Indie Artist Press

Al Stevens · Nov 6, 2012

A few questions not addressed here or on your website (unless I missed it):

Who specifies list price?
Will there be author copies of print editions?
Does an author get discounts on print editions?
Who chooses reviewers and sends (and pays for) ARCs?
Will books be actively marketed to brick & mortar bookstores? If so, will you accept returns?
You sell website design services to authors. Do you host their pages on your website?
Given that you do not take a percentage of royalties, where does the accounting take place? Do authors upload their own books via their own accounts to kindle, smashwords, lulu/createspace/lightning source?
Since some production services are interdependent--cover format depends on page count, page dimensions, etc.--and authors might choose some but not all services, how are such services coordinated?

Many of these and other questions would be answered if you posted your boilerplate contract online.

Good luck with all this.

eqb · Nov 6, 2012

The idea of selling services for self-published authors isn't a new one, but this outfit's website contains so many red flags, I'm more likely to warn people away than recommend it.

The site contains all the usual misinformation about trade publishing, including the old myth that publishers take all rights, and that writers no longer own their books.

Their in-house projects are horribly unfriendly to writers. The erotica anthology pays nothing. The essay anthology has two payment options: a share of the royalties or flat-fee work-for-hire. Flat fee isn't unusual for anthologies, but work-for-hire? For a measly .007 cents/word? The royalty option might be acceptable, but it's not specified if the percentage is based on cover price or net.

Deleted member 42 · Nov 6, 2012

What you're describing is a co-op.

Hybrid publishing is already an extant term of art; it refers to books that have a bundled insert in the book containing either a unique login to a supplementary site or a bound-in CD-ROM or DVD with a unique license code.

Deleted member 42 · Nov 6, 2012

Trade publishing has nothing to do with whether or not an advance is paid; it means that the publisher sells books primarily to "the trade," that is, the book trade—retail book stores, wholesalers and distributors.

You are probably a co-op, but there are parts of what you're writing that sound more like a service bureau, like Kinkos. They're more than a printer because at many Kinkos/Fed Ex locations they will broker services like editing, typesetting, compositing, etc. They will also assist in ISBN acquisition, but just as with your method, the ISBN identifies the publisher and the edition as Kinkos, much as they will identify books you produce with you.

You can't "assign" an ISBN to an author. When you buy a block, a specific ISNB is tied to you and to a specific edition of the book.

With respect to advances against royalties, it's not a loan. The publisher, unless they're incompetent, isn't losing money even if the book doesn't sell through. The advance is predicated on how many copies in a specific time the publisher is reasonably confident they will sell. It's all part of the P & L, and those P & L statements are increasingly accurate.

There's a reason that so very many authors have escalation clauses in their contracts, wherein royalties increase based on the numbers of books sold. This is especially common with ebooks.

Moreover, an author isn't assigning/giving/selling a book to a publisher unless the author is doing work-for-hire. If an author signs a contract that doesn't have a clause indicating under what specific terms and condition the rights return to the author (a "reversion clause"), and what specific rights are being assigned for a limited time to a publisher, the author has likely signed a poor contract.

The implication that a publisher makes 94% and the author 6 is troubling in the extreme. The publisher doesn't make that 94%, if we're talking about small indie publishers with distribution of any sort that gets books into stores /distributors/wholesalers, or library sales. The bookstores or wholesalers don't pay cover, they pay a discounted price. And they can return books they don't sell--some times, stripped, though that's increasingly less common. 40% discount from cover isn't even a little uncommon, for instance, so for a 10.00 book, the publisher isn't getting 9.40 cents of it, at all. The publisher has to pay for printing, even if it's POD, and production, and the advance, if there is one, and for sales and probably marketing.

I note in passing, I've never seen a 6% royalty, though I have seen 8% for first time authors getting an advance. Most agents would blanch at 6%, unless the surrounding conditions were compensatory.

One of the problems with signing with small independent publishers is that quite often they don't have adequate distribution, which can make sales slow, and sometimes, almost impossible. If it's a niche book and a niche publisher, the publisher can compensate admirably, but sometimes the distribution just isn't there. If sales are low, neither the publisher nor the author make much money.

This is especially true for publishers that rely on POD. It makes inventory control much simpler, but it makes it difficult to sell to readers, stores, or libraries, in part because the cover price is higher than a similar book published in runs of 2000 or more. POD costs eat into the publisher's profits, and into the writer's as well because while the royalty per unit is higher (when the royalty is tied to cover price, which is the safest method for an author), the unit sales are usually vastly reduced.

If you're doing POD you can't, for instance, really deal with returns/stripped books—that's one of the reasons for printing on demand; you don't need warehousing. But bookstores often won't take you unless the customer pays in advance, and libraries may not take you at all because POD books don't meet basic durability standards. These are also difficultures for self-published authors relying on POD.

tilly13 · Nov 6, 2012

shadowwalker said:
I don't know. Sounds like echoes of Ridan here...

I checked out Ridan, and here is one difference:

I saw a complaint about books not being released on time and also non-payment of royalties.

Ridan pays royalties. We don't. The author gets 100% of the proceeds directly from the outlets where the author chooses to list his book. We have nothing to do with that aspect of the process. If they would LIKE us to set it all up, we will be happy to do so for a reasonable fee for time, but we'll still be using the author's information to set it up, not ours. This would simply be another service we're able to provide. Should the author wish to do it himself to save some cash, no problemo.

Ridan releases book on their schedule, so the author has no control. In our case, the author sets their release date and releases their book, so if it doesn't get out on time, it's on them. Unless, of course, they've hired us for the editing and our editor is behind. If an editor drops the ball, and its *our* editor, we would terminate our use of that editor because they were unreliable.

Can you expand on your comment to let me know what similarities you *are* seeing? This is a legit question. I'm thoroughly appreciating all of this feedback.

Old Hack · Nov 6, 2012

tilly13 said:
1. Yes, an advance, in essence is a loan. The repayment schedule is based upon a very large percentage of every book sold. Loan, as I use it here, is a broad term, in that if the book never sells a single copy, one doesn’t have to pay it back. But it is an “advance against royalties.” Until one earns out one’s advance, the cashflow stops.

No, it isn't a loan. It just isn't. If you really believe what you've said here, then you don't understand publishing or finances. Or what the word "loan" means.

3. On the issue of paying for services, you’re right. I did not fork over a wad of cash. But I sold the rights to my books and not choosing to SP ultimately cost me the lion shares of book sale net profits.

If you sold the rights to your book instead of licensing them, you signed a duff contract.

You might not have made as much per book with your trade-published deals, but you almost certainly sold many more copies of your print edition than you would have done so through self publishing--and in so doing, earned a whole lot more than you'd have earned if you'd self published it.

If that's not true then I have to wonder who you published with, and what sort of books you wrote.

4. I don’t necessarily have a problem with the publishing continuing to make money, hence my quote about how they are in business to make money. And no, I appreciated my advance very much at the time. I’m saying that I would prefer to handle the costs myself and earn 100% of the profits in return.

And have to pay for all of the production costs upfront, find distribution, and so on. Good self publishers earn every penny they make: it's a really hard road to take.

7. Concerning not providing anything, we do provide something. You mentioned that we don’t provide “ISBNs or even barcodes,” but we do provide them; for a fee that is less than one would pay – even if one purchased 10 at a time. Certainly far less than buying just one number from Bowker.

That was kind of my point. What do you provide that a trade publisher would? Nothing, it seems. Unless the writer pays for it. In which case, you're offering vanity publishing.

8. The debate between self-publishing and “indie” is real because “indie” authors are trying to separate themselves from the self-publishing slush pile. On this forum, independent refers to a commercial publisher independent of the big boys. This is why I even brought up the subject. What we’d like to do is change that (not here, I’m trying to say anyone’s terminology or glossary is incorrect). We’d like to see a shift that includes something along the lines of, “Oh, they aren’t *just* self-published… they are indie published,” or something along those lines where the inherent difference is recognized. That difference being the process of weeding out book that don’t have the talent or dedication behind them. You point about calling ourselves an “indie publisher” is well put, however, and I can see the difference between what we do and what a small commercial press does, plainly.

Your implication that your books would be better than self published books because they'd be "indie published" (leaving aside the issue that that term already has a specific meaning in trade publishing) is frankly insulting to all self published writers. You're setting yourself up as better than them, when you don't even understand what the word "loan" means, or what an advance is. Do you see how patronising this is of you?

9. Why would authors want to self-publish work with us?

The "self" bit in "self publishing" means that self-published writers publish themselves. They don't pay other people to do it for them: then they're not self published, are they?

I like to think we’re offering the best of both worlds, actually. We do not take rights away from authors. We discriminate for quality and content on the manuscripts that we permit to use our ISBN. We do not touch the author’s earnings.

Trade publishers do all this and a lot more besides.

We provide for-fee services IF the author wants them, and in turn they get the ISBN included in those services. If they do not want to pay us, because they have an editor they really like already, etc, we will still consider their work. Authors have 100% control over the final product.

Compared to all the other things involved in publishing books well, ISBNs are cheap. Really cheap. That you keep on harping on about this point implies to me that you have no idea how much publishing costs, what's involved, and what's really beneficial to writers and publishers.

As for authors having "100% control", I have to ask you: if authors have full control of their books, what are you offering to do for them? Not only do I not see the benefit of your scheme, I can't see what you're offering either. Apart from an ISBN. And they're neither difficult nor expensive to get hold of.

tilly13 said:
This is precisely the point. A collective of authors linked by publisher imprint. It is possible to create an environment where the author retains 100% control over his or her book.

For instance, a book contract has a section on rights: movie rights, eBook rights, print rights, foreign language, etc. Our contract will state that IAP is entitled to precisely 0% of any proceeds of these sales and the author is free to sell them at will and whim.

If you get nothing from the sales, the author has full control of their book, they don't have to edit through you, and authors still own all their rights, what precisely are you planning on doing for your authors other than sell them an ISBN?

Another issue is the right to rework the book, sometimes to the point of using the same characters. If I want to write a book about a guy down in Australia and incorporate all of my existing settings from my already-published novel, I have to give my publisher first right of refusal. They might say, no thanks (they've done this on one book that I took to another independent publisher) or they might say, "We own your characters and settings. You can't publish that."

If you signed a contract which allows a publisher to prevent you publishing future works, you signed a stinker of a contract.

This is not common in trade publishing, but your assuming it is makes me suspect that you've published with dodgy publishers, which is adding to your misconceptions about publishing.

tilly13 said:
Oh, quick point on this. The author does not give control of the final manuscript to us. Ever. If we do the editing (if they hire us to do their editing) we work with them, but the decision to change anything is theirs.

In all the books I've edited, the author has always had the final say on what happened to their book. I suggested changes and improvements; they got to implement those changes, or to ignore them if they thought it appropriate.

This is not uncommon. It's how editing works across all the good publishers.

tilly13 said:
Yes, I do, and I get your point. I really do. What I'm saying is that when I advance 100 bucks to my kid, she has to pay me back. When a publisher advances a writer money, that money is returned to the publisher as royalties accumulate. There is nothing wrong with that model. Not one thing. It just isn't for me anymore. I would rather foot the bill myself, self-publish and keep the profits.

Do you really believe that what you've written there holds any sort of water as far as logic goes?

When I lend my children £50 they go out and earn the money elsewhere, and then they pay it back to me. I end up with that £50 back.

When my publisher pays me a £25,000 advance against royalties I get £25,000 in my bank account. I then earn royalties with my publisher, and when the amount of royalties earned exceeds £25,000 I will receive a further payment. I never pay any of the original money back to the publisher because it was not a loan.

You need to stop and rethink this. You are completely and utterly wrong when you insist that advances are loans; you are completely and utterly wrong when you say that advances are returned to publishers as royalties accumulate. If you can't see that you're wrong here then you have a huge problem with your understanding of this one issue, and a huge problem ahead of you if you go into business on this basis.

Tilly, with all due respect, you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. This project of yours has disaster written all over it. If you go ahead and fail--which is likely--you'll take all your authors down with you. Do you really want to do that?

tilly13 · Nov 6, 2012

Al Stevens said:
A few questions not addressed here or on your website (unless I missed it):

Who specifies list price?

Will there be author copies of print editions?

Does an author get discounts on print editions?

Who chooses reviewers and sends (and pays for) ARCs?

Will books be actively marketed to brick & mortar bookstores? If so, will you accept returns?

You sell website design services to authors. Do you host their pages on your website?

Given that you do not take a percentage of royalties, where does the accounting take place? Do authors upload their own books via their own accounts to kindle, smashwords, lulu/createspace/lightning source?

Since some production services are interdependent--cover format depends on page count, page dimensions, etc.--and authors might choose some but not all services, how are such services coordinated?

Many of these and other questions would be answered if you posted your boilerplate contract online.

Good luck with all this.

EXCELLENT Questions:

1. The author sets his own list price. Since the author is in control and footing the bill, as with any self-publishing venture, the author can charge whatever he or she feels is correct.

2. The author can have copies if he arranges with the printing source to have copies. We have no control over that. The only services the author pays us for are services he or she might have paid *anyway* on their own. This is important because it is the reason we do not insist that an author use *us* for their editing. If someone is really good at "self editing" (and I've seen it happen) then why should they have to pay a fee to a vanity press for that service?

3. Again, we're not a printer. We're not a full-on vanity press that includes free copies to help justify a $3000 price tag. If the author wants copies, they can get those copies through their deal with whichever POD company they decide to use.

4. If someone decides to self-publish, who pays for ARCs? Who arranges for reviews? They do. It is the same here, for now, at least. We're hoping to add this service as our reputation grows. When I say service, I mean we could handle the arrangements for reviews and such for free (not fee), but if the author wanted/needed to send a physical hard copy, he or she would be responsible for that.

5. If the self-published author wants to market to b&m stores, they are welcome to do that. We're not going to handle that aspect, as the authors are 100% in control of their self-published works. If they published under their own name, or through a POD or vanity press, they would also need to market themselves, correct? There are PODs that accept returns. It's up the author to use the one that he or she feels most comfortable with. The difference here, however, is when they present material to the bookstore for review, the publisher will not be their own name, nor will it be a POD book mill. Remember, we do not charge for anything other than services that the writer could easily purchase elsewhere. We are providing a service, if they want it. If they don't, no biggie.

6. The websites are just another service, and I'm the first to say that are not elaborate or terribly involved. Authors will get a page on our site for free, regardless, but the website we're talking about here are through a template service. Super cheap, and uber easy to update for busy authors who just want the basics. The problem is, I've seen people use these templates and they look like crap. We'll do the initial setup, with the author's information, and then train the author on how to do updates themselves. We'll also be available for questions should anything arise.

7. Accounting: Exactly. The authors upload their own books to the outlets of their choice and handle all of their own accounting. We do ask that the number of book sales/returns be supplied to us for our own information.

8. Services are available in packages or a-la-carte. For cover art, if the author chooses one of our artists, the arrangements are made between the artist and the author. Our only payment for services on that end would come from the artist in the form of a commission or finder's fee.

9. Good idea on the contract. I'll consider that, although I've not seen where that is standard practice? Am I mistaken on that?

Thanks for the questions. I would love to address them on the site, if that's okay with you?

Sheryl Nantus · Nov 6, 2012

It just keeps getting worse...

shadowwalker · Nov 6, 2012

tilly13 said:
Can you expand on your comment to let me know what similarities you *are* seeing? This is a legit question. I'm thoroughly appreciating all of this feedback.

Basically, it's a case of someone who really didn't know as much about publishing as they thought they did getting in over their head and causing major problems for the authors it signed. Just from what you've said here, I see another frustrated author thinking they can do something publishing companies can't/don't/won't without really understanding publishing - and getting other authors involved to their eventual detriment. Nothing against you personally, but I just don't see the experience necessary, the knowledge of publishing needed, or the value to any author. Good intentions, but we all know where that leads.

eqb · Nov 6, 2012

Tilly, Could you explain more about your payment options for your in-house projects? For the royalty option, are you basing that on cover price or net? And if it's net, how is net defined?

As for the work-for-hire option... Is there a reason you are asking authors to sign over all rights? That's pretty unusual, especially for such a tiny payment.

tilly13 · Nov 6, 2012

"No, it isn't a loan. It just isn't. If you really believe what you've said here, then you don't understand publishing or finances. Or what the word "loan" means."

I am using the term very, very loosely here. Of course, I understand how advances against royalties work. I've had several of them. My point is that if an author self-publishes, they foot the bill. When the book is published, they received 100% of the proceeds. I will never see 100% of the proceeds of my books as commercially published because I am due only a percentage in the form of royalties. The advance is not a gift. It is earned money paid in advance. Until that balance is met, there is no more money forwarded. Because the publisher keeps 100% of the proceeds of the book until the advance amount is reached, it is very similar to paying back a loan. An interest free "loan", and one that does not have to be "repaid" should the book not sell through. But if an author wants to have 100% proceeds from their books, they need to self-publish.

"If you sold the rights to your book instead of licensing them, you signed a duff contract."

Lots of authors sign duff contracts. I learned later that mine wasn't the greatest in the world. It happens. I learn and I move on. I stand corrected on this issue, however. I licensed the rights to my book for a specific amount of money.

"You might not have made as much per book with your trade-published deals, but you almost certainly sold many more copies of your print edition than you would have done so through self publishing--and in so doing, earned a whole lot more than you'd have earned if you'd self published it."

Very true and could be said for most self-published authors. Not disputing that one bit. The authors that might be interested in self-publishing should already know this.

"If that's not true then I have to wonder who you published with, and what sort of books you wrote."

I published in mass market and trade paperback with two small press independent publishers. I write romance. I have been twice nominated for the Romantic Times Reviewers Choice Awards, and received 4 star reviews in their magazine. This was a few years back, and my focus has changed a bit. Due to some serious personal issues concerning family (a divorce took care of that), I stopped writing for a long while. Most of my titles were not available in eBook until well after mass market release, they were shelved at Borders, Barnes and Noble, etc. and are still offered in eBook now, though they are out of print in paperback. Three of my novels are still available in POD and eBook at the other small press commercial publisher and still earning royalties.

"And have to pay for all of the production costs upfront, find distribution, and so on. Good self publishers earn every penny they make: it's a really hard road to take."

Agreed. 100%.

"That was kind of my point. What do you provide that a trade publisher would? Nothing, it seems. Unless the writer pays for it. In which case, you're offering vanity publishing."

We do not charge for anything that self-publishing author wouldn't have to pay for anyway, and we do not insist that they use *us* for any part of the process - with the exception that if they want to publish with us they must pass muster, and they must purchase their ISBN/bar code. We're not claiming to be a commercial publisher. What we're trying to do is build a brand that will benefit self-published authors.

When a book is published by one of the big boys, there is a reputation behind that. A bookseller looking to stock the book knows that the author made the cut. Doesn't guarantee a great book, but it is an indicator. We're going to build a reputation for self-published authors that is the same kind of indicator. At basically no charge to them, too. Again, self-published authors pay their own way.

"Your implication that your books would be better than self published books because they'd be "indie published" (leaving aside the issue that that term already has a specific meaning in trade publishing) is frankly insulting to all self published writers. You're setting yourself up as better than them, when you don't even understand what the word "loan" means, or what an advance is. Do you see how patronising this is of you?"

I absolutely, at no time, said or meant to imply that our books would be "better than self-published books." I'm sorry if that is the inference you drew. Are some self-published books better than others? Heck, yeah, they are. So why should they have the same "publisher" as someone who isn't as talented - even if that publisher is the name of the author? I used the term "loan" very loosely, and I apologize if it seemed too literal, and I stand by my phrasiology in that the publishing house earns back the advance against royalties as a matter of course. It is supposed to happen that way, and there is nothing wrong with it.

The "self" bit in "self publishing" means that self-published writers publish themselves. They don't pay other people to do it for them: then they're not self published, are they?

They aren't paying us to publish them. They are publishing themselves. The ONLY services we charge for are voluntary services that many, many self-published authors need and use anyway. There is no actual cost to place a book with IAP, except the ISBN. We are a for-profit business, not a charity. SP authors buy their own ISBNs in many cases, and offer that service IF, and only IF, the author wants to be associated.

"Trade publishers do all this and a lot more besides."

Of course they do. We are not a trade publisher.

"Compared to all the other things involved in publishing books well, ISBNs are cheap. Really cheap. That you keep on harping on about this point implies to me that you have no idea how much publishing costs, what's involved, and what's really beneficial to writers and publishers. "

I'm not harping on the ISBN - the only thing one our ISBNs will do is to place a publishing company association on the final product that differentiates our self-published authors from others that do not have the same level of talent, or who may be PERCEIVED incorrectly to not have the same level of talent.

The benefit is the community that will be built and the reputation that will accompany the community. I do know how much it costs and what is involved. I'm not offering to make that any less or easy. I'm looking to build a reputable publishing imprint specifically for self-published authors. If its not right for you, find. No problem.

"As for authors having "100% control", I have to ask you: if authors have full control of their books, what are you offering to do for them? Not only do I not see the benefit of your scheme, I can't see what you're offering either. Apart from an ISBN. And they're neither difficult nor expensive to get hold of."

No, they aren't difficult or terribly expensive, though in the US, a single ISBN purchased directly from Bowker costs 125.00, the barcode is another 25.00. We offer the same thing for $65.00, or $50.00 for just the ISBN. Yes, it's own of our numbers, so we are listed as the publishers, but that is the entire point.

"If you signed a contract which allows a publisher to prevent you publishing future works, you signed a stinker of a contract.

This is not common in trade publishing, but your assuming it is makes me suspect that you've published with dodgy publishers, which is adding to your misconceptions about publishing."

I am not prevented from publishing future works. First right of refusal, however, states that if I write a sequel to a book, I must give my publisher first right of refusal. I do not want to publish with a trade publisher anymore, therefore I am not writing on the series in question. Simple. Some contracts have this, others don't. It doesn't happen all of the time, but it does happen.

"In all the books I've edited, the author has always had the final say on what happened to their book. I suggested changes and improvements; they got to implement those changes, or to ignore them if they thought it appropriate.

This is not uncommon. It's how editing works across all the good publishers."

Right. And?... I was clarifying that we do not have final say on the books we work with, precisely because of this fact. We wouldn't accept a book for publishing that needed to be completely reworked. We would accept a piece that had potential, and if the author and editor work it out to something we might work with, then fine. If the author doesn't want to make the changes, no harm done. Everyone walks away.

"Do you really believe that what you've written there holds any sort of water as far as logic goes?

When I lend my children £50 they go out and earn the money elsewhere, and then they pay it back to me. I end up with that £50 back.

When my publisher pays me a £25,000 advance against royalties I get £25,000 in my bank account. I then earn royalties with my publisher, and when the amount of royalties earned exceeds £25,000 I will receive a further payment. I never pay any of the original money back to the publisher because it was not a loan."

Your taking my loose comparison far too literally. Money is advanced. The publisher earns that money back and credits the author's royalty share to the balance until it is met. Then the publisher begins to cut checks to the author. If the balance is never met, the author is entitled to keep the money. This is a perfectly valid way to do business because the publishing house is taking the financial risk. They deserve compensation for that risk, which they get by keeping the large percentage of each sale.

"You need to stop and rethink this. You are completely and utterly wrong when you insist that advances are loans; you are completely and utterly wrong when you say that advances are returned to publishers as royalties accumulate."

How is this wrong? It is an advance against future earnings. The publisher keeps those earnings until the amount of the advance is reached.

"If you can't see that you're wrong here then you have a huge problem with your understanding of this one issue, and a huge problem ahead of you if you go into business on this basis.

Tilly, with all due respect, you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. This project of yours has disaster written all over it. If you go ahead and fail--which is likely--you'll take all your authors down with you. Do you really want to do that?"

I take all of your criticism in the spirit that I hope it is intended, and I'm glad that I was presented with the arguments you've raised. I do not see how any authors would be "taken down" with me should this venture not succeed. Can you be more specific?

I'm honestly interested so that I can plan for contingencies or circumstances and make sure that the authors, and me, are protected. If IAP were to go out of business, the worst thing that would happen to the authors would be ... what? Now, if we start publishing any drivel that comes along... that's another story.

__________________

Sheryl Nantus · Nov 6, 2012

tilly13 said:
If IAP were to go out of business, the worst thing that would happen to the authors would be ... what?
__________________

If you can't figure this out on your own then you should NOT be pursuing this venture.

I swear, you're not listening to anything being posted here. You seem to have little to no idea of what a publisher does, much less how to run one yourself. I see you wrote for Medallion and Champagne Books so you should really know what you're talking about.

You do not.

Right up front - NOT RECOMMENDED.

Your authors might look at PublishAmerica as a Good Thing after an experience with this "enterprise".

:Soapbox:

Katie Elle · Nov 6, 2012

If you want to make money on something other than writing yourself, find something you're good at and offer it a la carte. People are making good money doing covers, formatting ebooks, and so on. Maybe if you establish a reputation and relationships with a few dozen authors you can take that further, into some kind of pseudo-publishing relationship, but honestly probably not.

You're saying you want to do gatekeeping without performing all the other services of a publisher, but authors I see tend to fall into two camps. The trade camp wants those services. The ***** "self-published" camp very actively rejects gatekeeping of any kind and your seal of approval offers no market value that I can see.

tilly13 · Nov 6, 2012

eqb said:
Tilly, Could you explain more about your payment options for your in-house projects? For the royalty option, are you basing that on cover price or net? And if it's net, how is net defined?

As for the work-for-hire option... Is there a reason you are asking authors to sign over all rights? That's pretty unusual, especially for such a tiny payment.

Hi there,

The royalty would be on the net, not the cover price. We'd take care of listing the book, editing in house would be free in this case, etc. Net is defined as the amount we receive when all is said and done. These books would be more of a trade/commercial arrangement, in that we'd receive the funds and pay out the royalties on a schedule.

That amount would then be split between us at the 40%, and the authors at 60%. The 60% would be split based upon the number of contributors, not the length of the submission. That kinda sucks if one submits a flash fiction and someone else submits a 5K word short story, but every contributor would be equally valuable to the end project.

It is a very small payment on the write-for-hire option, I agree. I wish it could be more, and eventually it may be. Right now, the main benefit for the project, as far as authors are concerned, is a sampling of their work made available and the traffic they might see to their other works as a result. Mind, the author's bio will highlight them as a self-published author and link to works previously published by them - not only books carrying the IAP name.

Little Ming · Nov 6, 2012

tilly13 said:
"If you signed a contract which allows a publisher to prevent you publishing future works, you signed a stinker of a contract.

This is not common in trade publishing, but your assuming it is makes me suspect that you've published with dodgy publishers, which is adding to your misconceptions about publishing."

I am not prevented from publishing future works. First right of refusal, however, states that if I write a sequel to a book, I must give my publisher first right of refusal. I do not want to publish with a trade publisher anymore, therefore I am not writing on the series in question. Simple. Some contracts have this, others don't. It doesn't happen all of the time, but it does happen.

Right of first refusal only means that the publisher gets to see the work first, and, if they choose, make an offer. You do not have to accept the offer.* I suggest you read your contract again for this clause.

*This is assuming you didn't sign a bad contract.

eqb · Nov 6, 2012

tilly13 said:
The royalty would be on the net, not the cover price. ... Net is defined as the amount we receive when all is said and done.

So, after all costs including editing, printing, artwork, etc.?

Because if that's the case, the 60% royalty, split between the authors, ends up being both small and unpredictable. A much friendly deal is where you define net as cover price minus vendor fee, period.

It is a very small payment on the write-for-hire option, I agree. I wish it could be more, and eventually it may be.

Except you're taking all rights for a pittance. Why not offer a flat fee with a limited period of exclusivity? That's more common and fairer to the author.

tilly13 · Nov 6, 2012

Sheryl Nantus said:
If you can't figure this out on your own then you should NOT be pursuing this venture.

I swear, you're not listening to anything being posted here. You seem to have little to no idea of what a publisher does, much less how to run one yourself. I see you wrote for Medallion and Champagne Books so you should really know what you're talking about.

You do not.

Right up front - NOT RECOMMENDED.

Your authors might look at PublishAmerica as a Good Thing after an experience with this "enterprise".

Don't hold back, hon. Tell me how you really feel.

So far, someone has called it a scheme, and you're saying PA would be a better option.

What I'm not getting are any specifics. What is the huge problem with what we're offering here? We provide author services for a fee, voluntary.
We ask for a small fee for ISBNs for books that are finalized elsewhere, voluntary.

What is the problem? You're right, I don't get what the big hubub is about? You obviously checked pred and ed, right? When I ran it by Piers, he didn't really think it was too bad an idea and listed IAP on his website.

It's as though you are all under the impression that I'm taking money from self-published authors for nothing? This is not true. I am offering a service for a fee, provided the author's submission is good enough.

tilly13 · Nov 6, 2012

eqb said:
So, after all costs including editing, printing, artwork, etc.?

Because if that's the case, the 60% royalty, split between the authors, ends up being both small and unpredictable. A much friendly deal is where you define net as cover price minus vendor fee, period.

Except you're taking all rights for a pittance. Why not offer a flat fee with a limited period of exclusivity? That's more common and fairer to the author.

That is an excellent idea. We'll do that very thing. And you're right on defining the net, as well. The cover and all other work will be done in house and not actually cost us anything out of pocket. Sounds like a plan - thanks!

tilly13 · Nov 6, 2012

Little Ming said:
Right of first refusal only means that the publisher gets to see the work first, and, if they choose, make an offer. You do not have to accept the offer.* I suggest you read your contract again for this clause.

*This is assuming you didn't sign a bad contract.

I'll do that. It's been a while. I do know of other contracts that were even worse. One very successful writer had to change the names and locations of her first book or two in order to write the third in a the series. Much later, after huge commercial success, her new publisher negotiated the rights away from the original publisher and she was able to re-release it as she'd originally intended.

I'm pretty sure it may have been a bad contract, though. I do not have to accept the offer, but I'm pretty sure I can't use the characters unless they allow me to - which they did on the first series. Book 1 is with Medallion and book 2 is with Champagne.

Old Hack · Nov 6, 2012

tilly13 said:
I will never see 100% of the proceeds of my books as commercially published because I am due only a percentage in the form of royalties. The advance is not a gift. It is earned money paid in advance. Until that balance is met, there is no more money forwarded. Because the publisher keeps 100% of the proceeds of the book until the advance amount is reached, it is very similar to paying back a loan. An interest free "loan", and one that does not have to be "repaid" should the book not sell through. But if an author wants to have 100% proceeds from their books, they need to self-publish.

No matter how many times you repeat your claim that an advance is a loan or is similar to a loan, it still isn't true.

An advance is not a loan. It is nothing like a loan. You are completely wrong on this point.

"That was kind of my point. What do you provide that a trade publisher would? Nothing, it seems. Unless the writer pays for it. In which case, you're offering vanity publishing."

We do not charge for anything that self-publishing author wouldn't have to pay for anyway, and we do not insist that they use *us* for any part of the process - with the exception that if they want to publish with us they must pass muster, and they must purchase their ISBN/bar code. We're not claiming to be a commercial publisher. What we're trying to do is build a brand that will benefit self-published authors.

When a book is published by one of the big boys, there is a reputation behind that. A bookseller looking to stock the book knows that the author made the cut. Doesn't guarantee a great book, but it is an indicator. We're going to build a reputation for self-published authors that is the same kind of indicator. At basically no charge to them, too. Again, self-published authors pay their own way.

Have you read any research on how readers perceive branding in publishing, and whether or not they make their reading selections based on the publisher a book comes from?

If you had, you'd know that the publisher is only an issue on some very narrow, genre-specific bands of books. HM&B is one. With most book purchases, the reader isn't even aware of the publisher of the books they've just bought. Doesn't this mean that much of your aspirations for your publisher are dust?

I stand by my phrasiology in that the publishing house earns back the advance against royalties as a matter of course. It is supposed to happen that way, and there is nothing wrong with it.

You're still wrong.

"If you signed a contract which allows a publisher to prevent you publishing future works, you signed a stinker of a contract.

This is not common in trade publishing, but your assuming it is makes me suspect that you've published with dodgy publishers, which is adding to your misconceptions about publishing."

I am not prevented from publishing future works. First right of refusal, however, states that if I write a sequel to a book, I must give my publisher first right of refusal. I do not want to publish with a trade publisher anymore, therefore I am not writing on the series in question. Simple. Some contracts have this, others don't. It doesn't happen all of the time, but it does happen.

Giving a publisher the first right of refusal, and being obliged to then sign with that publisher if they make an offer on your book, are two completely different things. Unless, of course, the contract really is a stinker.

If you didn't know enough to recognise a really bad publishing contract when you signed that stinker, what have you done since then to improve your understanding and knowledge of publishing contracts? And if the answer to that is "nothing", do you see the implication this has for the contract you're offering to writers who sign up with your publishing company?

Money is advanced. The publisher earns that money back and credits the author's royalty share to the balance until it is met. Then the publisher begins to cut checks to the author. If the balance is never met, the author is entitled to keep the money. This is a perfectly valid way to do business because the publishing house is taking the financial risk. They deserve compensation for that risk, which they get by keeping the large percentage of each sale.

Hurrah! A whole paragraph of talk about advances without the word "loan" creeping in. You're learning.

"You need to stop and rethink this. You are completely and utterly wrong when you insist that advances are loans; you are completely and utterly wrong when you say that advances are returned to publishers as royalties accumulate."

How is this wrong? It is an advance against future earnings. The publisher keeps those earnings until the amount of the advance is reached.

Damn! And you were doing so well!

No, the publisher does not "[keep] those earnings until the amount of the advance is reached", because the publisher has already advanced the money to the author. The publisher cannot keep what he has already paid out. You're double-accounting for this money by suggesting that the publisher holds it back.

"If you can't see that you're wrong here then you have a huge problem with your understanding of this one issue, and a huge problem ahead of you if you go into business on this basis.

Tilly, with all due respect, you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. This project of yours has disaster written all over it. If you go ahead and fail--which is likely--you'll take all your authors down with you. Do you really want to do that?"

I take all of your criticism in the spirit that I hope it is intended, and I'm glad that I was presented with the arguments you've raised. I do not see how any authors would be "taken down" with me should this venture not succeed. Can you be more specific?

Click to expand...

I certainly can.

If you sign any books to your publishing company then you'll have to license the rights to those books in order to publish them--because if you don't, you'll be infringing the copyrights of all the authors whose books you publish.

If your company goes bankrupt, those rights are assets to your company. The authors won't be able to get them reverted unless you have a really tight contract (and even then they might fail to), and based on the lack of understanding you've shown here, you're unlikely to have a really tight contract.

Now, many startups close within the first five to seven years, and most new publishing companies started by people who haven't worked in publishing before will close in the first two years' trading. If your publishing company goes bankrupt, as so many others do, then all those books you've signed up will be assets of your company. They will be tied up by the administrators for a long time, possibly years, and will effectively be lost to their authors.

I'm honestly interested so that I can plan for contingencies or circumstances and make sure that the authors, and me, are protected. If IAP were to go out of business, the worst thing that would happen to the authors would be ... what? Now, if we start publishing any drivel that comes along... that's another story.

Click to expand...

If your company goes bankrupt then the worst that can happen to your authors is that the books they've signed to you will be lost to them, as I've already said.

However, the alternative is that they sign up to you, you don't go bankrupt, but because you don't know what you're doing (and you really don't) their books will be badly published and will languish unsold.

Tilly, this is a really bad idea. I've lost count of how many people I've seen try something similar and fail, taking their authors down with them. You don't know enough about publishing to understand the things you're missing here. I'm sorry to be so harsh, and I really don't mean to upset you, but I really feel that this is not a good move for you.

###

I'm going to move this from Self Publishing to BR&BC where it's a much better fit. I hope that it'll reach a broader audience there too.

tilly13 · Nov 6, 2012

Katie Elle said:
If you want to make money on something other than writing yourself, find something you're good at and offer it a la carte. People are making good money doing covers, formatting ebooks, and so on. Maybe if you establish a reputation and relationships with a few dozen authors you can take that further, into some kind of pseudo-publishing relationship, but honestly probably not.

You're saying you want to do gatekeeping without performing all the other services of a publisher, but authors I see tend to fall into two camps. The trade camp wants those services. The ***** "self-published" camp very actively rejects gatekeeping of any kind and your seal of approval offers no market value that I can see.

Point taken. You may be right and there may be no market for what we're attempting to do, so only time will tell. I'm a patient woman, though. I don't expect miracles overnight.

tilly13 · Nov 6, 2012

"If your company goes bankrupt, those rights are assets to your company. The authors won't be able to get them reverted unless you have a really tight contract (and even then they might fail to), and based on the lack of understanding you've shown here, you're unlikely to have a really tight contract.

Now, many startups close within the first five to seven years, and most new publishing companies started by people who haven't worked in publishing before will close in the first two years' trading. If your publishing company goes bankrupt, as so many others do, then all those books you've signed up will be assets of your company. They will be tied up by the administrators for a long time, possibly years, and will effectively be lost to their authors."

I see your point. This is something we will have to protect the authors from. I remember something like this a few years ago, actually. I'll talk with my attorney in the morning and make sure to address it. I'll be asking specifically about a clause in the contract which states plainly that IAP is not purchasing any rights and does not have ownership of the books, but that the author is purchasing the right to use IAP. It is interesting, and I'll look into it.

tilly13 · Nov 6, 2012

Old Hack said:
Hurrah! A whole paragraph of talk about advances without the word "loan" creeping in. You're learning.

LOL... bite me... in the sweetest sense of the phrase possible. You know if there were an entirely different conversation, I think we'd get along just fine.

Sheryl Nantus · Nov 6, 2012

tilly13 said:
When I ran it by Piers, he didn't really think it was too bad an idea and listed IAP on his website.

Piers Anthony isn't exactly a glowing endorsement.

If you don't understand what an advance is and isn't and can't see why a company collapsing would be bad for the authors and their works caught up in it...

*shakes head*

tilly13 · Nov 6, 2012

Damn! And you were doing so well!

No, the publisher does not "[keep] those earnings until the amount of the advance is reached", because the publisher has already advanced the money to the author. The publisher cannot keep what he has already paid out. You're double-accounting for this money by suggesting that the publisher holds it back.

This is semantics. I have a contract that pays X% net royalties. I was given XXXX.00 advance. I did not receive a check for royalties until I earned out my advance. Therefore, the publisher "keeps" the earnings on the book until such time as XXXX.00 is reached.

I will concede that it is not a literal "loan." You win. I never meant it literally. (See, someone did win an internet argument), but I still stand by the fact that self-published authors do not have to deal with that. No, they don't get an advance. Yes, they pay out money up front for goods and services related to the release of their book. And on the back end, they receive 100% of the profits from the book sales.

If an author chooses to work with IAP, none of that changes. If they are fine with using their own name as their publisher, or creating a publishing company for which they are the only author, or if they don't mind having a book mill listed as their publisher - Hurrah for them! I have no problem with this. All we're offering is an alternative.

Indie Artist Press

Al Stevens

eqb

I write novels

Deleted member 42

Deleted member 42

tilly13

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman

tilly13

Sheryl Nantus

Holding out for a Superhero...

shadowwalker

empty-nester!

eqb

I write novels

tilly13

Sheryl Nantus

Holding out for a Superhero...

Katie Elle

tilly13

Little Ming

eqb

I write novels

tilly13

tilly13

tilly13

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman

tilly13

tilly13

tilly13

Sheryl Nantus

Holding out for a Superhero...

tilly13