- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Messages
- 8,745
- Reaction score
- 3,096
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Website
- www.adriennekress.com
Things may work differently in America or Europe but in my (Australian) experience you can't self publish and expect to see your books in bookshops. Bookshops take only what the big publishers and distributors give them with very few local exceptions.
Call it a calculated gamble or call it a business deal...what's the difference? I never suggested doing it blindly, I simply suggested there are other considerations beyond the numbers or the deal itself. If my sister had listened to the advice here the likelihood is she'd still be scribbling in obscure frustration. Instead, she's well known in her sector with considerably stronger negotiating power than she had before.
She knew it was a bad deal but she gambled and won. That's not the best approach for everyone but it worked for her.
And if you revisit the OP for this thread, clearly the OP is (or was) tempted to sign despite the likelihood of a bad deal. Everyone else has advised against it, I'm just suggesting it's not necessarily a disaster.
It was a very bad royalty rate and a bunch of other rights for them and restrictions for her. They've made a lot of money out of her.
It may not have been dishonesty (they did the sleazery pre-contract) but it was still deliberate exploitation of bargaining position. The point is, she knew she was getting ripped off but took the deal anyway because she backed herself to rise above it and use the profile the deal gave her.
It was a very bad royalty rate and a bunch of other rights for them and restrictions for her. They've made a lot of money out of her.
It may not have been dishonesty (they did the sleazery pre-contract) but it was still deliberate exploitation of bargaining position. The point is, she knew she was getting ripped off but took the deal anyway because she backed herself to rise above it and use the profile the deal gave her.
... "Net royalties" aren't spelled out, as in net of what? (What publisher expenses are being borne or shared by the author? Some are acceptable, some are not.)
The point of the above post, which was typed when I should have been asleep (and, hell, who knows? probably was) is that so much goes into the making of a publishing contract which can be unfavorable to the author, we have no way of comparing the situation you describe and the OP's where there was known history of non-payment of royalties. Hence, the questions.
I'm very glad the situation worked out well for your sister, but for every such outlier there are many stories where it did not. So, yes, we advise caution with so much at stake, and I don't think any of us is going to apologize for that.
So I guess this means you aren't answering the questions.
I was simply suggesting that you don't necessarily say no just because you know it's a bad deal.
Thanks for this. I'm combing through the contract, and can't see where "net" is clearly defined.
I was simply suggesting that you don't necessarily say no just because you know it's a bad deal.
What peculiar piece of advice. Would you follow this if you were buying a car, or a house?
caw
He (or she) would only have asked if tempted to sign despite misgivings so clearly someone else gets that these decisions don't have to be made purely on the basis of contractual and business purity.
Obviously not. Are you able to see the difference there?
And for those still querying, I did explain why my sister's contract was bad at Reply 30.
I really am bewildered by the reaction some of you have had to my suggestion - especially when considered in the light of my sister's experience.
The OP was asking whether you would sign a publishing contract when you had reason to suspect it was a bad deal. He (or she) would only have asked if tempted to sign despite misgivings so clearly someone else gets that these decisions don't have to be made purely on the basis of contractual and business purity.
Disagree by all means, but don't insult me.
Because AW is a place where a lot of writers, new and experienced, come for information, including reliable information about contracts. Seeing the details helps people become more informed. You came into the thread saying, "Well, a horrible deal isn't always horrible and I know because my sister." If you didn't want to provide more depth to your pronouncement, maybe you shouldn't have made it in the first place.Why are you so keen to pursue the details of her contract and how do they change anything?
She rationalized her decision by hoping the book would be successful enough to give her a better deal next time and that's exactly what happened.
Many of you would not (apparently) have signed that deal but given her success there's no way you can say she was wrong to do so.
Why are you so keen to pursue the details of her contract and how do they change anything? The royalty rate was effectively less than 5% and there were numerous non-standard inclusions giving the publisher rights they wouldn't normally get. It was the best part of four years ago and I don't have it in front of me, but that's not the point. The point is simply that she knew it was a bad deal. It really stuck in her craw to accept it but she did...because she had been trying to be published for such a long time and was so sick of rejection.
She rationalized her decision by hoping the book would be successful enough to give her a better deal next time and that's exactly what happened.
Many of you would not (apparently) have signed that deal but given her success there's no way you can say she was wrong to do so.
This is all well and good in hindsight, but you cannot seriously be coming into a place where people are eager to learn about the business side of writing to say, "Go ahead. Sign a contract against your own best interests because it might, on the odd chance, work out for you in the end." I'm really glad it worked out for your SiL, but I'm sorry, in the main, signing a terrible contract is just not good sense.