhaps you understand why. We don't just toss spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.


Self-publishing is always risky. It's always hard. It's always expensive. In a tiny percentage of cases it can work.
I don't see why your authors should be paying you 20% of royalties when they're taking all the financial risk. It sounds like your authors would be better off truly self-publishing.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=87654&dict=CALD


vanity press noun [C]
a publishing company where writers pay to have their books produced

[victoriastrauss]

Lisa, I know it seems we're being hard on you here. We do tend to be very skeptical of pay-to-play publishing arrangements, for obvious reasons. But I think that at least some of the tone of the responses you're receiving is a result of your own defensive and rather condescending tone. I think, also, that many of us are genuinely puzzled as to the details of your business model. Over the course of this discussion, you've made things much clearer than they were--but the information has been given piecemeal, which makes it harder to assess (thanks, Mac, for putting it all together in your last post).

Your business model has changed a lot since your startup. I hadn't taken a close look at it since the changes, and for that I apologize. Your covers are attractive, and the books seem to be competitively priced; you seem to be actively working to market and distribute them. You're obviously passionate about TWC. And you're smart, I think, to concentrate on nonfiction. All good.

But I still think that large parts of your FAQ are deceptive.

You say that commercial publishers recoup their expenses "directly from the profit the author could have otherwise reaped had she published the book herself. In other words, the author paid for the cover design, the printing and the galleys herself; she just paid for it over time in the form of low royalties, as if she’d charged the items on a credit card instead of paying cash up front." But this is nonsense, and not just because, in fact, the author didn't charge the items to a credit card. First, it ignores the important issue of risk. The publisher will reap the lion's share of the profits if there are profits, but it will also absorb all the losses if the book doesn't succeed. Later on in the FAQ, you talk about diversifying risk, meaning that you pass a big portion of it to the author--but one of the important benefits of commercial publishing is that risk is not diversified. It's borne by the publisher.

Second, this is imaginary money. "Profits the author could have reaped" means nothing. In fact, few self-published books ever recoup their expenses, let alone make a profit. And you yourself have pointed out that 90% of all new titles don't earn out their advances. As Jim noted, that actually means a higher royalty rate for the author; what it also means is that there aren't too many books out there that are making big bucks--for anyone.

Yet you hold out the dream of big profits. "Let’s return to the 80,000 sold copies ($24.95 hard cover) as an example. The traditionally published author earning a 10% of retail royalty ($2.40), and who received a $10,000 advance, would net $182,000. Great! A TWC author selling the same number of books would, after ALL pre-press expenses, PR and print runs, net approximately $407,000. Don’t know about you, but I call that better." Sure--but didn't you just say that 90% of all titles don't earn out their advances? So isn't there a 90% chance that the commercially published author with the $10,000 advance will sell less than the 4,166 copies required to recoup his advance? Won't it be the same for the TWC author, who is subject to the same market forces as anyone else? Sure, the TWC author would make a profit IF he sold as many as 4,000 copies. But holding out that $407,000 figure (or even the $21,900 figure you invoke later on) is the same sort of "look how much money you can make!" sales pitch that deceptive vanity publishers use to entice potential customers. Unlike those publishers, you don't entirely ignore the issue of risk--but you do downplay it. Nowhere in your FAQ do I see an admission of what's got to be the case--that at least some authors who pay to publish with you will lose money.

I don't have a problem with your business model, as you've described it (though as with most pay-to-play publishing endeavors, I wouldn't recommend it for most writers). I do, however, have a problem with your presentation. I think it would be possible to make the case for TWC without the misleading comparisons and the make-big-money come-on, and with the addition of a realistic discussion of risk.

- Victoria

[Rambling]

I can’t resist playing with numbers, even when it’s all theoretical, so here’s what I could do with what I had.

On an initial print run of 7500
Book price: $12.00

In both cases, let’s assume 50% goes to booksellers, wholesalers, shipping, etc. Let’s make another assumption, that the costs for both runs are identical - $18 000.

Royalty with commercial publisher: 10% - $1.20 per book, with an advance for 5000 copies sold - $6000.

‘Cut’ with collective: 40% - $4.80 per book, with an initial outlay of $18 000.

Now, we know from countless articles that about 20% of first novels sell more than their advances, 40% sell close to their advances, and 40% do worse. Let’s assume some sort of bell distribution for ten average first time novels:

..................Commercial...............Collect ive
Books sold..Author....Publisher......Author.....Publishe r
1000...........6000.....-18000..........-13200.....1200
2000...........6000.....-12000...........-8400.....2400
3000...........6000......-6000...........-3600.....3600
3500...........6000......-3000...........-1200.....4200
4000...........6000............0............1200.. ...4800
4500...........6000.......3000............3600.... .5400
4750...........6000.......4500............4800.... .5700
5000...........6000.......6000............6000.... .6000
6000...........7200.....10800...........10800..... 7200
7500...........9000.....18000...........18000..... 9000

So, presuming that the collective is just as effective as a commercial publisher at selecting and marketing their books -

40% of authors will lose money.
40% will make less or the same money than with commercial publishing.
20% will make more money than with commercial publishing.

If you spot any flaws, or can firm up any of my assumptions, please let me know!

[DaveKuzminski]

In case Lisa believes she won and convinced P&E to list her company as a subsidy printer, I suggest she look up how many within the industry view subsidy by definition. There's one posted at http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=504234#post504234 . P&E had no problem replacing "vanity" with "subsidy" since they're virtually synonymous. In fact, P&E views subsidy as worse than vanity because many subsidy publishers make it appear that they actually put their own money at risk when all they did was raise the overall price to cover their alleged contribution. You wanted TWC to be listed in a poorer category, Lisa, you got it.

[HapiSofi]

My argument is that the cost of advance, printing, design, editing and sending out galleys is included in each and every spread sheet a publisher creates before making an offer - and that every penny of that money is recouped by the publisher - from royalties they would otherwise pay an author, if the book sells what the spreadsheet predicts it will sell.No. Those costs are paid out of general funds. They are not subtracted from the author's royalties.

Why should anyone believe you when you make such basic errors?

Such costs are abstractly estimated when we're calculating how much of an advance we can offer. And if there are unexpected additional costs -- reshooting a cover transparency, taking the text through an additional correction pass, doing an extra publicity mailing, redoing the spine die -- the publisher covers them. They're not subtracted from the author's earnings.But if a book does better than expected, it is not the author but the publisher who benefits most.It depends on the contract. If I were going to be indiscreet, I could tell you about a very successful series of books that earn the publisher almost nothing. The author's making far more than the publisher.Because the publisher took all the risk and laid out all the money, they get to keep almost all the profit,Our profit margins are very narrow. Meanwhile, the author's percent of the take on each copy holds steady. And if the sales get high enough, escalator clauses kick in, at which point the royalty percentages increase. The only additional profits that accrue to the publisher come from lower per-unit costs due to printing so many copies at once.and "profit" isn't considered that until they have recouped ALL the money they've expended.Aha, aha, you faker! You think royalties are paid on net. They aren't, unless the books are computer manuals or travel guides. All the rest have their royalties paid as a set percentage of the cover price. It doesn't matter whether the publisher makes a profit. If the book sells, the author gets their percentage.So yes, an author can and will make more money if they pay for the printing themselves - if the book is a success. That is my "argument" - and since we've now proven it to be true, by having successfully selling books and paying authors far more for those sales than we pay ourselves, those who choose to dissent may still do so, but I hope they will do it with facts, not opinion.Thou fraud, thou professed grifter and con artist, thou.

You want facts, not opinions? Fine. Tell me how you print and warehouse your books. Tell me about your distribution system, and how you handle fulfillment and returns. Because if you can't do that, you're talking through your hat when you say you're successfully selling books.

C'mon, Lisa. Show me the numbers.

[James D. Macdonald]

Lisa, in her recent flurry of replies, somehow neglected to answer my questions, which were in a direct response to her questions to me.

In a sense of helpfulness, I repost for her convenience:



How much have the authors themselves paid out? Greater than or less than $120,000?



Which authors?


How about the authors who made that $120,000 and those in their cohort?

As I'm sure you're aware most sales are made by a few books. Speaking of averages can be misleading. How much does your typical author pay? How much does your typical author realize? How many sales does your typical author make?

[victoriastrauss]

Lisa seems to have left the building.

- Victoria

[HapiSofi]

Lisa seems to have left the building.Hmmmmf. No stamina.

[eqb]

Hmmmmf. No stamina.

Was it something we said? :)

[Aconite]

I hear it happens to a lot of, er, organizations.

[Kasey Mackenzie]

I just want to know if TWC is gonna sue herself for excluding the trademark symbol every time she uses the term "The Writer's Collective *coughTMcough*?

:wag:

[MartyKay]

Should I bother getting popcorn?

:popcorn:

[CaoPaux]

Nah, Lisa's gone. Kinda odd that she appeared right after the Triumvirate (Victoria, Hapi, & Jim) announced they were heading out of town, though. I wonder if she thought no one was minding the store? :cool:

[Euan H.]

If I were going to be indiscreet, I could tell you about a very successful series of books that earn the publisher almost nothing.
Please. Enquiring minds, and all that. :)

[PsychySensei]

I always wondered why Lisa Grant never published her own book, "The Last Bastion." It was listed on her site for years with an ever-changing release date and then just vanished.

TWC did indeed offer print-on-demand, they had two printers when they first started, one being Fidlar-Doubleday. They also stated on their site that they were a company that assisted self-publishers. That is the reason they lost their LOC CIP privileges. Initially, they were the only self-publishing company able to provide CIPs, but then the LOC got wind of what they were really all about and refused to provide them. Lisa claimed that she was turned in by a jealous competitor, but she's made enough enemies on various boards with her condescending tone that it could have been anyone. If you'd like to see her in action check this out: http://www.writers.net/forum/read/13/2568/2512Vt

I don't think most of her competitors pay her any notice because she's not even that high up on Google, she's very expensive and many people assumed TWC was out of business. The website has been "being updated" for about a year. Hardly an indication of a company serious about what it does. I was surprised to see they were still in operation when I saw this thread.

As for the TM symbol after the company name, that only applies to advertising and not editorial. You don't see newspaper articles filled with TM, R and C symbols now, do you? I'm surprised Lisa isn't aware of that because according to her fans at the Florida Writers' Association, Lisa has a background in newspaper journalism.

http://www.flbookpub.org/educonf_2003.html

LISA GRANT, Founder and Executive Director of The Writers' Collective holds an M.A. in International Political Economy; was a Fellow at the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague, Holland; worked for The Evening Standard in London & The Irish Times in Dublin; is a novelist whose SF Epic, The Last Bastion won the 2002 Independent Ebook Award; a screenwriter, the proud single mom of a budding young 16-year-old artist (currently at work on his first book, Lemonade), and is writing "Guerilla Publishing: Everything You Need To Know To Successfully Sell Fiction" in her spare time.

[HapiSofi]

Anyone who buys a how-to book about selling fiction from a writer with those credentials almost (but not quite) deserves to be scammed.

It's amazing how much bad writing advice is out there on the market.

[James D. Macdonald]

Other than sites Ms. Grant herself put up, there doesn't seem to be any mention anywhere on the Google-indexed Web of The Last Bastion winning any awards whatever. Nor does Archive.org lend any help when you look at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.e-book-awards.org e-book-awards.org, the group that supposedly granted that award.

[PsychySensei]

Dave,

You did, and by misunderstanding what you read - assuming that fees (for printing, say, or cover design) go to TWC instead of going to printers, cover designers, etc. - you pointed out that we needed to add a single sentence that made clear we do not receive any money for this at all. Thank you for helping us make our FAQ clearer!

Lisa Grant
The Writers' Collective

You take a fee from the vendors (editors, designers). I believe it was 20% at one time. Not sure how it's working for you these days, but for the first few years you had mega-probs keeping any of the vendors associated with you for very long.

PS

[PsychySensei]

Other than sites Ms. Grant herself put up, there doesn't seem to be any mention anywhere on the Google-indexed Web of The Last Bastion winning any awards whatever. Nor does Archive.org lend any help when you look at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.e-book-awards.org e-book-awards.org, the group that supposedly granted that award.


She publishes it under the name Barbara Wellesly. It's listed here:

http://www.literature-awards.com/digital_literature_awards.htm

PS

[victoriastrauss]

TWC did indeed offer print-on-demand, they had two printers when they first started, one being Fidlar-Doubleday. They also stated on their site that they were a company that assisted self-publishers.Yes, I remember this. It's the basis of my original comments.

Since Lisa made her appearance in this thread, Writer Beware has gotten several detailed complaints from current or former TWC authors, who allege a variety of issues, including escalating costs and requirements that authors use vendors with whom Lisa had a financial relationship (the authors believe she was getting a piece of the action). They also cite autocratic and domineering behavior.

- Victoria

[James D. Macdonald]

Are the Independent E-book Awards still being given out? How prestigious are/were they?

[victoriastrauss]

As far as I can discover, the only time the Independent Ebook Awards were actually handed out was in March 2001. There was a 2002 shortlist, but no awards that year that I can find.

Dunno how much cachet they carried at the time. They were set up as an alternative to the also-defunct Frankfurt Ebook Awards, as a protest by e-authors against Frankfurt's bias toward commercial publishers.

- Victoria

[Judi Bee]

I hope nobody minds if I post something. I'm not a writer, and I joined just to find some information for a friend. I found the WC thread while noodling around and read it with interest because they published my all-time favorite book The Phoenix. I was surprised to read the posts because the impression I got from that book, the only one I've seen from them, was of a terrific book and writer and well done, edited, cool cover, etc.

But again, I really should apologize because I'm an outsider to all this... But aren't you guys kind of piling on the WC lady? It seemed like she was just trying to explain the business and it sounded like everybody already had their mind made up.

I don't know. Maybe WC is as bad as you all think and it's a scam. All I can go by is the book on my shelf.

Well, since I don't know what I'm talking about I guess I should shut up.

I really enjoy this site. It's interesting to see the other side of the book world.

Thank you.

JB

[James D. Macdonald]

Dorrance and Vantage have probably published scores of wonderful books over the past decades.

That doesn't mean they aren't vanity presses.

As far as the Writer's Collective itself, I hope that you noticed that the Writer's Collective Lady vanished behind a screen of smoke and mirrors when she was asked pertinent questions.

[Aconite]

Judi Bee, good books can be published by bad publishers. WC's business model is not good for authors. No matter how WC explains it, the model is still not good for authors. The people here with experience in publishing explained in detail why it's not good for the authors--and WC's representative disappeared when she couldn't counter their information.

If The Phoenix is as good as you say it is, it's a real shame it didn't have its chance with a publisher who could have given it a real shot at reaching thousands of buyers.

And, hey, here on AW, nobody gets smacked down for asking honest questions. Breathe easily. *g*

[CaoPaux]

FAQ's been massaged a bit: http://www.writerscollective.org/faq.htm

This claim of success caught my eye:
Sound like a lot of books to sell, relative to more “typical” self-publishing sales? It is, but TWC isn’t typical. Two cases in point: Good To Be King, by Michael Badnarik, and The Calcium Bomb, by Douglas Mulhall and Katja Hansen—our Fall 2004 line, and the first two books to go through the entire hybrid process. The first title arrived at the distributor’s warehouse in November, and sold out in 14 days. We've just done a second run, and there are back orders for nearly half. The second title also arrived at the warehouse in November, also sold out in two weeks, and the reprint – 7500 copies – arrived two weeks ago and is already gone. We’ve just gone back to press for a third run, and we anticipate selling 100,000 copies – hard cover – by year’s end. Who knows – we might have reached that goal by the time you read this.

[CaoPaux]

Hasn't published anything since '08 (what Amazon lists as Jan '10 are in fact '05 and earlier).

[Ruth Sims]

TWC appears to have vanished from the earth. Though I (and others) were convinced by the owner that it was a "full-service" publisher (because we were clueless and gullible) we foolishly paid a LOT of money that was never recouped and never will be. I've gone on to be published by real publishers, albeit smallish ones, in both print and ebooks, but the TWC experience will remain a bitter one and my finances will never recover. Don't suppose anyone will ever read this, as no one is interested in TWC anymore, but it feels good to finally get it off my chest. And to everyone: if you're thinking about publishing with a subsidy press DON'T. If they tell you they're not a subsidy press, and you don't know for certain, CHECK THEM OUT. If you publish with a subsidy press you might as well, as the commercial says, recreate scenes from Platoon with Charlie Sheen. Also -- if anyone seens this and DID actually publish with TWC and make money, I'd like to know about your experience. It would make me feel less of a fool.