- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 28,750
- Reaction score
- 2,933
- Location
- right here
- Website
- www.veinglory.com
The question is whether Harlequin will be successful in this arena. How successful are their Harlequin-brand ebooks?
The question is whether Harlequin will be successful in this arena. How successful are their Harlequin-brand ebooks?
There is however the Harelquin reader base already in place--and since Harlequin titles are also available in eformat this will help increase traffic/sales
You also have the backing of a large corporation behind it which means it's not going to be like the majority of small epublishers. So there are some major differences right out of the gate.
According to Angela James, 30%.
http://forums.romancedivas.com/index.php?showtopic=58706&view=findpost&p=866031
Higher than the digital royalty on Harlequin's print books (which, as far as I know is 8-10%).
As it looks now, it's set up for authors that HQ wouldn't normally publish. What's in it for HQ to set this line up?
A potential writer wanted to know if Carina Press eBooks will be sold on the eHarlequin.com website. No, we will be building a bookstore for Carina Press and selling through other eRetailers. Why? Because Harlequin offers a very specific promise to its readers and Carina Press is open to a much wider range of editorial.
...
I know people can be a little confused about Carina Press versus Harlequin but just think of it this way: what was Harlequin is still Harlequin.
As it looks now, it's set up for authors that HQ wouldn't normally publish. What's in it for HQ to set this line up?
They want to cut in on the folks who are currently buying from Samhain, Ellora's Cave, Loose Id, and other e-publishers, not cut in on their own existing print market.
Presumably it leverages their existing facilities and staff in expanding to a new market.
As it looks now, it's set up for authors that HQ wouldn't normally publish. What's in it for HQ to set this line up?
Did anyone catch that what they sell is "editorial?" Is that what other publishers call it, or is it just HQ that calls books "editorial?"
Susan G.
Seems reasonable to me.
Harlequin is a brand, much more than Kensington or Avon is. It's important to them to maintain that brand. And making all of the products they produce theirs rather than the author's seems a good way of maintaining the brand. Readers don't buy authors each month. They buy Harlequins.
There are plenty of names that are well-recognized within Harlequin. Trust me, the readers begin to recognize certain names for giving them a certain experience even within the lines.
Question: I saw that the ‘higher royalty’ rate is 30%. How is that higher? Most e-publishers use a 30%-40% royalty rate right now. At least the ones I’ve seen. I’m a little concerned with that.
Answer: I also want to point out our royalty is based on the COVER PRICE and not NET. We believe the cover price is transparent to the author — there are no odd costs added to it (as can be done with net).
For some things they will likely be paying on "net". Third party distribution sites typically get their cut before the author's royalty is calculated. I can't see them giving full rate to an author after they've already handed over 30% to the distribution system.
Didn't something like this come up with the now defunct Quartet Press? When is gross net or something? Not to revisit the whole thing but were some authors quite insistent that they were paid gross but when you got down into it, they were paid gross minus certain fees (which sounds a lot like net but by another name)?