I'm coming late to this thread, as I've had a busy day.
First off, no one at any point accused SP of being disreputable or dishonest. If I'd been online at the time, I'd have done exactly what Eraser did in transferring the thread--and, to be honest, I might have made a similar comment. However, having read Steve's posts, I do understand why he was so upset at the PA comment--and I think that's fair. That said, I don't think that anyone owes anyone an apology at this point.
Second, I want to thank Steve and Guy for keeping their cool under pressure--and everyone else for keeping things civil. There's sometimes a bit of a pile-on mentality in this forum, and while there's been some tough questioning and blunt responses, I haven't seen that in this case.
Third...I'm afraid that I share what seems to be the general opinion, that SP seems to be starting off with too little experience. I also have questions about what--based on Steve's and Guy's posts--appears to be its business model.
4. Of course we want to make a profit, but our goal will always be to provide a free service to writers. We only get our money back if we sell the books. To this end, we take 50% of the gross profit (the money paid to us after the printers' fees and retailers' fees are taken out). But (and this is a big BUT) WE WILL NOT BE ASKING THE AUTHOR FOR THE RIGHTS TO THE BOOK. That means the author can dump us at anytime and take his/her manuscript elsewhere if he or she is not happy.
A few comments. First, 50% sounds good--but "gross profit" should always raise a red flag for writers. Depending on what fees are deducted, it can reduce royalty rates to a pittance. Generally speaking, writers are better off with a straight percentage of list price, or even of net income.
Second--it's great that you seem to be allowing authors to terminate the relationship at will. But as has been pointed out, in order to publish, you MUST take rights--even if you only do so nonexclusively. I wonder if you're confusing rights with copyright? This is a common confusion, but it's not something you really want to see in a publisher.
5. The website is in embryo at the moment and some of the narrative may be vague or confusing to some. We will clarify some of the points that have been raised at a future date. In the meantime, I can say that although we do have a contract written out it still needs to be sanctioned by our sponsor.
It would be far more encouraging to publisher watchers like me if you'd resolved these issues prior to putting up your website and calling for submissions. You should work out the kinks
before going live, not after. Going public before they're ready is a common mistake made by inexperienced publishers, and it can seriously handicap their future operation.
7. We are not a flashy company. We are a group of volunteers prepared to give our free time to help others (and of course, ourselves). Our aim is to build something of worth.
I'm a volunteer myself, and I admire the generosity of people who give their time to volunteer work. However, I don't think I'd want the staff at my publisher to be volunteers. What happens when things go wrong, when kids get sick, when there's overtime at the job? Passionate as you may be about your volunteer work, it will have to take a back seat at times. I'd prefer my publishers' staff to be paid--that way, I can be sure that publishing is always in the front seat.
9. So Salvatore will sell the author a batch of books at a discounted rate... what does that mean? I don't want to delude anybody into thinking you won't have to 'work' to get the ball rolling and get your book noticed. We can only do so much but we will be asking our authors to give their wholehearted efforts if they want to go beyond being 'just another POD book'. I sold 80 copies of my own book last week but not one copy through the internet. I had to 'work' to get those sales. I think the phrase is 'shoe leather.' Both our authors and ourselves will have to get off our backsides and sell. If that scares you off, then Salvatore really isn't right for you.
Again, kudos to you for being honest about your business model. But I'm being honest too when I say that this is not what real publishers do. Relying on your authors both as your principal consumers and your unpaid sales force shifts to them the burden of marketing that should belong to the publisher--thereby reducing the publisher's incentive to engage in marketing efforts itself--and the burden of buying that should belong to readers--reducing the publisher's need to market even further, since they know they can make money off their authors.
Once you get set up in a business model like this, it's very hard to get out of it. It's a safe business model, because while it won't enrich you (or your authors) it does let you scrape by. But to move on even to short run publishing requires a willingness to incur financial risk, and the longer you rely on your authors to cover your business bottom line, the more difficult it will be to make that financial leap.
Bottom line: a publisher should begin as it means to go on. If its goal is to engage in commercial-style publishing, that's what it should do from the start. What this means for writers: you need to take the publisher as it is, not as it says it's going to be. In other words, if it's POD/author-supported now, it very well may be in the future too.
11. Finally, the short story anthologies. These are designed with one thing in mind. To allow you guys to get your short stories into print. I'm sorry that we cannot pay for your work at present, but we do this in the spirit of fun and so far as group of friends... yes, friends.
That's great, if you're joining up with people who actually are your friends, and you all agree to do something together without thought of remuneration.
But once you start to call for submissions from people you don't know, you're moving into different territory. I know that many smaller publishers can't afford to pay advances or even per-word fees--but they can at least offer a share of royalties. It simply isn't professional to expect writers to give you their work for free. And again, despite what your website says about authors keeping their rights, it isn't possible to publish a story unless the writer grants you rights in some form.
I'm sorry, but I don't see any of this as promoting new writers--to me, it seems more like sidetracking them. I'll also reiterate something I often say (it's been said at least once already in this thread)--writers are well advised to adopt a "wait and see" approach with ANY new publisher. The rate of attrition among new publishers is high; not only does waiting a year or so give writers some assurance of stability, it makes it possible for them to evaluate the quality of the books, what kind of marketing is being done, and so on. Also, with less experienced publishers, the authors they publish first tend to serve as guinea pigs as they struggle to learn on the job. This can wind up being a pretty uncomfortable position.
Steve and Guy, I know it seems that the criticism that's been offered here is harsh. But at Absolute Write, and especially in this forum, we tend to look at things from the writer's perspective. It's not so much that we want to punch holes in new publishers; it's that we want to protect writers. I understand that from your perspective, it must feel much more like the former than the latter, but I hope you'll consider taking some of our comments on board.
- Victoria
lol
