• Guest please check The Index before starting a thread.

Champagne Book Group

firedrake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
9,251
Reaction score
7,297
I'm sorry, but I don't see anything for the good of an author in this set up. A lot of writers are prolific, one of the main reasons they publish with more than one house, is so that they have regular releases. Why should an author wait for one publisher to fit them into their release schedule, sometimes many many months ahead, when they can spread the load?

Popular authors with a loyal fan base will buy their books regardless of who publishes them, so I don't buy that reasoning either.

As one or two recent e-pubs have recently gone tits-up or are circling the proverbial, leaving authors missing big chunks of royalties (Silver) or long, bitter disputes over rights (Noble Romance), why the hell would a prolific author want to submit all of their books to one publisher and risk a whole world of hurt if that publisher goes to the wall?

It seems to me that the number of reputable e-publishers is dwindling and I end up crossing someone off my list more often. Guess what, I've crossed Champagne/CP off that list.
 

thethinker42

Abnormal Romance Author
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
20,733
Reaction score
2,669
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Website
www.gallagherwitt.com
I'm sorry, but I don't see anything for the good of an author in this set up. A lot of writers are prolific, one of the main reasons they publish with more than one house, is so that they have regular releases. Why should an author wait for one publisher to fit them into their release schedule, sometimes many many months ahead, when they can spread the load?

Precisely.

Speaking only for myself, writing is my full-time job. I need those royalty checks, and in order to keep them up, I need regular releases. No way in hell am I going to put all my eggs in one basket and risk delayed releases or other such problems.
 

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
18,889
Reaction score
5,029
Location
We couldn't possibly do that. Who'd clear up the m
Website
francisknightbooks.co.uk
I totally get all your points. We are not going to make a bunch of authors happy.
So you're okay with upsetting/ driving away authors?

But we ARE also making a bunch of authors happy and we are confident we will continue to make our authors happy and engage new ones.

Why would new ones sign a contract like that? Especially as there are other publishers who don't try to tie up everything they might write in the genre?

In other words, what's in it for your authors?
 

thethinker42

Abnormal Romance Author
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
20,733
Reaction score
2,669
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Website
www.gallagherwitt.com
I totally get all your points. We are not going to make a bunch of authors happy. But we ARE also making a bunch of authors happy and we are confident we will continue to make our authors happy and engage new ones.

It's good there are so many publishers out there, huh? Lots of freedom of choice. And I love this board for all that it discusses all the options--good, bad and indifferent.

Thanks,

That's... not a very encouraging answer. The inability or lack of desire to respond directly to those points, and brushing it off as "eh, we can't make everybody happy, but yay choices!", doesn't inspire much confidence.

I don't have a dog in this fight because I pulled my Champagne books a long time ago, but I'm deeply concerned about these issues because there are other authors out there who may be considering Champagne as a publisher. Some may be new and not well-versed in publishing, just as we all were when we started. I think those authors need answers to the questions posed above, and brushing off those questions like that is...alarming.
 

Marian Perera

starting over
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
14,333
Reaction score
4,578
Location
Heaven is a place on earth called Toronto.
Website
www.marianperera.com
We are in discussions with other digitial houses and authors will likely see similar clauses in those contracts.

What does this mean? That other digital-first presses - EC, Samhain, Loose ID etc. - may also try to restrict which other presses their authors write for?

If an author release 5 vampire romances in a year, how do readers with limited book budgets pick them ALL up? They can't so a book's sales and author's royalties are going to suffer. That's not fair to the house or the author.

This makes me wonder who gets to decide the optimum number of releases an author should have per year (which raises the question - optimum for whom).

If readers can't buy all 5 releases, should the author only be allowed two releases, then? Or one? I can't see this being ideal for the author's sales and royalties either.
 

firedrake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
9,251
Reaction score
7,297
I totally get all your points. We are not going to make a bunch of authors happy. But we ARE also making a bunch of authors happy and we are confident we will continue to make our authors happy and engage new ones.

It's good there are so many publishers out there, huh? Lots of freedom of choice. And I love this board for all that it discusses all the options--good, bad and indifferent.

Thanks,

Wow, so reading between the lines, it's 'too damn bad if you don't like it'.
Not the kind of a message a publisher wants to be sending to potential authors.

So many publishers? Not many reputable ones left, and there's one less now having read your response.
 

Filigree

Mildly Disturbing
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
16,441
Reaction score
1,529
Location
between rising apes and falling angels
Website
www.cranehanabooks.com
Cassie, I have never queried CB, and I am not likely to in the future. When I was querying for my first book, I wasn't sure CB had the sales figures and industry rep I wanted. EC was huge, but had very restrictive contracts and not quite the market focus in my crossover genre. I won't be querying them again, either.

It comes down to trust: do I trust a publisher to do the best with what I have licensed to it? The clauses you champion effectively absolve publishers of that trust, and seem to be rights-grabs and career-killers that may benefit the publisher far more than the author. I'll be talking to my agent about what to do if my current e-rom publisher adds that vague a non-compete clause.

I'm not saying that if I wrote and sold a hipster werewolf erotic romance story to CB, that it would be fine for me to pitch a similar story to another publisher without letting CB make an offer.

But the hipster werewolf may be part of a bigger urban fantasy universe, with potential books that might not fit into CB's erotic romance market. Every publisher has slightly different markets and reputations. If I want to diversify my writing, would I do better writing thirty more hipster werewolf books for CB's readership, of decreasing originality, or branching out with stories CB's readers might not 'get'?

I understand the contract changes from your point of view; I've dealt with similar restrictions in the art publishing world. But even there, savvy artists find avenues of negotiation that better serve both parties.
 

thothguard51

A Gentleman of a refined age...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
9,316
Reaction score
1,064
Age
72
Location
Out side the beltway...
Well, I have championed CB in the past, even though they turned me down. Why? Because I know a few of their authors from other boards in the past and they all praised CB.

Lately, I am not hearing the praise and I am not sure I could recommend CB to anyone, for several reason.
 

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
18,889
Reaction score
5,029
Location
We couldn't possibly do that. Who'd clear up the m
Website
francisknightbooks.co.uk
Nor can I convince people to negotiate if they don't feel like they should have to. I don't get that--given my background in contract law--but if they don't feel they should have to negotiate, I can say nothing to convince anyone.

Yet the original email sent to authors states that they should not expect to be able to negotiate this clause out.

So which is right, they can, or they can't?

PS I'm not Queen ;)
 

thethinker42

Abnormal Romance Author
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
20,733
Reaction score
2,669
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Website
www.gallagherwitt.com
Absolutely not okay with that but there is no way I'm going to convince a lot of authors on here that they are not giving up their rights, that this isn't restricting them their right to publish what they want (yes, to some extent where) or that we've seen what I spoke about--dilution of author brand and sales.

(bolding mind) That's because as the clause is currently worded, we have no reason to believe that ISN'T the case. It's far too vague and leaves room for far too many questions, as evidenced by numerous posts.

Nor can I convince people to negotiate if they don't feel like they should have to. I don't get that--given my background in contract law--but if they don't feel they should have to negotiate, I can say nothing to convince anyone.

NO ONE on here has said they would take the contract without negotiating, or that they don't believe in negotiating contracts. I negotiate my contracts all the time, and stopped working with one publisher because they refused to even consider altering their contract.

The questions here have to do with the clause *as it's written*, and what Champagne means by it. Don't turn our questions around as a refusal to negotiate. We're asking for clarification. If you have a background in contract law, then I'm really stunned that you're okay with a clause that's worded that vaguely, or interpret our questions as being somehow mutually exclusive to negotiations if a contract like this were presented to us.

Asking for clarification =/= refusal to negotiate.

If your previous answer was clear enough, we wouldn't be asking for clarification.
 

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
18,889
Reaction score
5,029
Location
We couldn't possibly do that. Who'd clear up the m
Website
francisknightbooks.co.uk
(bolding mind) That's because as the clause is currently worded, we have no reason to believe that ISN'T the case. It's far too vague and leaves room for far too many questions, as evidenced by numerous posts.

Exactly -- what counts as substantially similar and who gets to decide that? As it stands, the wording basically means it could be used as "whatever the publisher decides is similar"

It needs to be crystal clear in the contract

As does the part that Cass mentioned upthread about the author being able to reject an offer by Champagne on competing works, because that is not how it it is currently worded. Which I am sure Cass is aware of with her background of contractual law.

If Cass would address these concerns (that have been posted previously but Cass seem to have chosen to ignore) then perhaps we'd see clearer. But as it stands?

Not with a ten foot fucking pole.

And what kind of business will you grow if people won't sub to you?
 
Last edited:

amergina

Pittsburgh Strong
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
15,599
Reaction score
2,471
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Website
www.annazabo.com
Champagne has added a clause that, essentially, says that authors need to bring their 'substantially similar' work to us. For example, if an author writes a vampire romance, we want to see the next vampire romance. If they write a YA instead, they can do what they want with it.
So what happens if an author contracted with you for an m/m paranormal romance and they had an m/m fantasy romance? Is that 'substantially similar'? What if it's a fantasy with some m/m content but no romance? What if it's a m/f paranormal romance? What if it's a contemporary romance? What if it's an urban fantasy with no romance?

See, 'substantially similar' could mean all of those and an author would then be contractually bound to publish those books with you or not at all (for the length of the contract they did sign).

An author's brand resides with the author, not with the publisher. Even Harlequin doesn't own the pen names any more.
 

thethinker42

Abnormal Romance Author
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
20,733
Reaction score
2,669
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Website
www.gallagherwitt.com
So what happens if an author contracted with you for an m/m paranormal romance and they had an m/m fantasy romance? Is that 'substantially similar'? What if it's a fantasy with some m/m content but no romance? What if it's a m/f paranormal romance? What if it's a contemporary romance? What if it's an urban fantasy with no romance?

See, 'substantially similar' could mean all of those and an author would then be contractually bound to publish those books with you or not at all (for the length of the contract they did sign).

An author's brand resides with the author, not with the publisher. Even Harlequin doesn't own the pen names any more.

Further, what happens if CP rejects the book?
 

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
18,889
Reaction score
5,029
Location
We couldn't possibly do that. Who'd clear up the m
Website
francisknightbooks.co.uk
Yes, the original one did. But subsequent ones were different and yes, they can and not only can they, they are free to reject a contract. Authors still have the power. I don't understand why that's not, well, understood.

It wasn't understood because it wasn't stated at all in the original email, in fact the opposite. If that's been changed*, good. But it wasn't a good thing to try and do to your authors.


*I'll email the Champagne authors I know, see what they say. I can understand they might be reticent to weigh in on this here.

ETA: Seems like nothing has substantially changed from the original. Authors have not received follow up emails. Also ..actually no. Discretion, I haz it!

So, Cass, do you want to post what the clause looks like now? So we can take a look see? If you have changed it, then it'll be good to have it out in the open where prospective authors can see it.
 
Last edited:

Marian Perera

starting over
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
14,333
Reaction score
4,578
Location
Heaven is a place on earth called Toronto.
Website
www.marianperera.com
No one is suggesting publishers tell you how many books to write and publish.

Hmm. Maybe I got the wrong impression from your saying, "If an author release 5 vampire romances in a year, how do readers with limited book budgets pick them ALL up? They can't so a book's sales and author's royalties are going to suffer. That's not fair to the house or the author."

Because it seems to me that this is suggesting the publisher says you can't release 5 vampire romances in a year. Even if these are spread out among five different presses.

All we are trying to do is address the author writing the same substanitally similar material for several houses.

Oh and as to who decides? The author and publisher.
Mr Flibble said, "the original email sent to authors states that they should not expect to be able to negotiate this clause out."

So if the author can't negotiate the clause about substantially similar material, I'm not confident that the author will have much of a say about deciding how many books can be released.

ETA : Looks like there may have been some change of wording in subsequent emails. But I still don't think publishers can or should weigh in on the number of releases an author has from different presses. And as a result of everything that's come to light in this discussion, I wouldn't recommend Champagne to anyone.
 
Last edited:

thethinker42

Abnormal Romance Author
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
20,733
Reaction score
2,669
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Website
www.gallagherwitt.com
Lori, what's the question? Maybe my other responses addressed?

Here:

If someone sells you a steampunk vampire romance, does "substantially similar" mean all steampunk vampire romance, all steampunk, all vampires, all romance, all books of the same length?

Further, is it a right of first refusal, or can an author ONLY publish that content with you? i.e., if I (hypothetical I) sell you a steampunk vampire romance, and then submit another one to you, but you reject it or I decline the contract, does that affect my options for publishing that manuscript with other houses or on my own?

Here...

If I find that my steampunk vampire romances aren't selling to my satisfaction via your company, but I see that that genre is doing well elsewhere, am I still bound to send them to you? If you reject my book, and I sell it elsewhere, then what are my options with a third book, especially if the new house has a ROFR?

And...

When a publisher is putting forth a clause like that, and defending it, but quickly adds "...but you can negotiate it out," it doesn't inspire much faith in that new clause. Obviously authors should scrutinize their contracts and negotiate as needed, but if a publisher is outright SAYING "Well, you can negotiate this contract out," then why leave it there in the first place?
 

Marian Perera

starting over
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
14,333
Reaction score
4,578
Location
Heaven is a place on earth called Toronto.
Website
www.marianperera.com
What do you do if a publisher rejects your books now? Don't you take it someplace else? The clause doesn't change that.

Previously Mr Flibble said,

Because the current wording says they can't publish it elsewhere during the term of any agreement with CP. They can't even self-pub it.
 

Marian Perera

starting over
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
14,333
Reaction score
4,578
Location
Heaven is a place on earth called Toronto.
Website
www.marianperera.com
The idea that it can't be negotiated out was addressed--they can. Again, totally fair on the not recommending. I'll come back in a few months and tell you all how it's going. :)
As well as the issues everyone else has raised, I don't get the impression that Champagne has all its ducks in a row.

First Champagne sends out an email to authors stating the clause cannot be negotiated. Now (apparently) it can be.

Then the original wording said the book could not be published anywhere else, or even self-pubbed. Now (apparently) it can be?

It's better for authors when a publisher steps back from such obviously unfavorable clauses, but the publisher should not have had those obviously unfavorable clauses in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
18,889
Reaction score
5,029
Location
We couldn't possibly do that. Who'd clear up the m
Website
francisknightbooks.co.uk
Mr. Flibble, I don't want to mislead you. The clause hasn't been changed--just some clarification.

Not what I am hearing, tbh (re clarification hasn't appeared - the clause hasn't been changed so it's still shit).

But sure, clarify away. As long as that makes it into the contract along with what substantially similar actually will mean, contractually.
I'm fine with a publisher stepping back from such obviously unfavorable clauses, but the publisher should not have had those obviously unfavorable clauses in the first place.

Yeah, it reeks of trying to pull a fast one, especially coming from someone who knows contracts.

And no, they aren't contractually bound to PUBLISH those books with us--they are contractually bound to let us see them first. Again, authors can always say no.
That is absolutely not what the clause currently states.

ETA: Just to confirm, only the original email was sent out to authors. No clarifications.
 
Last edited: