Harlequin and earning a living question

Did you see Brenda Hiatt's Show me the Money? Lots of ballpark figures for the various Harlequin lines.

I'm sure they'd take as many books from you a year as they could publish. It comes down to how many actually publishable books a year can you write, and how little are you willing to live off of.

Short answer: nope.

Read Ann Voss Peterson's blog about her conclusions regarding the HQ contract and the income derived therefrom.

It's pat to say no publishing avenue guarantees the ability to make a living, but it's true.

To be blunt, you don't even have your first contract in hand or your first book released to even gauge the direction of your writing career. Just because you've completed a MS and submitted doesn't mean it will sell. Just because you've sold a book or two doesn't mean your publisher will want more from you. Just because you see $6000 on your contract doesn't mean it's time to party--that advance is likely to be split up over the course of a year; you'll have to keep selling new MSS in order to keep the advance payments covering your bills.

If you want to write for Harlequin, do it because you feel it's a sound business plan for your writing career, not because of the allure of an advance check.

I know of a couple of people on here who make a living from writing romance and/or erotica. I think they usually write fast, a book every month or every other month. It also takes time to build up a backlist that keeps piling on more income in addition to the new releases. I don't see any reason to stick with one publisher, though. For one thing, if that publisher hits hard times, you're sunk. Also, different publishers might have different audiences so you could get more sales overall from branching out. You'd probably try for whichever publisher you though would be the best bet at the time.

Writing Mom said:

Thanks for "being blunt" but I did say that I haven't even submitted yet, and I'm also doing this because I enjoy it. I haven't decided if I'll submit to them or somewhere else, that's why I'm here asking questions and wanting to hear from experienced published writers. I may never be published anywhere and not have to worry about it at all. No wonder I haven't visited this site in a long time...

Click to expand...

I apologize if my response rankled.

There are no guarantees in this business except your own hard work.

I know HQN authors who are making a good living, but only because the "stars aligned"--meaning, their sales have risen with each book and they work very hard to release 4-5 books a year. There are just as many HQN authors who are making pennies, who aren't experiencing a nice rise in sales with each book, and have each MS put through the editorial ringer for months in order to hammer it into something that fits the line.

The only thing you can control in this business is your own productivity and your own business savvy.

As I said, go for HQN if it's your dream and you know it's where you feel your MSS best fit, not because of reports about advances. Especially right now: the rise of self-publishing and Amazon's ever-changing algorithms has placed the romance genre in a state of flux. Newbie authors are more likely to get digital-first contracts from major publishers, smaller advances (sometimes none with digital-first), etc, because ebook sales have eaten into mass market paperback sales.

As a result, there is no "standard" advance in any segment of the industry. A longtime Harlequin author is not going to be able to tell you what you'll expect, because they have a completely different career outlook. Sometimes new authors might not either, especially if they have an agent and/or submitted to Harlequin after successful sales at another publisher/self-publishing.

I think Evangeline was just trying to give cold hard facts. So many people hear romance is a billion dollar industry and think they'll write one and make some quick money. Unfortunately, much to my husband's dislike, that's unlikely to happen. lol

Evangeline said:

Newbie authors are more likely to get digital-first contracts from major publishers, smaller advances (sometimes none with digital-first), etc, because ebook sales have eaten into mass market paperback sales.

Click to expand...

This. I received four offers for my debut; three came from Big 5 and the other from Kensington so these weren't small indie pubs. Only one came with advance money and it was stipulated that the amount for each book was a split into three payments: upon delivery, upon acceptance, upon release date. My agent who has been in the business a very long time said she'd never seen anything like it, especially considering there were multiple offers.

IMO the reason publishers are less likely to give advance money to debut authors in our genre is because so many romance authors are successful in self-publishing. In the past four years, I've seen numerous authors be trade published and then after that initial one, two or three book contract is complete, they jump to self-publishing. IMO publishers feel like they invest in an author, help them gain an audience and then they leave. It seems to me publishers are hedging their bets and not wanting to over-invest in someone who might be more interested in self-publishing in the long term.

CEtchison said:

This. I received four offers for my debut; three came from Big 5 and the other from Kensington so these weren't small indie pubs. Only one came with advance money and it was stipulated that the amount for each book was a split into three payments: upon delivery, upon acceptance, upon release date. My agent who has been in the business a very long time said she'd never seen anything like it, especially considering there were multiple offers.

Click to expand...

It's odd that your agent would say that: splitting advances into two or three payments is standard practice in trade publishing.

I know a couple of people who make a living writing exclusively for HM&B, but they work their socks off. They write full-length novels in four to six weeks, and then get started on the next one. They don't have much of a backlist in place (although they do have the option to change this now self-publishing is so accessible) because HM&B's books have extremely short shelf-lives because of their publishing model.

HM&B books get shelved, have about four weeks to sell, and then they are taken off the shelves and pulped. They don't usually go into reprints; they don't usually get left on the shelves if they are selling well. They have to make room for new titles, and that's that.

I don't think the writers concerned earn a huge amount but they support themselves, and live comfortably.

Most of the writers I know who write for the imprint also write for other publishers, and/or have day jobs.

Old Hack said:

It's odd that your agent would say that: splitting advances into two or three payments is standard practice in trade publishing.

Click to expand...

Ack! I was unclear.

My agent was surprised that I received multiple offers from big publishing houses but none would push past what she considered an entry-level deal. The feedback from a couple other big houses was basically they would only offer a digital-only deal because I was a debut author.

I guess my point to the OP was that unlike YA and some other markets, the likelihood of getting any kind of advance money that you could live off of in romance is slim to none. Yeah there are six- and seven-figure deals out there, but they're only going to well-established authors who have a huge backlist or people who have sold a ton of books self-publishing.

Specifically regarding Harlequin, Maisey Yates pubbed her first Harlequin Presents around 2010-2011 and since then she has put out thirty or more books. She uses Dragon dictation software to keep up the pace. No idea as to money. But there's little doubt she works her tail off.

CEtchison said:

I guess my point to the OP was that unlike YA and some other markets, the likelihood of getting any kind of advance money that you could live off of in romance is slim to none. Yeah there are six- and seven-figure deals out there, but they're only going to well-established authors who have a huge backlist or people who have sold a ton of books self-publishing.

Click to expand...

Bold = mine

Are you strictly referring to debut advances? If a debut novel does well in the marketplace and the publisher decides to take on the author's next book, wouldn't they offer a higher advance for subsequent work from a proven author? If publishers fear authors jumping ship for self-publishing, then it would make sense to pay higher advances to give them an incentive to stick around, right? People often say that publication is a marathon, not a sprint. Perhaps it's the same with advances?

(I don't mean to pepper you with questions. I'm just a curious noob. )

Most publishers might well offer increasing advances as authors they've worked with before do better and better; but HM&B (in the UK, at least) has a relatively rigid business model, and so from what I've seen, they tend not to do that in any significant degree.

They might offer a higher advance for a subsequent book. But friends of mine in RWA who write consistently for HQ say their advances don't budge much higher. This, of course, was the Great Romancer's Hope: that they'd get picked up as an author by HQ and that would basically "make" the career. HQ's own website used to say they were committed about building authors, and for a time I believe that was true. But now they're owned by someone else (HC?) and that makes it probable the advances are small for debut books and not much bigger for books two, three, and so forth.

StoryofWoe said:

Bold = mine

Are you strictly referring to debut advances? If a debut novel does well in the marketplace and the publisher decides to take on the author's next book, wouldn't they offer a higher advance for subsequent work from a proven author? If publishers fear authors jumping ship for self-publishing, then it would make sense to pay higher advances to give them an incentive to stick around, right? People often say that publication is a marathon, not a sprint. Perhaps it's the same with advances?

(I don't mean to pepper you with questions. I'm just a curious noob. )

Click to expand...

I don't think that's really happening anymore, especially in single title. Mass market is--or was--the romance genre's bread and butter. Ebook sales (in any publishing venue) have eaten into the mmpb sales you would have sold pre-2012. Ergo, there's no incentive to seriously increase advance money with each deal unless you happen to break out big time, because it's probable that your sales are predominantly made in ebooks vs print. Which is why it's more likely that debut authors will be offered digital first contracts nowadays.

In general, the amount of your advance is pegged on print run (the P&L statement that gauges how many paper copies the publisher thinks your book will sell). Which is why if a publisher offers $100,000, they are going to set up a huge print run as a sign of faith in the book's ability to recoup the advance (and more). Conversely, if your advance is $5,000, the print run is going to be very conservative.

With regards to offering larger advances to keep authors on their roster...it does go back to what others have said: publishers want to build your career (for the benefit of their business just as much for you), not subsidize your ability to self-publish. Just because they offer more money doesn't mean that will keep the author from self-publishing. Also, established authors have actually turned down offers of more money in order to self-publish!

We're writing in interesting times.

StoryofWoe said:

Bold = mine

Are you strictly referring to debut advances? If a debut novel does well in the marketplace and the publisher decides to take on the author's next book, wouldn't they offer a higher advance for subsequent work from a proven author? If publishers fear authors jumping ship for self-publishing, then it would make sense to pay higher advances to give them an incentive to stick around, right? People often say that publication is a marathon, not a sprint. Perhaps it's the same with advances?

(I don't mean to pepper you with questions. I'm just a curious noob. )

Click to expand...

I'm a noob myself, but I'll try my best to answer based of my experience.

And yes, I was speaking about advances for a debut author in the romance genre.

My book was pitched along with two more that would ultimately make up a six book series. The contracts offered were for three books. The deal I received from Avon Impulse was the standard deal. (If you look in the Beware and Backgrounds forum, there's specific info posted.) Kensington originally offered an advance of $5K for each book, but then added a smidge more to sweeten the deal. The royalty rates on the back end were the same for print versions and started the same on digital, but Avon Impulse offers escalating royalties.

Avon's strategy (and this is no secret) is to use dynamic pricing on their Avon Impulse books to promote and market an author. They want to build a following where they can then push the author into the Avon Books level where e-book prices would increase from the Impulse price of 1.99 to about 3.99 or 4.99 and where there's wider print distribution. And since HC has acquired Harlequin, they are utilizing those established marketplaces (like the HQN racks in Walmart) to sell Impulse print titles which have a comparable cover price as Harlequin category romances. They like to point out authors like Jennifer Ryan, who started out on the Avon Impulse imprint and moved up to the Avon Books. With that move, I would assume advances would be based on previous sales.

When it came time to choose an offer (the two that were digital only were easily kicked out) it wasn't just upfront money that had to be considered. It involved editors, marketing strategies, cover art, promotion, royalty rates, release dates, etc. There were discussions about short term goals versus long term goals. It was not an easy decision to make at all because really it's a guessing game. So you close your eyes, roll the dice and hope you don't crap out.

Evangeline said:

In general, the amount of your advance is pegged on print run (the P&L statement that gauges how many paper copies the publisher thinks your book will sell). Which is why if a publisher offers $100,000, they are going to set up a huge print run as a sign of faith in the book's ability to recoup the advance (and more). Conversely, if your advance is $5,000, the print run is going to be very conservative.

Click to expand...

Advances aren't based on print runs, nor are they based on print editions only.

The advance is based on the sales the publisher thinks your book will achieve, across all formats they control. So if they want rights to your digital editions as well as your print ones, the sales for both will be factored into their calculations.

Thank you to everyone who answered my questions. I didn't mean to hijack the thread, but hopefully the OP gained some valuable info from the responses. I know I did.

Old Hack said:

Advances aren't based on print runs, nor are they based on print editions only.

The advance is based on the sales the publisher thinks your book will achieve, across all formats they control. So if they want rights to your digital editions as well as your print ones, the sales for both will be factored into their calculations.

Click to expand...

Generally speaking, the P&L still factors in the size of the advance vis a vis the print run. Yes, there are multiple sales formats, but once a print run is taken out of the equation...advance-less digital first book deals, right?

Evangeline said:

Generally speaking, the P&L still factors in the size of the advance vis a vis the print run.

Click to expand...

The profit and loss does consider the size of the print run. But advances are not based on the print run, they are based on projected sales; and the print run is not the same as the P&L, which is what you implied in your earlier comment, here:

Evangeline said:

In general, the amount of your advance is pegged on print run (the P&L statement that gauges how many paper copies the publisher thinks your book will sell).

Click to expand...

Yes, there are multiple sales formats, but once a print run is taken out of the equation...advance-less digital first book deals, right?

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that digital books don't get advances? That their sales are not factored into the equations involved when calculating advances? Because both statements are wrong. I admit, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, and would welcome clarification.

Moving on, I've just noticed that you said this:

it's probable that your sales are predominantly made in ebooks vs print. Which is why it's more likely that debut authors will be offered digital first contracts nowadays.

Click to expand...

I have quite a few friends who write romance--although few for HM&B--and I know how some of them sell. Most of their sales are in print editions, not digital. Digital gets a lot of attention, but it still does not make up the majority of book sales, as far as I'm aware. It could be that for the publishers you've worked with, digital is the main market: but that's not my experience, nor is it true for most other genres, either.

I do have a couple of friends who have sold books to digital-first or digital-only imprints, and they have received advances. There are lots of smaller presses which don't pay advances, and do only focus on digital editions: but as far as I recall, that's not Harlequin's model, and it's Harlequin we're talking about in this thread.

Old Hack said:

The profit and loss does consider the size of the print run. But advances are not based on the print run, they are based on projected sales; and the print run is not the same as the P&L, which is what you implied in your earlier comment, here:





Are you suggesting that digital books don't get advances? That their sales are not factored into the equations involved when calculating advances? Because both statements are wrong. I admit, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, and would welcome clarification.

Moving on, I've just noticed that you said this:



I have quite a few friends who write romance--although few for HM&B--and I know how some of them sell. Most of their sales are in print editions, not digital. Digital gets a lot of attention, but it still does not make up the majority of book sales, as far as I'm aware. It could be that for the publishers you've worked with, digital is the main market: but that's not my experience, nor is it true for most other genres, either.

I do have a couple of friends who have sold books to digital-first or digital-only imprints, and they have received advances. There are lots of smaller presses which don't pay advances, and do only focus on digital editions: but as far as I recall, that's not Harlequin's model, and it's Harlequin we're talking about in this thread.

Click to expand...

1. Digital first imprints in romance: Avon Impulse, Lyrical Press, SMP Swerve, Penguin Intermix, RH Loveswept, Pocket Star, Forever Yours.

2. Most digital first imprints do not offer advances; they offer the standard 25% net with the possibility of escalating royalty rates. From chats with other romance authors, the advance+royalty digital first lines have been Loveswept (I believe they still offer the two choices: higher royalty and no advance or advance and 25% net), Pocket Star, and Intermix. Others are probably contingent upon other factors that a brand new author probably do not have.

3. Projected sales and advances and print runs. I don't understand what you're saying, tbh. A publisher does a P&L to determine projected sales for a manuscript they want to acquire. Which means they aren't conjuring up advances and print runs on some separate sheet of paper.

4. We're discussing the Romance genre in its entirety, since this is the romance genre part of AW. You'll see that another published author chimed in to discuss their experience, if you read the entire thread. And another poster asked for information about publishing in the genre, period.

5. Harlequin. As I said above, the experiences of authors will vary greatly depending on how long you've been writing for Harlequin and which line you write for (it's quite well known that Harlequin Presents is the most lucrative line).

That's great news that your friends are still selling print; however, I've heard that Harlequin ebook sales are small because they are still struggling with how to sell ebooks to the ebook readership. They have experimented a bit with using a different cover for ebook versions to match the popular look of self-pub category romance. And last time I chatted with Harlequin authors, they discussed the declining shelf space--places like Walmart and Target were only stocking the top selling lines.

Evangeline said:

1. Digital first imprints in romance: Avon Impulse, Lyrical Press, SMP Swerve, Penguin Intermix, RH Loveswept, Pocket Star, Forever Yours.

2. Most digital first imprints do not offer advances; they offer the standard 25% net with the possibility of escalating royalty rates. From chats with other romance authors, the advance+royalty digital first lines have been Loveswept (I believe they still offer the two choices: higher royalty and no advance or advance and 25% net), Pocket Star, and Intermix. Others are probably contingent upon other factors that a brand new author probably do not have.

Click to expand...

Thank you for that information.

I agree that "Most digital first imprints do not offer advances"; but most publishing is not digital. When rights are bought for print and digital, the projected sales for those digital editions are factored into the calculations when working out an advance.

3. Projected sales and advances and print runs. I don't understand what you're saying, tbh. A publisher does a P&L to determine projected sales for a manuscript they want to acquire. Which means they aren't conjuring up advances and print runs on some separate sheet of paper.

Click to expand...

I know this, because I have done it. I was an acquiring editor for a good long time. My point was that when putting together a profit and loss forecast we include things like print runs and sales forecasts; and the part of the spreadsheet which we then refer to in order to calculate the advance we offer is the part which forecasts sales, not that which determines print runs.

Sales and print runs are different, right? (Obviously!) For a start, you don't get a print run for a digital edition; books in some genres are more likely to suffer shelf-damage than those in other genres, so there'll be a bigger disparity between sales and print run; and so on. Sales are what you need in this instance.

4. We're discussing the Romance genre in its entirety, since this is the romance genre part of AW. You'll see that another published author chimed in to discuss their experience, if you read the entire thread. And another poster asked for information about publishing in the genre, period.

Click to expand...

The OP specified Harlequin. I have referred to HM&B, as that's an imprint I am somewhat familiar with--and to make sure people understood the context in which was commenting.

5. Harlequin. As I said above, the experiences of authors will vary greatly depending on how long you've been writing for Harlequin and which line you write for (it's quite well known that Harlequin Presents is the most lucrative line).

That's great news that your friends are still selling print; however, I've heard that Harlequin ebook sales are small because they are still struggling with how to sell ebooks to the ebook readership. They have experimented a bit with using a different cover for ebook versions to match the popular look of self-pub category romance. And last time I chatted with Harlequin authors, they discussed the declining shelf space--places like Walmart and Target were only stocking the top selling lines.

Click to expand...

There are lots of reasons Harlequin's ebook sales are small, and your explanation is a good part of it.

All books are suffering declining shelf-space; but in the UK, where I am, publishers are finding new ways to sell books. Publishing has always been very fluid in that regard. What we have to avoid is assuming that ebooks are the main market now, because overall, they are not. Print sales are still outstripping them, the rise of the ebook has reached a plateau, and we still have to focus on selling ALL formats as best we can.

It's easy to get caught up in one's own little corner of publishing and assume that's how it's done everywhere. So writers who are mostly published in digital editions assume that's where most of the market lies; writers who write lavish biographies which will be published in hardback and sold for a fortune assume that's what everyone reads. The truth is much more diverse than that, and we could all do with climbing up to a high point so that we can see the broader picture. But that's not what this thread is about, so I'll move on!

Speaking of Harlequin. Sad news: Blaze, Historical and Romance are going ebook only.
https://twitter.com/helenkaydimon/status/725047474021343233

Evangeline said:

Speaking of Harlequin. Sad news: Blaze, Historical and Romance are going ebook only.
https://twitter.com/helenkaydimon/status/725047474021343233

Click to expand...

That's depressing, since as a reader I frankly don't like ebooks and almost never buy them. I can't see myself buying many Harlequin books in the future.