If Hugh Howey is in charge of the Authors Guild

Wasn't there already a thread with this topic?

Yep. It didn't go very well.

Hello Adam! Welcome to the Water Cooler.

I'm not desperately keen on threads just being a link to a blog post. There are a bunch of things Mr Howey says there that I agree with, and just as many I disagree with, but if you'd like to have a conversation about it I'd be more interested to hear what you think; and as Cornflake says, we already have a thread with a very similar topic. If you'd like to wander over there and share your thoughts on it you'd be very welcome.

Ah, it looks like that other thread's locked. Sorry I missed that. If anyone would like me to reopen this one, let me know.

EDIT: Having discussed this with mods and members, reopening the thread. We'd very much appreciate it if threads are started with more than just a link, though.

Thanks for the re-opening.

Torgo said:

There are a bunch of things Mr Howey says there that I agree with, and just as many I disagree with

Click to expand...

I tend to get this feeling whenever I read his site, to be honest. He certainly doesn't conceal his prejudices.

I think there's much to be said for his first two points, there, though the points he makes are rather one-sided.

I think, in this instance, his contention about digital rights management is grossly oversimplified and probably misguided.

His fourth point, in which he contends that the Authors' Guild should be fighting for lower digital book prices, strikes me as absurd. His only "logic" here seems to be his conviction that lower prices mean more sales. He didn't attend "Economics 101", it seems. He makes such a simplistic and misleading argument here that it honestly doesn't much matter whether or not it's actually true. He really should know better than to be in favor of encouraging mass "competition on price". His "reasoning" here (and in a number of other places) makes me eternally grateful that he isn't running the Guild.

His next point, and idea that the Guild should recommend to its members that they refuse to sign contracts with any form of a non-compete clause, seems almost laughably naive and unrealistic. He doesn't seem to appreciate that publishers, especially in the case of new authors, are taking on a hoped-for "writing career" and not necessarily intending to make a profit on an author's first book. And the description he gives of non-compete clauses is, as ever, very uncharacteristic. (My own impression of these clauses is that whereas one can easily understand the significance publishers can attach to them, they show the importance of having a good agent).

His could just be me and my memory (crap as it is) but hasn't that changed since it first went up? Or is this a different one? I'm not sure

I do recall the first one I saw of his, he mentioned things that have been operation in many publishers for quite some time.

A percentage of net? Really? No dude. You don't want to go for net, because an unscrupulous company can say all sorts of charges taht reduce the net...

I have never seen a favoured nation clause (afaia)

Several pubs already have no DRM. And restricting it to Guild members? Hmm.

My non compete is so easy it's a doddle (this may be a UK v US thing) Nothing to even worry about. I know of several (inc US) authors with my publisher who are SPing short stories in their universe. I have almost no restrictions. (None that are likely to bother me even slightly) So I'm wondering at that one.

My publisher already does sales of books -- not free, but 99 cents or £0.99

And then I got bored.






I agree that readers are the ones who force change, but I'm not sure that hasn't ever been the case tbh

Final wassname: Interesting. Not revolutionary. Preaching to a choir that is already doing it in a lot of ways

ETA I would absolutely listen to Mr Howey on selling an SP novel, where he has experience. Would totally listen to him there. But here I'm not so sure because he's advocating for stuff that already does happen, or is so silly I don't know my time is worth it. It just does not gibe with my experience Again I am in the UK so that may make a difference

AdamNeymars said:

Mr Flibble said:

A percentage of net? Really? No dude. You don't want to go for net, because an unscrupulous company can say all sorts of charges taht reduce the net...

Click to expand...

New York publishers ebook royalties is 25% of net.

Click to expand...

Mr Flibble was referring to "unscrupulous compan[ies]", not to good trade publishers (and note that publishing happens all over the world, not just in New York).

In a good trade contract, "net" is clearly defined; in a contract from one of those unscrupulous companies Mr Flibble refers to, it isn't: so the authors end up getting screwed. That's why it can be a really bad idea to sign a contract where royalties are calculated on net, and not on cover price. But if writers have heard that "net" is a good idea, without the qualification that it has to be clearly defined and limited in all sorts of ways, then they are likely to sign poor contracts.

But here I'm not so sure because he's advocating for stuff that already does happen, or is so silly I don't know my time is worth it. It just does not gibe with my experience Again I am in the UK so that may make a difference

Click to expand...

50% of net royalties, no none compete clause, no DRM are stuff that are not happening with NY publishing.

Click to expand...

Those things are happening in New York publishing, and in the many other trade publishers which exist outside New York.

There are plenty of bloggers who like to criticise trade publishing, and who claim that those things aren't happening in New York and elsewhere: but they're often very poorly informed about trade publishing, and make all sorts of claims which just aren't true in order to further their own agendas.

Be careful what you believe.

Thanks Old Hack, you got most of what I was saying (I knew you would! )

AdamNeymars said:

New York publishers ebook royalties is 25% of net.

Click to expand...

With some, perhaps. I'm not quibbling that some do -- only saying that not all do. And as Old Hack says, that just "net" is worrying. If "net" is rigidly defined, perhaps (Frex, X% of monies received from the seller. But if it isn't rigidly defined what constitutes a deduction before net is applied, a publisher can add pretty much what they want as a deduction. See Forrest Gump - brief overview of Hollywood accounting here - and how the author made not a penny from the film. Or how Stan Lee got nothing from Spider Man despite it grossing over 800 mill and him having a % net deal. If it's not defined, % of cover, thanks. Because my 25% of cover might well end up being more than your 50% of net if the contract isn't spelling it out)

50% of net royalties, no none compete clause, no DRM are stuff that are not happening with NY publishing.

Click to expand...

All of them? Are agents not negotiating? Note that my current contracts are in the UK, but are also with NY. Note also that I can think of two US-foremost publishing houses in my genre that do not use DRM (one of whom has not for quite some time). I suspect there are more outside my genre.

NY is not a monolith. And most things are up for negotiation. Going without DRM is something I can go with, but several houses already do DRM free and others are thinking on it. Big businesses tend to take longer to respond though. Also note, one of the small presses I'm with under another name sells my books DRM free through its website. But once they go onto a third party retailer...DRM is there (or was. Actually I haven't checked lately. Maybe I'll go take a peek)

Interesting news from the Bookseller this morning - Howey is signing up with Random House UK to publish his new novel SAND, having self-published it in the US. As his agent put it:

RH showed innovation and true partnership to make the series the success it is and every part of the experience was exciting, creative, and enjoyable—so much in fact that Howey eschewed indie publishing in the UK for his latest release because he values the partnership created. (Not to mention the sheer joy of working with his editor Jack Fogg and the whole Random House Century UK team once again!)

Click to expand...

I'm intrigued, because there still seems to be a bit of an animus towards New York, but then I can't believe the terms being offered either side of the channel on things like ebook royalties are that different...?

On this net royalties thing:

Every trade contract I've ever seen has the ebook royalty paid on price received (PR). That is: the amount of money received by the publisher for the book. The other way to pay is price paid (PP). That is: the amount of money the customer paid for the book.

PR royalties are only 'net royalties' in that they are net of the retailer's discount. So I sell a paperback to Waterstones with £9.99 on the cover, but they only pay me, say £5 for it, because they get a 50% discount. An awful lot of royalties are paid this way, both print and digital. It clearly isn't as good for the author - their royalties are reduced compared to PP in proportion to vendors' discounts - but it's becoming the norm as the RRP starts to become farther and farther from reality.

Trade houses I've worked for have *never* offered royalties net of, say, production costs, overheads, marketing spend, etc. If you get offered a deal like that, I wouldn't recommend it, at all.

On DRM, I agree that DRM is bad for publishers and authors (and good mainly for Amazon) and that we should do away with it. This seems to be slowly happening - Macmillan seem to be leading the charge. It'll take time, though.

Torgo said:

Trade houses I've worked for have *never* offered royalties net of, say, production costs, overheads, marketing spend, etc. If you get offered a deal like that, I wouldn't recommend it, at all.

Click to expand...

No they don't (that I've seen), but then they don't call it net either (again that I've seen), which is perhaps where the confusion is coming in. % of money received from the retailer is fair enough (no hidden extras taken off before % is applied, no wiggling about, the "net" is specified), but % of an unspecified "net" is not and I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.

Howey doesn't make the distinction in his post though, so I wonder which he means? It'd be helpful if we knew (or if he used the same terminology as the publishers). Also, considering that many bookshops* have a 50% markup, 50% of money received is like the same or similar as 25% cover.


*I'm not sure about Amazon (as we're talking about e-books) of the top of my head though. I'd have to take a look. But if their markup stays at the same rate throughout the contract, then I'd take whichever is more, and it might not be % of price received.

Basically what I'm saying here is, it's going to be different depending on your contract . A blanket "this is always better" is too simplistic and doesn't really apply. Each contract needs to be looked at individually.

ETA: Though obviously I concur with the whole "I want more money" sentiment If your net is specified, then 50% is obviously better than 25% of the same money

Mr Flibble said:

No they don't (that I've seen), but then they don't call it net either (again that I've seen), which is perhaps where the confusion is coming in. % of money received from the retailer is fair enough (no hidden extras taken off before % is applied, no wiggling about, the "net" is specified), but % of an unspecified "net" is not and I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.

Howey doesn't make the distinction in his post though, so I wonder which he means? It'd be helpful if we knew (or if he used the same terminology as the publishers). Also, considering that many bookshops* have a 50% markup, 50% of money received is like the same or similar as 25% cover.

Click to expand...

Yep. We use the PP/PR terminology, and any agent worth their salt realises that PR entails having royalties essentially cut in half. It used to be the norm that hardback royalties would be PP and paperback would be PR, for instance - everyone understood what that entails.

PP is a tricky beast because very few books are sold at the marked retail price. I bought a brand new £25 cookbook for £9 before Xmas; and we've all seen new Harry Potters in supermarkets for fractions of the RRP. It's starting to lose clarity.

*I'm not sure about Amazon (as we're talking about e-books) of the top of my head though. I'd have to take a look. But if their markup stays at the same rate throughout the contract, then I'd take whichever is more, and it might not be % of price received.

Click to expand...

Royalties for sales through Amazon are I believe usually PR with a hefty retailer discount. The more power the retailer has, the better the terms they can negotiate with the publisher, so I'd expect Waterstones to be paying more per ebook sold than Amazon. But not sure as I'm not on the Sales side.

Mr Flibble said:

Also, considering that many bookshops* have a 50% markup, 50% of money received is like the same or similar as 25% cover.

*I'm not sure about Amazon (as we're talking about e-books) of the top of my head though.

Click to expand...

Speaking only to my own experience, my publisher gets 50% of the RRP from Amazon on my e-books. Amazon sells them for 100% RRP. I get 10% of what my publisher gets ('PR' as Torgo defined it).

What this means is that Amazon gets 10 times as much for hosting my e-books for sale as I get for having written them. (They get $4 per book, while I get $0.40.)

Sigh.

Torgo said:

Trade houses I've worked for have *never* offered royalties net of, say, production costs, overheads, marketing spend, etc. If you get offered a deal like that, I wouldn't recommend it, at all.

Click to expand...

That's probably because you've only ever worked for good trade houses, Torgo.

I've seen contracts from independent presses which have offered royalties based on net (shouldn't it be "nett"?), where "net" is defined as the cost of bringing the book to market. A bit of creative accounting and the author doesn't earn royalties until everything else is paid for, including the petrol the publisher uses driving his car to work each day.

It's not common among the bigger or better publishers but it does happen, and I agree that it's not to be recommended. But writers who are desperate to be published will sign anything if they think it's their only chance to be published.

On DRM, I agree that DRM is bad for publishers and authors (and good mainly for Amazon) and that we should do away with it. This seems to be slowly happening - Macmillan seem to be leading the charge. It'll take time, though.

Click to expand...

It will take time, but it is happening. Some publishers are already DRM-free. And the more people within publishing--like you--who recognise the problems involved with DRM, the sooner the switch will come.

Old Hack said:

It's not common among the bigger or better publishers but it does happen, and I agree that it's not to be recommended. But writers who are desperate to be published will sign anything if they think it's their only chance to be published.

Click to expand...

Wasn't there one example recently - the new RH Inc digital imprints were offering a cut of profits or something, right? That didn't last long.