# Jim Hines - The Gospels of Publishing



## A. E. Lowan

Hines is addressing the increasing sense of tension between traditionally published and self-published authors.

Jim C. Hines Ã‚Â» The Gospels of Publishing



> You want “the real truth”? Here’s some truth for you.
> 
> There are authors doing ridiculously, amazingly well with traditional publishing.
> There are authors doing incredibly, mind-blowingly well with self-publishing.
> There aren’t a hell of a lot of people in either category.
> Being a writer is hard work, no matter what path you choose.



Hines is a very smart man.


----------



## Chessie

That article is the only one I've read in recent times which matches well with my personal philosophy on all of this. There is more than one way to succeed. And--either way--it will not be an easy road. But do we really want it to be? Its about the delicious journey and the learning along the way that is just as valuable to me as selling my books. Thank you for this post.


----------



## Philip Overby

I do think a lot of weight is put on "which path is more successful and gets you the most money and/or exposure." I've heard stories from both ends of the spectrum honestly. Sure, there may be horrible contracts out there, but there are obviously good ones also. Otherwise traditional publishing would go away altogether. And self-publishing is still a relatively new phenomenon which isn't widely embraced by everyone as of yet. Some say writing a book is the easy part. It's finding people to read it that is always the hard part. You're going to have hardships regardless of the path you take. 

I do feel like sometimes there are "fundamentalists" on each side of the argument. Either do it one way or you're throwing your effort away. I don't really get this approach.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Nothing wrong with taking a good contract, assuming you can get one. EVERYTHING wrong with taking a bad one, which is all most writers are offered.

Also kind of a bummer, waiting around for a few years to even find out if someone is interested in your book, when you could have published it and been earning some income from it all that time. But not a deal breaker, if waiting around to see if someone else wants to publish you is your cup of tea.

Unfortunately, I think we are mostly seeing a breakdown around confidence lines. It takes confidence to even submit a work to a publisher. It takes even more to self publish, I think, because you're saying "I am good enough", whereas with submission to a publisher you're saying "I will ask them if I am good enough". Of course, in some cases, you have someone SP whose confidence is misplaced...and in others, you have someone who submits to trad pubs who could do enormously better if they had just a bit more faith in their work and made the jump to indie.

But ultimately, many writers are taking BAD contracts from major publishers because they don't have enough faith in themselves to go it alone. Which is sad - because if you're good enough to get picked up by a major publisher, odds are good that you'd do well as an indie.


----------



## Philip Overby

> Also kind of a bummer, waiting around for a few years to even find out if someone is interested in your book, when you could have published it and been earning some income from it all that time. But not a deal breaker, if waiting around to see if someone else wants to publish you is your cup of tea.



I get that this is one major drawback, but people have been submitting things to agents and publishers for years. While there are obviously alternatives now, some people may not find the alternatives as attractive as others do.

I've compared writing to acting before. Like if someone wants to be a Hollywood actor, but others keep telling them, "No, you don't need an agent. Just go indie and do indie films. Look at all these people who have been successful going that route" for me it seems like if someone's dream is to be a Hollywood actor or be published by one of their favorite companies (Tor, Del Rey, etc.) then they should pursue that.


----------



## A. E. Lowan

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> Nothing wrong with taking a good contract, assuming you can get one. EVERYTHING wrong with taking a bad one, which is all most writers are offered.
> 
> Also kind of a bummer, waiting around for a few years to even find out if someone is interested in your book, when you could have published it and been earning some income from it all that time. But not a deal breaker, if waiting around to see if someone else wants to publish you is your cup of tea.
> 
> Unfortunately, I think we are mostly seeing a breakdown around confidence lines. It takes confidence to even submit a work to a publisher. It takes even more to self publish, I think, because you're saying "I am good enough", whereas with submission to a publisher you're saying "I will ask them if I am good enough". Of course, in some cases, you have someone SP whose confidence is misplaced...and in others, you have someone who submits to trad pubs who could do enormously better if they had just a bit more faith in their work and made the jump to indie.
> 
> But ultimately, many writers are taking BAD contracts from major publishers because they don't have enough faith in themselves to go it alone. Which is sad - because if you're good enough to get picked up by a major publisher, odds are good that you'd do well as an indie.



It's divisive attitudes exactly like this that Jim Hines is talking about.  I've been noticing them a lot within a certain population of writers (and I've been doing a fair bit of reading in that direction in recent days, thanks for the advice!) who get very aggressive when their views are challenged, and who like to use words and phrases like "EVERYTHING wrong with taking a bad one, which is all most writers are offered," and "lots of [fill in your evil industry straw man of choice] do these things," and "this is common knowledge."

I would also be very amused to see anyone who could ever meet me and think I lack confidence.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Phil the Drill said:


> I've compared writing to acting before. Like if someone wants to be a Hollywood actor, but others keep telling them, "No, you don't need an agent. Just go indie and do indie films. Look at all these people who have been successful going that route" for me it seems like if someone's dream is to be a Hollywood actor or be published by one of their favorite companies (Tor, Del Rey, etc.) then they should pursue that.



On the surface, I agree - if someone's dream is to do X, they ought to pursue that dream.

On the next level down, it feels like even the bit I quoted is value weighted - since you're comparing indie films (which don't generally support the actors as their sole source of income) to indie publishing, and Hollywood to trad pup. Since we now have pretty conclusive evidence that more fiction writers make a living as indies than via trad pub, I'm not sure it's an apt comparison.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

A. E. Lowan said:


> It's divisive attitudes exactly like this that Jim Hines is talking about.  I've been noticing them a lot within a certain population of writers (and I've been doing a fair bit of reading in that direction in recent days, thanks for the advice!) who get very aggressive when their views are challenged, and who like to use words and phrases like "EVERYTHING wrong with taking a bad one, which is all most writers are offered," and "lots of [fill in your evil industry straw man of choice] do these things," and "this is common knowledge."



Hmmm. Most of the data is pretty obvious, to me. But I've been immersed in it for a while now - so I recognize that what might be "common knowledge" to one person might be new and radical to another.

For example, go read any fifty contracts from a major publisher issued in the last year, and forty or more of them will have non-compete clauses in them. It's likely ALL of them will have a reversion of rights clause which effectively gives the publisher those rights for duration of copyright. This isn't a maybe. It's not guesswork. It's not "someone thinks it might be true". This is the way the industry is right now. And if you want a contract with a major publisher right now, you almost certainly have to agree to some terms that are pretty bad. If you're lucky, and stick to your guns, you might get those clauses defanged some. Mike Sullivan managed that. But it's not easy.

And this is stuff that is pretty well known, because professional writers are talking amongst one another at an unprecedented pace. People are gathering repositories of contracts, and people are sending them to experienced writers to get opinions. All I can say is, go talk to people. Network. Information is out there.

And of course, as of today we have the strongest evidence yet that there are actually more people making a viable living from indie publishing fiction than there are making a living by selling fiction to trad pubs. Which is something a lot of folks had suspected for a year or so now, but no one has had the evidence to actually back up the suppositions.

Given that we now know what we do, I'd still say that if it's someone's dream to be published by a traditional publisher, they ought to go for it. I'd never laugh at someone's dream.

But if it's someone's dream to make a living from their writing, the odds say they are more likely to achieve that as an indie.

People buck the odds all the time, though. Heck, just making a living as a fiction writer is beating the odds! And there are certainly still people who are succeeding either way. At this point, though, my own views have shifted to seeing traditional publishers as companies writers use if they have a dream to do so - and indie publishing as something writers do if they want to be full time professionals at their craft. (With the caveat that one can always do both, if one wants.)


----------



## Philip Overby

I think it's an apt comparison because you have about as much chance of success as an indie actor as you do as an indie writer. There are lots of indie actors who do very well and still make loads of money without doing Hollywood films. But if they take that path, maybe they're not following their dream to be in a Steven Spielberg picture. Or they'll never get their name on the Walk of Fame. Maybe they'll never be in Oscar contention. I know a lot of people don't care about such things, but some do. While lots of people make their living from indie publishing, I don't get this idea that it feels like the only viable path anymore and anyone who doesn't try self-publishing is selling themselves short. Just because it works for some people, doesn't mean everyone should do it. 

Again, this is coming from someone who would like to try the self-published path myself at some point, but if I'm being honest with myself, it's not my dream. Perhaps it can turn into my dream if I approach it with all of my enthusiasm. Which if I do try self-publishing, I'll be pulling out all the stops. 

However, my ultimate dream is to be published by Tor. Even if it's a far-fetched dream, I still want to try for it.


----------



## BWFoster78

I don't really get all the vitriol on both side of the debate.  Seems like a completely personal decision to me.

If you want to succeed as a writer:

1. Work on your writing until you're good enough to succeed by either method.
2. Choose which method makes sense to you.  There are advantages to each choice.  An author should educate themselves on each and make an informed decision.


----------



## Mythopoet

A. E. Lowan said:


> I've been noticing them a lot within a certain population of writers (and I've been doing a fair bit of reading in that direction in recent days, thanks for the advice!) who get very aggressive when their views are challenged, and who like to use words and phrases like "EVERYTHING wrong with taking a bad one, which is all most writers are offered," and "lots of [fill in your evil industry straw man of choice] do these things," and "this is common knowledge."



What bothers me and gets me fired up is that people who support the traditional publishing path often make broad value judgements about self-publishing and self-published writers and their work. But these same people, when those who support the self-publishing path defend it, will cry out against any negative opinion about traditional publishing. In other words, they can talk about the "tsunami of crap" and about how low prices and poor quality books from self-publishers are ruining everything, but if we talk about all the flaws in the traditional publishing system suddenly it's all "Woah now, let's not get DIVISIVE." 

People who are part of the traditional system and defenders of the traditional system tend to act as if they can say anything they want about self-publishing and authors in general (The Donald and his "class system" for writers which compares us all to cattle, for instance) but don't want to allow anyone to point out that the drastic changes the industry is undergoing right now are due, in great part, to the obvious issues that are part of the traditional system. They can talk about culling writers from a herd, but we can't defend our points of view because we're too "aggressive". 

Well, I don't think that's fair. And I don't think Jim Hines' post is useful at all because he (and so many like him) is ignoring the fact that much of the backlash from self-publishing advocates is BECAUSE people in the traditional industry are almost constantly insulting us all over the media. 

He's also ignoring the fact that there's a huge community of indie writers out there who, sure, would love to hit it big and be one of the outliers the media always talks about, but mostly they just want to make a decent living from their writing. They don't want to have to hold down a day job or two and write in their spare time because of an industry that operates by exploiting them and telling them that's "how the industry works". And the numbers of indie writers who are doing just that are growing every year by leaps and bounds. But that's another story.


----------



## Steerpike

Mythopoet said:


> Well, I don't think that's fair. And I don't think Jim Hines' post is useful at all because he (and so many like him) is ignoring the fact that much of the backlash from self-publishing advocates is BECAUSE people in the traditional industry are almost constantly insulting us all over the media.



That might be an explanation for some of it, but it isn't a good excuse. It is better when the discussion is reasonable and provides a good, cool-headed evaluation of either side. That's best for aspiring writers who are trying to figure out what route to go. Having a "backlash" and then saying "but it's OK because we were hit first" doesn't work for me. The truth is, you have people on either side of the debate who take the high road and try to make their points in a reasonable, respectful way. The more insulting loud-mouths of either side tend to get more of the attention.


----------



## Philip Overby

Steerpike said:


> That might be an explanation for some of it, but it isn't a good excuse. It is better when the discussion is reasonable and provides a good, cool-headed evaluation of either side. That's best for aspiring writers who are trying to figure out what route to go. Having a "backlash" and then saying "but it's OK because we were hit first" doesn't work for me. The truth is, you have people on either side of the debate who take the high road and try to make their points in a reasonable, respectful way. The more insulting loud-mouths of either side tend to get more of the attention.



I agree that the "you attack me, so I attack you" approach doesn't really sit well with me either. As someone who is constantly looking at different perspectives on publishing, I'm really open to hear the benefits of both sides. What I don't like to hear is "why would you even choose the other way?" kind of arguments. These exist on both sides. The issue of quality in self-publishing is a concern that some people rally behind more than others. The issue of losing your rights and not getting a fair shake in traditional publishing is another concern. Both of these points are something I have to consider when I attempt to publish in the future. 

On one hand, I think self-publishing is going to go the way of Youtube. Meaning there are lots of people who make a living off solely their Youtube accounts (or multiple ones) and then there are people who post grainy webcam videos and have 14 views. People will seek out the quality stuff one way or another on both sides of the fence. I really sincerely hope that self-published authors continue to skyrocket and it becomes a viable way of income for a lot of people. 

On the other hand, I see traditional publishers to still be heavy hitters, especially in genre fiction. People are still interested in print books even though e-books are outselling in some instances. Maybe I look in the wrong (or right) places, but I almost always hear about the big new book in the fantasy genre from traditional publishers. Out of the current crop of books I have on my "to be read" list, I'd say maybe five of those are self-published, while about thirty are traditionally published. That's just sort of how things work for me at the moment. I think it may be slow coming to change, but traditional publishing is full of smart people. They're going to figure out ways to make things advantageous one way or another, hopefully by keeping people on their roster of writers happy by giving lucrative contracts. Will this happen? I don't know, but with the lure of self-publishing, traditional publishers are going to have to step their game up to remain relevant. And I think they're making steps to do that. Or at the very least thinking about it.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Funny thing is, even as staunch an advocate of indie publishing as I am...? If a publisher offered me "game changing" money for a book, I'd be likely to take it, provided I could get the non-compete defanged. By game changing, I mean enough to say cut back my day job from full to half time for a year, say, or take six months off entirely. So anything in the $25-30k+ range would definitely make me interested.

And I'd do it KNOWING that I was losing money in the long run. And KNOWING I would likely never recover those rights. But six months off from work entirely, writing full time instead? I could write a LOT of additional books with that time. So yeah, I'd look at it as an investment in my future career.

As a general rule, I see self publishing as the better deal - for me. For the writer who's only planning to write one book ever? Probably not so much. Lots of reasons to want to work with a publisher...they just aren't the same reasons they were five years ago.


----------



## Mythopoet

Steerpike said:


> That might be an explanation for some of it, but it isn't a good excuse. It is better when the discussion is reasonable and provides a good, cool-headed evaluation of either side. That's best for aspiring writers who are trying to figure out what route to go. Having a "backlash" and then saying "but it's OK because we were hit first" doesn't work for me. The truth is, you have people on either side of the debate who take the high road and try to make their points in a reasonable, respectful way. The more insulting loud-mouths of either side tend to get more of the attention.



First, I didn't say "it's ok", I said there's a double standard. My point was that most people who call for calm and measured responses completely ignore the fact that the traditional industry and its advocates are constantly insulting self-publishers. They scold the self-publishers, in effect, for defending themselves and their way of doing business from the people who would have their freedom destroyed. But no, we label this "aggression" and focus on the few angry people in the indie community rather than the vast majority who are happily going about their business making money. 

The people who talk about the aspects of the traditional publishing industry that are exploitative to authors are labeled aggressive and myopic. No, there's no way to look at a contract that pays authors pennies per book and has the potential to ruin their career that makes it "ok" and yet people still insist that everyone has to decide for themselves whether such a boiler plate traditional contract is good for them. That's like trying to argue that slaves should be able to decide for themselves whether they "like" being slaves and want to stay with their masters. No, I just don't accept that signing over all of your rights to your intellectual property to another entity FOREVER to do WHATEVER they want with then compensating you with peanuts and endangering your ability to make a living as a writer is EVER ok. (And for the record, those type of boilerplate "this is how the industry works" contracts are the ones the indies argue against. No one cares if you manage to negotiate a good contract. But you can't do that unless you're going into negotiations from a VERY strong position, like being a successful self-published author.) If you try to argue that there are things about the industry that are grossly exploitative by nature then you're hit with a bunch of subjective bullshit about how everyone needs to decide their own path. But I suppose these same people would tell people who are considering jumping off a bridge that they need to decide for themselves whether suicide is "right for them". 

Second, someone really needs to point me directly to an indie advocate who is, in their opinion, "aggressive" or "divisive" or any of the other labels they like to throw around while holding self-published writers to a higher standard than they would ever dream of holding the traditional industry to. Because I don't see it. Maybe I hang out in the wrong places. (I don't hang around the Kindle boards, for one.) But all of the indie sites I hang around at are full of level headed, smart, awesome, but definitely assertive people. Sure, there are the odd arguments and there are the odd trolls and there are the odd people who have too much of a temper. (I'm guilty of the temper, I'll admit.) And sometimes the snark flies thick enough to blot out the sun, which is when we're having fun. But judging a community based on a few misbehaved people is a logical fallacy. 

So where EXACTLY are people getting this impression that indies are aggressive and divisive and whatnot? Give me links. Give me examples. I gave links recently to some of the best sites to visit to get a good idea of what the indie community is really like. Where exactly is this other picture I don't see coming from? (Don't point to me. I don't matter. I'm not even self-published yet. I'm just a lurker on the edges of the indie community.)


----------



## Philip Overby

I also visit lots of sites that tend to be populated with traditionally published authors. Many of them seem very happy with their contracts and their way of life. Maybe this is a rarity in publishing, I have no idea, but to say that everyone who is signing contracts with traditional publishers are equivalent to slaves is stretching it. If you don't like traditional publishing, fine, but I don't see the point in trying to convert every single person to become indie writers. It sounds like you just want the whole traditional publishing industry to collapse. I don't see that as a good thing whatsoever. Any option being eliminated in publishing is bad. 

This is coming from someone who wants to be self-published at some point. But I also want to explore every option. I don't believe blanket statements about one form of publishing or the other. They both have benefits and both have negatives. I'm glad there are people thriving in the indie community as much as I'm glad there are people thriving traditionally. The biggest thing I take away from these discussions is to be prepared for anything. If you want to be traditionally published, read the contracts to make sure you're not doing something you don't want to do. If you're self-publishing, don't fall into pitfalls that some indie writers have fallen into in regards to presenting a half-assed product. (In both cases this means SOME people, not all.)

Overall, I mostly see how passionate people are about their preferred method. That's fine. But when people start beating each other over the head with "their way" that's when I start tuning out. Are there indie publishing advocates doing this? I don't know. I just know I'm a part of several communities and keep seeing the same kind of "you're doing it wrong" approach on both sides of the fence.

Anyway, I've been thinking too much about publishing recently. Honestly,I have to finish writing something before I can even think about publishing.


----------



## Mythopoet

Phil the Drill said:


> but to say that everyone who is signing contracts with traditional publishers are equivalent to slaves is stretching it.



Read closely, that's not what I said. 



Phil the Drill said:


> If you don't like traditional publishing, fine, but I don't see the point in trying to convert every single person to become indie writers. It sounds like you just want the whole traditional publishing industry to collapse. I don't see that as a good thing whatsoever. Any option being eliminated in publishing is bad.



I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm trying to fight misinformation and exploitation with reality. I want all new writers to see the real, honest picture of how they are going to be treated by traditional publishing, I want them to understand the ramifications of their business decisions, I want them to understand that they have to make business decisions and that they need to be responsible for their careers, and I want them to have all of the correct information about the publishing industry as they possibly can. If they have all of that covered and still choose to sign terrible contracts with traditional publishers then it's none of my business. 

But most new writers don't. The industry has been opaque for too long. Authors weren't allowed to talk about what went on behind the scenes or the reasons they suddenly had their series dropped or had to start their career over under another name. That's changing, thanks to the internet and self-publishing allowing authors to talk without fear of being blacklisted by publishers. But there are still too many people out there who are ignorant of the realities of publishing as a business. And there are too many people fighting against those who are trying to reveal the dark reality with lies and insults. That is what I am against. 



Phil the Drill said:


> I don't believe blanket statements about one form of publishing or the other.



This isn't about the "form" of publishing. This is about the actual businesses in the actual industry. In theory, there is absolutely nothing wrong with licensing your work to another company to have it published. I have nothing against this "form" of publishing. 

What it is about is that the actual companies and actual people involved in this "form" of publishing use the "form" to exploit authors. They get authors to sign contracts that give all of the advantages and all of the power to the publisher and give the author no power and the bare minimum of compensation. The royalty structure in traditional publishing is egregious. So is their habit of rights grabbing and imposing ridiculous limitations (such as non-compete clauses) on authors who have no resources to fight against them. Agents who set themselves up as "author advocates" but in practice encourage authors to sign such terrible contracts are just as guilty. Authors trust agents and are exploited so that the agent and their agency can stay in the good graces of the publisher. I have nothing against the "form" of an agency relationship where the agent serves the principal (in this case, the author). But the vast majority of agents and agencies just don't do that. Their loyalty is first to their agency, then to the various publishers and editors they do business with, then to their most successful clients and then to anyone else. 

I do not have a problem, again, with the "form" of traditional publishing. But in practice, most of the publishing industry is inexcusably exploitative of authors. 


Phil the Drill said:


> I'm glad there are people thriving in the indie community as much as I'm glad there are people thriving traditionally.



One of the big questions is this: is an author more likely to thrive by going the traditional route or the self-publishing route? And, what exactly does a traditional publisher offer that makes what they take worth it?

The traditional industry is scrambling to try to keep people believing that they are more likely to be successful if being taken under the wing of traditional publishing. But all the time more and more evidence is being revealed that indicates this simply isn't true. (See the Author Earnings data.) And increasingly the answer to the second question is, nothing. Unless the nebulous honor of their "validation" is worth more to you than anything else (to which I would say, seriously?) there's nothing they can do for you that you can't do for yourself in this new world of publishing.


----------



## Philip Overby

> The people who talk about the aspects of the traditional publishing industry that are exploitative to authors are labeled aggressive and myopic. No, there's no way to look at a contract that pays authors pennies per book and has the potential to ruin their career that makes it "ok" and yet people still insist that everyone has to decide for themselves whether such a boiler plate traditional contract is good for them. That's like trying to argue that slaves should be able to decide for themselves whether they "like" being slaves and want to stay with their masters.



I don't know, I find equating slavery to a publishing contract in any regard to be pretty insulting. Sorry.


> But there are still too many people out there who are ignorant of the realities of publishing as a business. And there are too many people fighting against those who are trying to reveal the dark reality with lies and insults. That is what I am against.



Well, I personally like hearing stories from people who are successful in traditional publishing, just as I like hearing the same from self-published authors. There are tons of writers who are obviously doing well or they'd all be self-publishing now. Why are they not? This is a legitimate question. Why doesn't the whole publishing establishment collapse if self-publishing is absolutely the only option. If it's such a horrible "form" of publishing, then why do most of the top names in fantasy go this route? So everyone who is successful in traditional publishing is deluded I guess? All editors and publishers are evil snakes out to exploit people? I don't get this argument. 



> One of the big questions is this: is an author more likely to thrive by going the traditional route or the self-publishing route? And, what exactly does a traditional publisher offer that makes what they take worth it?



Again, I don't know. Ask George R.R. Martin, Brandon Sanderson, and countless others the benefit of going the traditional route. Ask people like Michael Sullivan and Anthony Ryan who have been successful in both traditional and self-publishing. They must think it works for them if they're doing it. Does that mean I'll be as successful as them if I go this route? Probably not. 



> Unless the nebulous honor of their "validation" is worth more to you than anything else (to which I would say, seriously?) there's nothing they can do for you that you can't do for yourself in this new world of publishing.



Cool. So people who dream of seeing their books in stores are just thinking about "nebulous honors?" People who want wider distribution are just wasting their time? Again, your viewpoint isn't clicking with me. 

I'm with you on self-publishing being the wave of the future and certainly a more viable option than traditional publishing might be in many regards. I want to definitely explore this route. But it just seems like you're saying, "Don't even consider anything other than self-publishing. That's the only way." I'd say some of the biggest names in fantasy would probably disagree. 

This brings up another point. All this sales data and making a living at writing and what not. Is this really the main motivation for writers nowadays? Money being the main motivation for writing seems like a very nerve-wracking path forward. I'd hope to just enjoy what I write, put it out there with either method (or "form" whatever I want to call it) and see what happens. Particularly people telling me they like my work, not watching my sales rank every five minutes.


----------



## Chessie

The whole point of this article posted by A.E. Lowan is that yes, authors can make it via either route. People have individual dreams and no one way works for everyone. Who cares what anyone else is doing? We should focus on our own journeys and let other people figure things out for themselves, while also being supportive of the community. Battling over which side is right isn't being supportive. Hugh Howey said it best: "we're all in this together". This article reflects that pov.


----------



## Philip Overby

I tend to lean towards the "we're all in this together" approach as well. Maybe I'm not as well versed in all the minutiae of publishing, but I just see denigrating one approach or the other is not really being beneficial to anyone. Of course I want to be aware of the pitfalls and dangers of approaching publishing blind, but at the same time I don't find arguments on either extreme to be very enlightening. I rather just run away, go back to writing and worry about all this later.


----------



## Mythopoet

Phil the Drill said:


> This brings up another point. All this sales data and making a living at writing and what not. Is this really the main motivation for writers nowadays? Money being the main motivation for writing seems like a very nerve-wracking path forward. I'd hope to just enjoy what I write, put it out there with either method (or "form" whatever I want to call it) and see what happens. Particularly people telling me they like my work, not watching my sales rank every five minutes.



Well, that's nice for you. Screw everyone who is concerned for making a living from their hard work. Oh, you didn't realize that every author who happily signs a crappy publishing contract makes it harder for other authors to get a decent one? Yes. That's the reality. This isn't just about your choice or my choice. This is about the conditions of working authors everywhere.


----------



## Philip Overby

> Screw everyone who is concerned for making a living from their hard work.



No, just be aware that not everyone's sole motivation is making money. Of course I'd love to do so myself as well and I'm going to be wary of signing any "crappy publishing contract." But very successful people are still signing contracts. And very successful people are self-publishing. That's the reality.


----------



## Steerpike

Mythopoet said:


> Well, that's nice for you. Screw everyone who is concerned for making a living from their hard work. Oh, you didn't realize that every author who happily signs a crappy publishing contract makes it harder for other authors to get a decent one? Yes. That's the reality. This isn't just about your choice or my choice. This is about the conditions of working authors everywhere.



I don't think that's an accurate statement of Phil's point. There are, in fact, traditionally-published authors who are happy with their situation. My view is, if an author who wants to be published doesn't like the contract they're offered, they shouldn't sign it. If enough people do that, you'll see a change.

However, regardless of viewpoint, I think you should find a more respectful way to express your disagreement. Differing viewpoints don't make people enemies. There are merits to both paths, and when someone defending either the establishment or indie publishing posts in this kind of argumentative manner, all it does it make their side look bad. This is especially true in self-publishing (which is the path I follow) where we already have to overcome the stigma of not being professional without this kind of rhetoric going around in defense of the self-publishing option.


----------



## Mythopoet

For what it's worth, my motivation isn't making money. But I strongly believe that every person has the right to be fairly compensated for their work. It is blindingly obvious that traditional publishing as an industry does not fairly compensate the majority of the writers who work within its system. Name all the outliers you want, it doesn't change the fact that most traditionally published authors give up all control of their work to the companies they sign with, often forever, in exchange for what? Shrinking advances and laughable royalty percentages. In other words, most of those authors don't make a living from their writing, from their _work_. (Of course, the industry has conditioned them not to expect to.) The publishing companies rake in the profits, while locking up the authors intellectual property, and the authors work day jobs to make ends meet. And that's a system that we're supposed to look at as being equally viable with self-publishing? No, I maintain that my slavery analogy is perfectly apt for those authors caught in the system with bad contracts, which was what I was referring to when I made it.


----------



## Mythopoet

You know, a part of me wants to be one of those really nice, really empathetic people, like Hugh Howey, that everyone loves. And I try, God help me. Often. But somehow I just can't make it stick. I'm blunt, I'm defensive. I'm, God help me, human. 



Steerpike said:


> I think you should find a more respectful way to express your disagreement.



I respect people. I respect truth. I don't respect bad information or bad arguments. But I guess I should just pat everyone on the head and tell them they're doing a great job and they can make all their dreams come true as long as they believe in themselves hard enough. That always seems to be, in the end, what forums like this expect people to do. That's more comfortable after all.


----------



## Devor

Mythopoet said:


> I respect people. I respect truth. I don't respect bad information or bad arguments. But I guess I should just pat everyone on the head and tell them they're doing a great job and they can make all their dreams come true as long as they believe in themselves hard enough. That always seems to be, in the end, what forums like this expect people to do. That's more comfortable after all.



Really.  Truly.  Honestly.  All we want is for you to talk to people without the snide remarks and sarcasm.


----------



## Ankari

Truth is not synonymous with "my side."

To everyone. If you can't conduct a conversation that involves different viewpoints, please don't contribute to it. Stay out. It's better for you, and for our community. We are a community. A vast majority of us , as in over 90%, are going the self publishing route. Although we identify the challenges of the traditional route, we don't need to paint them as the evil conglomerate out to crush authors' souls.

A sizeable segment of authors have fallen prey to the traditional contracts. I say it's the fault of the author for blinding their own judgment with the glamour of success. Peel away every cozy attribute you've built the publishing industry,and recognize it for what it is: a business.

These business don't exist to build friendships. They don't want all these hopeful authors to come to the CEO's house for a pool party. At the end of the day, the bottom line is all.

As it should be for authors. If an author is given a contract that robs him of his rights for an extensive time period, and he thinks those rights are lucrative, then why would he sign the contract in the first place?

Before you answer, publishers don't owe you a second glance.

That same author, if he's savvy enough, should realize the publishers see something in his work. Go self publishing. Done.

"But authors don't have the money to do what publishers do!"

My friend, you answered your own question. Don't complain about the rich not sharing their funds with the poor without a chance to earn their money back multiple times. That's how capitalism works.

Self publishers need to wipe the snot from their noses and straighten their quivering lips. Put your money where you mouth is. Don't have it? Earn it. Self publish when you're ready and stop trying to ride the coattails of the successful.


----------



## Steerpike

I think you're confusing message and delivery, Mythopoet. If you truly believe that self-publishing is the only rational way to go and traditional publishing is the worst choice any author could ever make, I think that's fine. I think everyone would agree that you're entitled to express that view. And you can express it in a blunt, honest manner without being insulting or snide. Being rude or insulting isn't a sign of passion, and on a writer's forum I know everyone here has the ability to express just as honest or blunt a substantive message as they like without resorting to it.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Look this all comes back to what Jim Hines was quoted as saying in the OP, there's damned few authors making a lot of money no matter which route they take. And it's all very well to blame one side or the other of the trade vs indie divide but the reality is that no one and everyone is to blame. Yes trade publishers seem to be putting out more and more draconian contracts of late (anecdotally), but indies are lowering prices and giving away books for free. So blame who you want, there's always enough blame to go around and in the end it doesn't really matter.

What does matter is the writing books etc, has always been a difficult road to financial success, and that the only road to it is luck, talent, and a damned lot of hard work.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Mythopoet

Devor said:


> Really.  Truly.  Honestly.  All we want is for you to talk to people without the snide remarks and sarcasm.



Sarcasm is a very useful literary device. I wouldn't expect it to be frowned upon on a literary forum. I also question your use of the word "snide" to describe my remarks. I don't think it's accurate.



Steerpike said:


> I think you're confusing message and delivery, Mythopoet. If you truly believe that self-publishing is the only rational way to go and traditional publishing is the worst choice any author could ever make, I think that's fine. I think everyone would agree that you're entitled to express that view. And you can express it in a blunt, honest manner without being insulting or snide. Being rude or insulting isn't a sign of passion, and on a writer's forum I know everyone here has the ability to express just as honest or blunt a substantive message as they like without resorting to it.



Now see, this is why I get frustrated. Because I have not said what you just wrote there as my "belief" nor do I believe that. I have actually explicitly stated that I have no problem with traditional publishing as a method and that if you can get a good contract that's great. I am using somewhat strident language because I am growing tired of people misrepresenting everything I say or ignoring points I am making or just attacking my method of delivery rather than addressing my arguments. Which makes it look, from this side of the discussion, as if I'm not the one who can't handle opposing viewpoints. 

I have no issue with people bringing arguments to my posts. I have issue with the quality of those arguments and where they are directed. In fact, I LOVE a good debate. There's little I find more exciting than an in depth debate about an issue I'm passionate about where the other party has really good, logical arguments and methodology. Where I really have to bring my A game. 

But basically you guys are just going to throw the "you're rude" card at me. I don't think I've been rude to anyone here. I will not refrain from calling it like it is where the businesses and businesspeople currently working in traditional publishing are concerned. But what does that have to do with the posters here? Why are you taking it as personally directed rudeness when I'm talking about an industry?


----------



## Steerpike

Mythopoet said:


> Now see, this is why I get frustrated. Because I have not said what you just wrote there as my "belief" nor do I believe that. I have actually explicitly stated that I have no problem with traditional publishing as a method and that if you can get a good contract that's great.



Yeah, I know. I was just making the point that _if_ that was your belief, it wouldn't be a problem. You could go as far in that direction as you want with no issue.

As for sarcasm, snide comments, etc., they may be effective as literary devices. They may even be effective as rhetorical devices in some cases. So what we're ultimately left with are the rules of the forum and the tone of discussion the site owner wants on the forums, which is what we're supposed to be ensuring as moderators.

There are plenty of sites that take a very hands-off approach to this sort of thing. There are some that allow all-out flame wars between members who disagree. I'm on some of them, and given the very lax rules in those environments my approach to comments may well be different. But it is a good thing, in my view, that not all forums are that way. I like to post on those, and I like to post here, and I like that the community standards are different here. 

So, ultimately, whether you agree or disagree with the standards, whether you think they're too restrictive or not, they are what they are. If you prefer the more combative, relaxed style of discussion, I think that's fine. As I said, I post in some of those places. But this isn't the place for it, so I think the best way to resolve the disagreement in principle about how to approach the forums is simply to say that in any set of forums, it is right to respect the rules the forum owners have set in place. Here, the rules don't allow for argumentative or hostile engagement. I think as moderators we are, on the whole, pretty relaxed in how we interpret it while at the same time trying to ensure that the spirit of those rules is followed.

So all I'm asking, ultimately, is that when you're posting here be respectful of the rules the forum owner has put in place, and when you're posting somewhere else, do the same. And if that somewhere else allows a lot more latitude in terms of argumentative posts or even outright insults, then that's fine. Here that is not the case.


----------



## Mythopoet

All right, all right, let's all just stop discussing the things that matter and focus on Mythopoet's tone. That must not be left unchecked! Who knows what will happen if she's allowed to go around the forums spreading her dastardly sarcasm! Horrors!

Oh frell. There I go again being willfully sarcastic. I suppose you'll have to ban me again. Can't have errant sarcasm running around in here!


----------



## BWFoster78

> I have no issue with people bringing arguments to my posts. I have issue with the quality of those arguments and where they are directed. In fact, I LOVE a good debate. There's little I find more exciting than an in depth debate about an issue I'm passionate about where the other party has really good, logical arguments and methodology. Where I really have to bring my A game.



I agree.

On that note, here are the advantages that I see in traditional publishing:

1. The publisher assumes all financial risk, including editing, cover, marketing, printing, and an advance.  This advantage is not insignificant.  Many authors who plan to self publish skimp on editing and/or cover because they don't feel that they can afford it.  How much does that skimping impact their chance for success?

2. The advance.  What's better: a guaranteed $5000 or the potential of either a lot more or a lot less, including the potential of actually losing money?  The answer to this question is highly personal as it depends a lot on an individual's financial situation and their aversion to risk.

3. Credibility.  Like it or not, a traditionally published author is still considered much more credible than a self published one.  This credibility opens doors to reviewers, conferences, etc.

4. Validation.  I know that a lot of people on forums argue that validation isn't needed.  The biggest question facing me as a potential self publishing author is, "Am I good enough?"  The traditionally published author has that question answered for them.

5. Access to more markets.  A publisher can get me into book stores in a way that I can only dream about as a self publisher.  Perhaps those kind of sales wouldn't make up for the lower royalty.  Perhaps they would greatly exceed it.  Personally, how much is the coolness factor of perhaps seeing my book in B&N worth?  (Understanding that not many traditionally published authors get that much distribution, but even fewer self published ones do.)

6. More focus on writing.  Self publishing is a business.  If you're going to succeed, you have to treat it as one.  Every minute you spend on your business is a minute you're not writing.

I'm sure I'm missing some of the advantages, but, even if a traditional publisher is offering me a draconian contract, it behooves me to seriously look at both the pros and the cons before making an informed decision.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Mythopoet, you were given a 3-day Infraction because of your argumentative and hostile behavior and now you return to behave exactly the same way as before.

According to the Forum Guidelines we do not allow _Making degrading, snide or derisive comments_, _Argumentative or hostile behavior_ and _Constant Negativity._

You also give much more importance to getting the last word than to fostering community, which goes against The Guiding Principle.

I am sorry, but I will give you a thirty days Infraction.


----------



## Philip Overby

BWFoster78 said:


> I agree.
> 
> On that note, here are the advantages that I see in traditional publishing:
> 
> 1. The publisher assumes all financial risk, including editing, cover, marketing, printing, and an advance.  This advantage is not insignificant.  Many authors who plan to self publish skimp on editing and/or cover because they don't feel that they can afford it.  How much does that skimping impact their chance for success?



Some argue that traditional publishers don't really provide these things anymore. I would say if you're publishing with one of the big ones though, this has to be true. Right?



> 2. The advance.  What's better: a guaranteed $5000 or the potential of either a lot more or a lot less, including the potential of actually losing money?  The answer to this question is highly personal as it depends a lot on an individual's financial situation and their aversion to risk.



Yeah, this is tough. If I was in dire financial straits, I would probably be of a mind to attempt traditional publishing first. This is simply because it's expensive to self-publish for many to get the quality they desire. Some don't invest much for editing or cover art, and seem to be fine with that. So you can go a cheaper route if you self-publish, it just depends on your philosophy of quality. 



> 3. Credibility.  Like it or not, a traditionally published author is still considered much more credible than a self published one.  This credibility opens doors to reviewers, conferences, etc.



I think this is something that tends to bring out the more "spirited" arguments. I guess I don't hang out in the right places, but some suggest that indie authors are all on a level playing field. Maybe I'm just around too many places that laud big name authors (or ones published by big name publishers), but I have to agree, in the fantasy genre anyway. 

If I'm wrong, are there big names in indie fantasy writing that I'm just not aware of? I know Michael Sullivan and Anthony Ryan, but I don't know many others. Both of them are hybrid authors as well though, so they have the advantage of both approaches. (But I'm not completely sure if Ryan is hybrid. I know he got big success and then signed with Orbit.)


> 4. Validation.  I know that a lot of people on forums argue that validation isn't needed.  The biggest question facing me as a potential self publishing author is, "Am I good enough?"  The traditionally published author has that question answered for them.



Again, I guess I'm playing devil's advocate, but some may consider this to be a pretty low on the list of motivating factors. Some may say their audience determines if they're good enough and they don't need anyone else to tell them.


> 5. Access to more markets.  A publisher can get me into book stores in a way that I can only dream about as a self publisher.  Perhaps those kind of sales wouldn't make up for the lower royalty.  Perhaps they would greatly exceed it.  Personally, how much is the coolness factor of perhaps seeing my book in B&N worth?  (Understanding that not many traditionally published authors get that much distribution, but even fewer self published ones do.)



This is something I brought up before that was glossed over. I definitely think this is one of the top motivations in the present market. Book stores, as of now, still exist. Print books, as of now, still exist. People still go to these places and buy books. Amazon isn't the only place people buy things. Maybe there will be a day when e-books are all that exist. I don't think many people will be happy with that, but it is what it is. 



> 6. More focus on writing.  Self publishing is a business.  If you're going to succeed, you have to treat it as one.  Every minute you spend on your business is a minute you're not writing.



This is another good point. Some people are good writers, but horrible publishers. Just because you're good at writing doesn't mean you're going to be good at everything else. This doesn't mean that traditionally published authors simply have it better in this regard because they don't have to promote. They absolutely have to promote. For a profession for so many introverted people, you really have to get out there and do the damn thing if you're going to be a self-publisher. I guess some people get by without promoting by just writing more and more books. 



> I'm sure I'm missing some of the advantages, but, even if a traditional publisher is offering me a draconian contract, it behooves me to seriously look at both the pros and the cons before making an informed decision.



This is one reason I think it's important not to rush into anything as a writer. If you take the first contract given to you simply because it's a contract, then that's probably not the best bet. I'd have some of these people who understand all the "nasty" parts of contracts and really have them look over it. 

On the same token, just because you finish a book, doesn't mean it needs to be self-published. Or hell, maybe it does. I don't know. 

Also, one last point. As an EFL teacher, I hear lots of people complaining about other teachers taking horrible contracts and how that effects the whole market. If people take low pay and no benefits, then it allows these companies to continue the same practices. However, when you have to have a job, right then and right there, you don't consider things like royalties and selling your rights away, etc. etc. I'm sure there are writer unions and groups like the SFWA that help people watch out for these kind of things. That's unfortunate that there is this desperation, but sometimes people want to sign these first contracts they're offered because it's a way out of the rut they're in. Sometimes a healthy advance can be a saving grace for some struggling to get by.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Some argue that traditional publishers don't really provide these things anymore. I would say if you're publishing with one of the big ones though, this has to be true. Right?



I can't speak from personal experience, but I can't imagine a publisher not providing these services.  Perhaps you are mistaking a previous conversation where it was brought up that publishers require a manuscript that is pretty darn good before editing?  That's not saying that editing isn't provided - just that an author shouldn't count on the editor to fix all their mistakes.



> Some don't invest much for editing or cover art, and seem to be fine with that. So you can go a cheaper route if you self-publish, it just depends on your philosophy of quality.



I tend to like what Michael Sullivan has to say on the subject.  If you want to succeed as an indie, your work needs to be indistinguishable from traditional.  I just don't think you can do that by going too cheap.



> I think this is something that tends to bring out the more "spirited" arguments.



I don't understand why.  Let's be honest, the bar for traditional publishing is: a publisher has to choose your work and invest money in publishing it.  The bar for self publishing is the ability to hit "publish" on Amazon.  I did not mean to imply that a self published author can't build up a credible reputation as much as I meant that, if you take a debut indie and a debut traditional, the traditional automatically has more credibility.



> Again, I guess I'm playing devil's advocate, but some may consider this to be a pretty low on the list of motivating factors. Some may say their audience determines if they're good enough and they don't need anyone else to tell them.



I kinda worry about the people who feel this way.  There are two dangers here: 1. If an author is overconfident, he may publish something that isn't ready, wasting his time and money and, perhaps, damaging his reputation and brand.  2. If an author lacks confidence, he may never publish at all even though his stuff may have the possibility of gaining an audience.  Seems to me that, if you're not even considering either of these two pitfalls, you're putting yourself at greater risk of falling to one of them.



> This is one reason I think it's important not to rush into anything as a writer. If you take the first contract given to you simply because it's a contract, then that's probably not the best bet. I'd have some of these people who understand all the "nasty" parts of contracts and really have them look over it.



A recently expressed opinion on this subject is that signing a bad contract is always a terrible idea.  I think that the "badness" of a contract is pretty relative.  A noncompete should probably be a deal-breaker, but rights not reverting to you, imo, might not be that big of a deal.  What's the rights to one book vs. getting a boost for the rest of the books that you ever write?  I just think it makes sense to evaluate any offer instead of throwing it away because of a perceived lack of fairness.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Speaking from personal experience in both indie and trad...

1) To roughly match a publisher for quality of editing and cover, you're looking at spending $1000-2000. Yes, some publishers spend more than this, especially on "big" books. But that's the figure level to roughly match their effort as an indie. (There are ways around paying cash for that - but whether paying cash or paying "in kind" for services or getting free help, you're still looking at that as roughly the value). There are horror stories about publishers' doing crappy editing. I have one, myself. They're not the norm; they're exceptions. Heck, JK Rowlings' ebook was released in unreadable condition - occasionally, stuff happens, even on big books! But it's rare. As a rule, they give good quality. They must. But don't overestimate the value of that quality.

2) Average advances are down to mid four figures, and dropping. Hydra and other ebook only lines starting up are no longer offering new writers an advance at all. As I commented above - if I was offered a $30k advance on a book, and could defang the non compete, I would probably sign it (even if it was taking all rights for duration of copyright, like most contracts do today), because I would see that income as investment material - money with which I could slash day job hours, increase writing hours, and literally produce several new books on the back of that income that would come much more slowly without it. On the flip side, I'd NEVER sign that same contract with a $10k advance, because the advance isn't big enough to have a significant impact on my time, and I'd lose too much money (very few books earn out their advances, so don't *count* on income after the advance - although it's nice to aim for!).

3) Credibility can make a difference. Of course, indie books are now going up for Hugos, so things are changing even there. And most of the panels at the major SF/F cons I went to in the past year had indie writers on them. So it's changing there, too - because con chairs are recognizing that MOST of their customers (convention goers) are not published, and are interested in indie publishing. So they're shifting their material to accommodate their paying customers, like any good business. Really, the last place there is much credibility difference is INSIDE the publishing industry. Major publishing news sources, the very biggest of industry conventions, the old style major review sources (which are no longer the major review sources for most readers), and other bastions of the industry still have credibility issues with indie writers. As a whole, though? Indies are selling about one in every 3 fiction books sold in the US, right now. Credibility is more a matter of doing well than it is how you did it.

4) I can actually see the validation thing. I mean, before I ever indie published anything, I had already had short fiction published; had long fiction turned down with nice, comment filled rejection letters; co-written a nonfiction book; won a (small) literary award; been paid by game companies for my writing; and generally had a pretty good idea that I was a decent writer. But if I hadn't had any of those things? If I was just starting out? Wow. Writing itself is an act of hubris - putting bits of yourself on the page and assuming other people will want to read them. Indie writing is even moreso, because you just put it out there, without having the "attaboy!" from some professional gatekeeper first. I had the attaboys before I indie published. I think it would have been more challenging for me, without them. So I get this. At the same time, I think that the ultimate validation is simply readers, and in the end, nothing else matters more, in fiction at least, than whether readers are enjoying your work.

5) Markets depends on the publisher. For example, most small publishers don't get into markets you can't reach yourself. So this is not an advantage for (most) small presses. For larger publishers, you're looking at 3-6 months in B&N and a few indie bookstores, and then again you're relegated to the same places you can get yourself. YES, you'll sell thousands of books in those 3-6 months. Whether you'll actually make more money in that short time frame or not is questionable, given how much less money you'll earn once the book is in online sales only. On the plus side, however, the B&N market opens doors to new readers - people who have not bought you before. Some of those people will go buy your other stuff online. Some of those people will shift over to ebook buying in the next year or two, and buy lots more stuff online. So there IS still value in the opening markets. Keep in mind - if you start submitting a work today, it might not hit bookstores for 2+ years, and B&N will have markedly less value in two years than it does today. I can't predict how many B&N stores will be left by then.

6) Time to write - this one just isn't true.
I know it seems like it should be. But it's not. Indie writers have more time to write, less time spent on non-writing business stuff, and on the average are more productive than trad pub writers.

All of the things indies need to do in terms of promotion, trad pub writers also need to do. Even at the high end, major publishers' promotion of books is exceptionally weak. Nice post commenting about what they offered one major indie writer here - I turned down over a million bucks in trad deals, plus other tips for Indies

Bottom line: publishers do not market books effectively, *except* in that they market them very effectively to big book buyers like B&N, Walmart, etc. The author still needs to promote a book to readers, regardless how they publish.

So that leaves other stuff - finding an editor, finding cover artists (or making your own covers), formatting books, etc. Finding an editor is time consuming, but it's NOTHING compared to finding an agent. And the trad pub writer today needs an IP attorney more than they need an agent, so you need to find that professional as well. Actual work on the editorial process is about the same either way. Making my own covers takes me a couple of hours, today, although there IS a learning curve (and I have a couple of early short stories that need new covers!). Formatting an ebook takes me ten minutes or so, and the print takes a couple of hours. Point is, none of this stuff consumers a LOT of time. And traditional publishers have ways of taking up a lot of time too, through little things...emails, conference calls, assorted communication about the book. None of it is bad stuff, but it takes time.

Bottom line - it's a wash, at best, and if there is any advantage in time spent on non-writing things, the indie writer IMHO is spending more time writing and less time on other stuff (by a slim margin).

Finally, you have to consider the culture. Indie writing culture encourages writing more. Traditional publishing culture encourages writing less. The writer producing two NYC books per year is considered prolific, maybe even a hack. The indie producing two books a year is considered *slow*, and is probably not a full time writer. Indies are producing more stuff in part because they know they can (no non-competes preventing them from publishing their work, no publishers saying they can't put work out that fast). And indies are producing more work in part because the indie culture has grown into one which encourages writing more. Not faster - just more hours. If it takes 400 hours to write and revise a novel, then it should be the work of about 10 full time weeks, the indie will tell you. The trad pub writer will wonder what they would do with the other 40 weeks out of the year, if they wrote like that. (Actually, a lot of full time trad pub writers have always used pen names to write 4-6+ books per year, to get around the "one book per year per name" issue major publishers have, but this isn't well known.)


Are there advantages to traditional publishing?

I would say a qualified "yes".

Sometimes.

For some books, that publishers really want, and are willing to put significant funding behind, yes.
For some writers, who have earned the clout to defang the nastier clauses which are now in EVERY major publishers' contracts? Maybe.
For some writers, who don't plan a career as a writer, but just want to get a book out, be published, be on the B&N shelves? Yes - for these writers, the trad pub deal is the best way to go, and none of the nastier clauses matter much. Really, it's the career writer who has the most to worry about from signing a trad pub contract, today.


----------



## Philip Overby

Thanks for the response, especially about writer productivity. This has been one of the best arguments for both approaches I have read. I find myself still leaning toward the traditional method, but I may very well change my mind once I get both of my big novels edited. I guessed because of their lengths that would work against me to self-publish but maybe that is not the case now.


----------



## PaulineMRoss

BWFoster78 said:


> On that note, here are the advantages that I see in traditional publishing:
> 
> 1. The publisher assumes all financial risk, including editing, cover, marketing, printing, and an advance.



I'd question how much marketing they do, but otherwise - good point.



> 2. The advance.  What's better: a guaranteed $5000 or the potential of either a lot more or a lot less, including the potential of actually losing money?



I'm afraid I'd have to question the sanity of any author who signs for that amount of money. Yes, it's better than no money, and it's better than spending your own, but it's not enough to make an impact on your life. And you hand over a lot of rights for that modest pot.



> 3. Credibility. 4. Validation.



These are nebulous. Bragging rights, basically. I know some people value them, but... <shrug>



> 5. Access to more markets.  A publisher can get me into book stores in a way that I can only dream about as a self publisher.



Bookstores, yes. Good point. Also, trad publishers have better access to foreign markets at the moment, although that's changing. 



> 6. More focus on writing.  Self publishing is a business.  If you're going to succeed, you have to treat it as one.  Every minute you spend on your business is a minute you're not writing.



You're only going to be able to focus more on writing if you get a big enough advance to give up the day job. End of story. Otherwise, authors of all types are doing most of the grassroots marketing, and writing the next book *in their spare time*. Self-pubbers spend a bit extra time working on covers and so forth, but that's only once per book. The big time-sink is social networking, which only the George R R Martins of this world don't need to do.



> I'm sure I'm missing some of the advantages, but, even if a traditional publisher is offering me a draconian contract, it behooves me to seriously look at both the pros and the cons before making an informed decision.



Best point yet.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

A. E. Lowan said:


> Hines is addressing the increasing sense of tension between traditionally published and self-published authors.
> 
> Jim C. Hines Ã‚Â» The Gospels of Publishing
> 
> Hines is a very smart man.



It's a good post...but I also think that the "us verses them" war is dying down considerably.  I see more and more people expressing the "no universal right way" mantra.  This is what I said in the comments to his post.

A very good post, and I agree 100%. There is no right or wrong way, just a path that best suits one a particular person…and what you choose today might be different come several years down the line. The important thing is to stay educated and open-minded and be agile. Personally, I think if possible everyone should attempt to do the “hybrid thing.” Diversity is a good thing…in society, in investment portfolios and in your writing career. Once you have experienced both sides, you can better judge which way to go in the future. My only other recommendation is that for those that do chose to self-publish to elevate your books to the level of those being put out by New York. You can hire the same freelancers that publishers use for editing and cover design. If you put out a product that is indistinguishable from “the real publishers” then you really have something. After all, your readers deserve nothing less.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Philip Overby said:


> Sure, there may be horrible contracts out there, but there are obviously good ones also. Otherwise traditional publishing would go away altogether.



Actually, I've seen a ton of contracts, and if you are talking about the big-five....there isn't a single one that I would call "good."  Just some that are worse than others.  That's not to say that they are "unsignable." Traditional publishing has some great advantages and you have to take some trade-offs to get them.  But they are worth it under the right circumstances.

Now there are some "good" contracts from small publishers. I think the contract I have with Tachyon Publications is AMAZING, and I even dedicated my book to them as they are  "doing publishing right."  So from a small press...yeah I think there are decent contracts, but if you are going to swim with the big guys...they are the ones calling the stroke.



Philip Overby said:


> And self-publishing is still a relatively new phenomenon which isn't widely embraced by everyone as of yet. Some say writing a book is the easy part. It's finding people to read it that is always the hard part. You're going to have hardships regardless of the path you take.



Indeed.  The one thing I will say, however, is what is required of you to "find people to read it" is about the same whether you self or traditionally publish.  



Philip Overby said:


> I do feel like sometimes there are "fundamentalists" on each side of the argument. Either do it one way or you're throwing your effort away. I don't really get this approach.



I think the fundamentals are write a really good book that a good number of people will want to read and tell others to do so as well.  If you aren't doing that...then you will have a hard time finding success in either path (imho).


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> Nothing wrong with taking a good contract, assuming you can get one. EVERYTHING wrong with taking a bad one, which is all most writers are offered.



I agree 100%. It is the "assuming you can get one." that is the problem. Contracts are weighted toward the publisher...it's just a fact of life. But you have to decide if you can live with what is put before you. I always felt empowered because I knew I could walk away if the contract wasn't "adequate."  It's up to you to determine what you can live with and what you can't.



Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> Unfortunately, I think we are mostly seeing a breakdown around confidence lines. It takes confidence to even submit a work to a publisher. It takes even more to self publish, I think, because you're saying "I am good enough", whereas with submission to a publisher you're saying "I will ask them if I am good enough". Of course, in some cases, you have someone SP whose confidence is misplaced...and in others, you have someone who submits to trad pubs who could do enormously better if they had just a bit more faith in their work and made the jump to indie.



Great points...all very true.  It's the toughest thing about this business right now.  In some respect, it's almost good to submit and get an offer if for no other reason than to give you the confidence that it is good enough for self ;-)



Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> But ultimately, many writers are taking BAD contracts from major publishers because they don't have enough faith in themselves to go it alone. Which is sad - because if you're good enough to get picked up by a major publisher, odds are good that you'd do well as an indie.



Very true...and very well said.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

A. E. Lowan said:


> It's divisive attitudes exactly like this that Jim Hines is talking about.  I've been noticing them a lot within a certain population of writers (and I've been doing a fair bit of reading in that direction in recent days, thanks for the advice!) who get very aggressive when their views are challenged, and who like to use words and phrases like "EVERYTHING wrong with taking a bad one, which is all most writers are offered,"



I'm going to have to give this one to Kevin. He is correct in saying "EVERYTHING is wrong with taking a bad one. - I think there are many authors that have had a traditional contract be their dream for so long that they're willing to put pen to paper to anything presented to them.  Ask L.J. Smith  who invented "Vampire Diaries" and was fired from her own intellectual property because she didn't understand what "work for hire meant."   Or the woman who had to give back her advance because she self-published some short stories and her publsiher sued it for violating a non-compete.  

Big-five contracts are weighted toward the publishers...this is a fact...not just opinion of disgruntle authors. Now I'm not saying you shouldn't sign them.  I've signed at least 18 myself.  The issue is I KNEW what I was giving up and I was "okay" with it. There were some aspects of the contract when first submitted that I couldn't sign - there were clauses that were "career killers." So I worked to get them defanged....but they never got "good" just "good enough to sign."   So yes, I agree with Kevin that authors who sign bad contracts are doing themselves a disservice.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> For example, go read any fifty contracts from a major publisher issued in the last year, and forty or more of them will have non-compete clauses in them.



Actually I'm pretty sure it will be fifty. I had an IP lawyer pull contracts from every major publisher and they all had them in one form or the other.  The sad thing is...from everything I've learned.  The way most of these are written are illegal - and yet they are in there...because who wants to mount the lawsuit after the fact?  A non-compete that is short in duration, I can live with. But they are so vague and so long in most contracts that if the publisher tried to enforce them...they could ruin a career.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Philip Overby said:


> I think it may be slow coming to change, but traditional publishing is full of smart people. They're going to figure out ways to make things advantageous one way or another, hopefully by keeping people on their roster of writers happy by giving lucrative contracts. Will this happen? I don't know, but with the lure of self-publishing, traditional publishers are going to have to step their game up to remain relevant. And I think they're making steps to do that. Or at the very least thinking about it.



It makes logical sense, and I must admit that I felt this way. But nowadays I'm not so sure.  The issue is one of supply and demand. There are so many really good prospects waiting in the wings that if a traditional publisher loses a book, or author to self, there is plenty more to take its place.

Two things brought me to this decision.

1. When I submitted my second series, I was offered a lower advance than my first, even though I earned out in less than a year and proved to be a really good income producer.  Why would they do such a thing?  Because there was a chance I make take it.  Business is always going to try to maximize profits so instead of saying, "Hey, Michael, you did really well for us and we want to keep you, here is a better contract than last time." They instead through out a low-ball offer to see if when they said jump I would ask how high.  I was, quite frankly, insulted.  They would have been much better off making a "reasonable" offer as all it ended up doing was making me angry. In the end, they had to pay more than I would have originally taken because I wanted some extra for the insult.

2. I've seen too many contracts that authors have signed and I shake my head in disgust and amazement. I think there is a general impression that "if my agent said it was okay then it must be."  But in many respects, agents aren't much different than real-estate agents. It's better for them to get the deal signed and move on to the next deal then to spend excessive amounts of time trying to negotiate one more clause to a slightly better position. I think there is too much "blind faith" going on and authors need to take the reins of their career in hand more than they have in the past.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Mythopoet said:


> One of the big questions is this: is an author more likely to thrive by going the traditional route or the self-publishing route?



You'll find no bigger advocate of self-publishing then myself, but I can say without question that signing my traditional deal was the right thing for my career.  All you have to do is look at my goodreads account and the increase in "added to shelf", reviews, ratings, and unique readers.  I went into the endeavor with the expectation of losing $200,000 - $250,000. As it turned out, I probably made more...now of course we would need an alternate reality to fork at the point of decision to tell for sure - but I think I have a pretty good feel for the data.  Now a lot of that was foreign translations and audio sales. I would have had much fewer of the first when self...and probably wouldn't have attempted doing the second on my own.  

For my second series, I had intended to release it as self...and would have with the original contract offered.  But I ended up signing because, again I thought it would be better for me...and I'm very well informed...then self - given where I was in my career.  

My next book - is a hybrid.  I kept the ebook rights and sold off the print rights and audio rights.  I turned down a nice five-figure advance because I think ultimately I'll earn more.

It's really hard to say which way will do best.  So much depends on the production value of the book as self-published...not to mention how much of an overseas demand there might be, or movie interest, or any number of other factors. I see a good number of vocal hybrids that really do a half-baked job with their self-publishing (Jim Hines and Chuck Wendig included), and then say "I really don't make much from it."  -- Well of course you don't...you don't treat those books the same way you do your traditional works.  

What you say about self-publishing having a better potential for income is true...but there are a lot of things that have to align.

1. The book has to be professionally produced: Attractive cover, compelling marketing blurb, flawless editing, professional layout

2. The author has to get the word out

3. There has to be enough people highly recommending the book - even to the point of saying things like, "For a self-published book this is really good!" 

If you can get all of those things - then yes - it will earn more.  But if you fail at any of the above...then your chances go down significantly...and in some cases you'd be much better off with traditional because of a good advance -- even it you don't earn it out.  D.B. Henson was one of the early self-published authors to go traditional. Her book, "Deed to Death" was signed by one of the biggest agents who took it to auction. It was fast-tracked and she was scheduled for a book tour - the real "A-treatment."  From what I an tell from Bookscan data and Amazon rankings it was an utter failure.  But I'm sure she got a huge advance so she probably made out pretty good on that.  

I guess this is my way of saying...IF you do self right - you CAN earn more.  The problem is most don't do it right, and for them...I'm not so sure their efforts are going to pay off.



Mythopoet said:


> And, what exactly does a traditional publisher offer that makes what they take worth it?



There is a lot....

* Access to a much larger audience (there are still many who won't even try self-published works)

* Distribution in bookstores

* Distribution in libraries

* Validity - that makes readers think of you differently.  When I responded to a reader when self-published I was sometimes met with hostility - as if they thought I was "spamming" them just for thanking them for posting a review.  After self-publishing, the same comment is met with, "Oh my God, I'm amazed that an author would take time out of their day to write to me...I love how engaged you are with your readership."

* Other formats - audio book for instance

* More foreign deals

* Bookclub sales

* More time to write as I don't have to handle all the co-ordination of running a team

* Award eligibility

* Co-op dollars for better in store placement

* Goodreads Ads (starting price $5,000)

* Print Ads (several thousand dollars)

* Signings at BEA and NYCC

* Speaking engagements at Cons and shows like NYCC

* Kindle Daily Deal - not once but twice

* Emails to their subscription list

* Participation in Amazon special promotions

I could go on and on.




Mythopoet said:


> The traditional industry is scrambling to try to keep people believing that they are more likely to be successful if being taken under the wing of traditional publishing.



This really isn't true...no publishers is lacking material to put out. We are still at a place where demand out distances supply by a large margin...which is why so many good books are turned down.  Now if these authors were smart...they would take those rejected books and put them out themselves.



Mythopoet said:


> But all the time more and more evidence is being revealed that indicates this simply isn't true. (See the Author Earnings data.)



There is a lot of good validation in that data...but it does make some jumps and people are rightly calling them on it.  Such as the ranking to sales conversion.  The good news is they provide the raw data so you can plug in your own data. It would be nice if Amazon published these ratios...but they change constantly and the ratios in 2010 are not the same as 2014...just as the ratios in December aren't the same as March.  The other problem was the extrapolation of one day's snapshot into a yearly income.  Those books won't stay there.  More research needs to be done to see how quickly they fall from their rankings.  But I agree it is a good start..and does help to support something I've been saying for a long time...that there are far more self-published authors earning well then people know about.



Mythopoet said:


> And increasingly the answer to the second question is, nothing.



That's really not so...check out my list above.



Mythopoet said:


> Unless the nebulous honor of their "validation" is worth more to you than anything else (to which I would say, seriously?)



The validation isn't nebulous. There are some real benefits to it...not the least of which is a larger readership (since some people simply won't try self-published works).



Mythopoet said:


> there's nothing they can do for you that you can't do for yourself in this new world of publishing.



I agree the playing field is more level now than it ever has been - but you are taking it too far. There is a lot they can do for you that you can't do alone. You won't get nationwide bookstore placement on your own - not even if you had plenty of money to pay for placement.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Philip Overby said:


> Ask people like Michael Sullivan and Anthony Ryan who have been successful in both traditional and self-publishing. They must think it works for them if they're doing it.



It has worked for me...and so has self-publishing. I do think that hybrid offers the best of both worlds. But the important thing is, I use both as a means to an end.  

Traditional provides me a larger audience, more opportunities, and validation I can't buy no matter how much money I have.  It comes with the cost of lower per book income, the frustration of not being able to do some things I would want to do if I had control, but the advantages of a large team working on my behalf.  

Self provides me the ability to get my book "EXACTLY" the way I want it. I control everything from the title to the price and I can run specials, or do innovative things such as giving away free ebooks with print and audio purchases. I get ALL the profit, but I will make it harder for my library readers and bookstore buyers to get my books.  I also don't have spend months fighting over contract clauses...and I don't have to worry about rights reversion.

As for the big names...It's easier to traditional publish than self.  Yes they earn less money... but when you're making millions do you really need more?  When all the bills are paid, and you have disposable income...then any money above that is just numbers in a bank account that might go to your children someday.  

For me, I earn well, but not so well that I don't have to constantly produce more books to keep the income at a level required to keep the bills paid.  I would always prefer to traditionally publish, as there is less work I have to do...but not if that means I'll have to get a day job to supplement my income. It is nearly impossible to say whether any book will earn more from path A or Path B.  You would need to have an alternate reality to say for sure.  But having the flexibility to do either - and to try different things at different times seems to be a reasonable way to approach this tough nut to crack....and that's what I'm planning on doing.


----------



## Philip Overby

Thanks for sharing so much info, Michael! I've found both Kevin and your posts to be helpful for someone looking to make that step pretty soon on what path to take. I find it harder to get on board with the opinions that "traditional is the only true way" or "self-publishing is the better way" arguments that keep cropping up. I'm trying to balance the benefits of both before I decide what I want to attempt. It's nerve-wracking and worrisome because you only get one shot at a first impression. I just want to make sure for my debut novel to be presented the best way possible. 

On a side note, I keep hearing a lot about building a writer's platform before publishing. Do you think this is needed for both traditional and self-published authors? I mean, did you already have a big social media presence or had your name out there in some capacity before you started publishing? 

Also, ideally I'd imagine you take money from your advances and traditional book sales to make your self-published work match in quality (cover art, editing, etc.) I'm not sure if you do that, but I would imagine that would be a way for writers who self-publish to make sure it's hard to tell what is self-published and what is put out by a major publisher because everything is of professional quality.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Philip Overby said:


> Thanks for sharing so much info, Michael! I've found both Kevin and your posts to be helpful for someone looking to make that step pretty soon on what path to take. I find it harder to get on board with the opinions that "traditional is the only true way" or "self-publishing is the better way" arguments that keep cropping up. I'm trying to balance the benefits of both before I decide what I want to attempt. It's nerve-wracking and worrisome because you only get one shot at a first impression. I just want to make sure for my debut novel to be presented the best way possible.



You are very welcome...and I wouldn't get to wrapped around the axle as I'm a perfect case of someone who didn't end up where I started.  My Riyria books ran the whole gamut.  Started out with a small press, then went self, and now they are with a big-five. The important thing is to be informed, and don't sign any contract that could kill a career (for instance with a bad non-compete).



Philip Overby said:


> On a side note, I keep hearing a lot about building a writer's platform before publishing. Do you think this is needed for both traditional and self-published authors? I mean, did you already have a big social media presence or had your name out there in some capacity before you started publishing?



I think this is one of those....do as I say not as I did, because I had no social media presence before publishing - zero, zilch.  But when I was writing Riyria, I had no intention on publishing so building an audience wasn't something that made any sense.  If I were to do it over again, I would have done things differently and I do think authors should start that as early as possible...especially with regards to collecting emails and establishing yourself on social sites like goodreads.  And yes I think the activities you do when self are exactly the same as traditional so you can do this even if you are still deciding your path.



Philip Overby said:


> Also, ideally I'd imagine you take money from your advances and traditional book sales to make your self-published work match in quality (cover art, editing, etc.) I'm not sure if you do that, but I would imagine that would be a way for writers who self-publish to make sure it's hard to tell what is self-published and what is put out by a major publisher because everything is of professional quality.



Yes you have to spend money to ensure quality.  When I started in self-publishing I did a lot of hunting around for good, yet affordable editors.  On the cover front -I was able to do my own (and have training in design) so I was able to save some money on those fronts. Some books had a initial cost of $350...other $700. 

When I returned to self-publishing for Hollow World.  I actually ran a Kickstarter to raise funds for really high end cover design and editing. I planned (and ended up using) the same people who work on my traditional books.  Here I set a much higher budget - $6,000.  Which I don't recommend for people starting out - but for me at the level I was at - I knew I would earn it back.  I ran the Kickstrater for $3,000 (figuring I'd pay for 1/2 and ask the readers to support 1/2 - I ended up getting $32,000 rather than $3,000 - so that helped out as well.


----------



## Philip Overby

> The important thing is to be informed, and don't sign any contract that could kill a career (for instance with a bad non-compete).



Sorry to ask so many questions, but I hear a lot about bad contracts, however I have no idea what a bad contract would look like. I'm not familiar with a lot of publishing jargon (so I guess I need to read up on it.) Just from what I suspect, I'd say a non-complete clause could prevent you from signing with other major publishers with your work or even self-publishing. What are some other "red flags" in contracts to watch out for? 



> I think this is one of those....do as I say not as I did, because I had no social media presence before publishing - zero, zilch. But when I was writing Riyria, I had no intention on publishing so building an audience wasn't something that made any sense. If I were to do it over again, I would have done things differently and I do think authors should start that as early as possible...especially with regards to collecting emails and establishing yourself on social sites like goodreads. And yes I think the activities you do when self are exactly the same as traditional so you can do this even if you are still deciding your path.



From your experience, what would you say has helped you the most when building your platform nowadays? You said that Goodreads is a good place to meet folks, but I've had trouble navigating it myself in the past. I guess I should dive back in again. Any suggestions where to start?

As far as other methods, how much would you say personally sites like Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, and forums factor in? 

I'm just curious because I find myself getting more interaction on Google+ while some authors say Twitter is best once you get the hang of it. 

Anyway, thanks again for giving a lot of insight into the publishing world. It's a strange and mysterious place for many of us, so it's good to hear from someone who's tried every path there is.


----------



## stephenspower

Regarding contracts, I would add that much of them can be negotiated. You just have to ask. In my experience, publishers want to close the deal and make the author comfortable so they can create a long-term, mutually beneficial relationship, not lock a person into one they'll want to escape. Publishers aren't out to get you. They probably have language for most any situation to address an author's concern, and if they don't have the language they'll create it. Even parts of a contract that can't be changed, such as the warranty clause (because it's written with the publisher's insurer), can be added to such as with a clause on author's insurance. Non-compete clauses aren't written in stone either. You can add day to day business language. And you can excempt other works from it, just as you can limit or delete an option clause. You likely won't be able to change how royalties are calculated (because that's baked into the sales system) or the assignment clause, but you can certainly keep some subrights if you'd like. That said, if you don't have an agent actively marketing rights, then the quality of publishers' rights team is worth analyzing if you're choosing between two offers. You can also add stuff that may not be addressed in a contract, such as audits.

I wouldn't try to rewrite the contract sentence by sentence. Pick your shots and ask for what you need, not to assuage your fears. And don't quibble over the small stuff that's highly unlikely to ever come into play. For instance, force majeure language. If the publisher's office is hit by an asteroid, the last thing they're going to be thinking about is getting your book out within 18 months of d&a as contractually agreed to.

Regarding platform, something I'm struggling with, I would ask yourself: How will you get your first 3500 buyers? You might even break that down into more manageable chunks: first 100/500/1000/2500. Then build a social media platform to hit these milestones in terms of followers, that is, adherents who want to read what you write. Publishers look for this when assessing whether a book will sell. That said, you could ask a publisher, once they've offered, how they'll get the first 3500 buyers too.

Regarding an advance, theoretically, that indicates how many copies the publisher thinks they can sell, and here's where I get those 3500 buyers. Let's say you're offered $5000 for a book they'll put out as an $8 mass market and ebook. If they figure a 50/50 p/e sales split with 10%/25% list p/e royalties, that projects about 3500 copies sold.

That's a year one projection. But here's a depressing thought: At B&N books are not given 3-6 months to work. They're given as little as 6-12 weeks.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

The sad thing is, even at the highest end, publishers really don't as a rule have much of an idea how to get those first 3500 readers. They're very good at selling books to bookstores. They're mediocre at best at selling books to readers. *shrug* Think about it - it's not their fault, really. It's not a role they've ever had to fill, before. Selling to readers was the bookstore's job.

Here's an interesting essay by H.M. Ward, about her results on the topic. She posted about turning down $1.5 million in trad pub contracts offered in the past year - and why. A lot of the "why" is focused around their lack of experience in connecting with readers and selling books.
http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,178537.0.html


----------



## stephenspower

Her story is so typical, and it leaves out two details someone outside publishing wouldn't see. 

One, the publisher wasn't buying her books. There are a ton of books exactly like hers around, however compelling. The was offering to buy _her_ marketing plans and that 30K-person list. That's the rare commodity. 

Two, after 50 Shades of Gray got so huge, calls surely rained down from every executive suite in publishing to the editors: "Where's our 50 Shades of Gray? Spare no expense. Find it. We have to get into this game." As if its success could be replicated.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Excellent points, Stephen. No disagreement there. Interesting, though - the publisher is trying to pay for HER marketing expertise, and she's seeing marketing as really the only advantage the publisher can still offer her. But of course, they can't.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Philip Overby said:


> Sorry to ask so many questions, but I hear a lot about bad contracts, however I have no idea what a bad contract would look like. I'm not familiar with a lot of publishing jargon (so I guess I need to read up on it.) Just from what I suspect, I'd say a non-complete clause could prevent you from signing with other major publishers with your work or even self-publishing. What are some other "red flags" in contracts to watch out for?



No need to apologize.  I like doing what I can to help others - so by all means keep them coming. Also, if/when you do get one - you can send it me and I'll give it a look over. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on T.V. but I've spent a lot of time reading on them and looking at both mine (more than 20+ at this time) and others to see the danger spots.

My original contract had a non-compete that looked something like this:

“During the term of this Agreement, the Author shall not, without written permission of the Publisher, publish or permit to be published any material based upon or incorporating material from the Work or which would compete with its sale or impair the rights granted hereunder.”

The contract (as all big-five are) was for "life of copyright" - which means until you die + 70 years. That being the case, contracts usually do expire before that due to "out of print language" - in the old days out of print was easy as there were books in a warehouse and when they were gone, and if the publisher decided not to print new ones- you were out of print.  Nowadays with POD and ebooks a publisher can keep a book "in print" for the whole length of the contract.  What they usually do is pick some ridiculously low number (in my case it is $500 a year which is $9.61 a week) and as long as the books are bringing in more than that it is in print.

Anyway back to the clause.  The problem is it is too broad "any work that may compete with its sale"?  In the strictest interpretation that would mean any fiction book I write.  It could also be "any fantasy" or "any medieval fantasy. And it certainly would be any sequel or prequel (since that is "material based upon the work")

When you see a clause like this you have to interpret it in the worst possible case.  So I could easily envision a scenario like this.

"Hey publisher, here is my next book - I'm letting you see it because of our option clause (which gives you first look)."  Publisher reads it, says we like it we'll give you $xx.xx (which is ridiculously low).  You say, "no thanks...I'm going to go to publisher B (or self-publish it).  The publisher says, "I'm sorry but you can't do that. We consider publishing this work could take readers from our books - so it would be a competing work.  So about our offer...are you going to accept it now?"

I've often stated that I've had the clause "de-fanged."  I did this by (a) making the definition of what a "competing work is" and (b) limiting the term of the period of competition.  Asking for a non compete for life+70 years is totally illegal in New York (and 42 other states) and the contracts are bounded by the laws of New York.  If you took them to court - you would win in a blink of an eye.  But who wants the hassle and expense of taking them to court?  The reason it is illegal is the law doesn't like a company telling an individual that they can't earn.  They will allow such for a "small amount of time" but life of copyright is certainly WAY to long.  What makes me crazy is that all their lawyers know it is illegal and yet they keep them in there, hoping no one will be smart enough to (a) recognize the fact that it is illegal and (b) challenge it.   I've had some authors tell me, well I'll just go and submit to others and let them try to stop me.  Which sounds semi-reasonable -- putting the burden on them not you.  But...when signing with a publisher they want proof that this work is "free and clear" (because they don't want to be in any entanglement.  So they'll either ask for a letter from your publisher indicating that all is well, or they'll call and ask them if the work is free and clear...and of course they will say no.

The defanging I did was to declare a competing work as any work that contained xx% of the current work and prequels and sequels, or any works with the same characters or setting are specifically excluded.  This is actually ridiculous because the "whole contract" gives them 100% to all of the work of that contract so to have that in there is stupid - but it is a definition that I'm really pleased about because it makes the non-compete pretty much null.  The second component is that I couldn't publish ANY WORK within xx months (2 or 3) of their release date.  Which seems like a reasonable request so they have "exclusive" time on the market for their works.  I have no problem delaying my "new book" for a few months - but forever...yeah I have a problem with that ;-) 




Philip Overby said:


> From your experience, what would you say has helped you the most when building your platform nowadays? You said that Goodreads is a good place to meet folks, but I've had trouble navigating it myself in the past. I guess I should dive back in again. Any suggestions where to start?



Bloggers and goodreads was most certainly the things I focused on and what benefited me the most. You are not the first author I've heard from that seem befuddled by Goodreads. I've written some stuff to help people out.  Check out: An Author's Guide to Goodreads.



Philip Overby said:


> As far as other methods, how much would you say personally sites like Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, and forums factor in?



My Facebook presence is terrible, but there are authors that do it well and have been very successful with it.  Kristen Lamb has a really good book, "We are not alone: An authors Guide to Social Media" (or something like that - I highly recommend it.  I do tweet from time to time - mainly just to thank people who say nice things about my books or to announce a special promotion of some kind. I have a linked in account but do absolutely nothing with it.




Philip Overby said:


> I'm just curious because I find myself getting more interaction on Google+ while some authors say Twitter is best once you get the hang of it.



Google+ is another area I've done nothing with - and probably could do a lot more.




Philip Overby said:


> Anyway, thanks again for giving a lot of insight into the publishing world. It's a strange and mysterious place for many of us, so it's good to hear from someone who's tried every path there is.



You are most welcome - feel free to ask me stuff anytime.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

This post was too long so I"ll split it into two parts



stephenspower said:


> Regarding contracts, I would add that much of them can be negotiated. You just have to ask.



Just to clarify - are you speaking about small-presses or the big-five here?  Because if the former - I agree 100% if the later - I'd say, not so much.  Technically everything is negotiable but it's a matter of how much power you have and as a debut author the answer is "not much."  I had a little more juice when negotiating my contract because I was already earning well through self-publishing - but if you have no prior experience, then unless your book is really knocking their socks off, it's just not going to happen.  Here is my take on what they will and will not work with.

* Term - life of copyright is the term for 99.9% of big-five contracts - Hugh Howey got his print-only deal to 7 years but that is rare, rare, rare - and it was a seven figure contract.

* Out of print clause - most will have a ridiculously low threshold for determining a book is still in print.  Mine is $500 a year ($9 and change per week).  I tried and tried to get this upped to something semi-reasonable ($1500 a year). My agent said she might be able to get them to go $600 or $700.  But she had a million $ contract with another author who she could only get them to move from $300 a year to $500 a year.  She said the publisher would walk over it.  I'm not sure I believe them - but I do believe her in that it was something that she worked on for months and was seeing no appreciable movement.

* Keeping ebook rights - virtually impossible. I know of 5 people who have done it (one of them me - but to do so I had to shift from a big-five to a small press).  All the ones who have done it with a big publisher are 1M+ sellers: Belle Andre, Colleen Hoover, Brandon Sanderson (but also had to go to a small press), Hugh Howey

* Keeping audio rights - I've tried on multiple occasions to get these held back - and failed.  I've now adopted a policy of signing audio rights first - so they are off the table.  Will it be a deal breaker?  I don't know - I'll tell you come my next contract ;-)

* Non competes - can't be removed - but can be defanged - and should be.

* World Rights vs North American English or World English - yes totally negotiable.

* Basket or Joint accounting - also something I tried and just couldn't get - but I do know other authors who have so it is possible. Usually it is because you are with an agency that has already established a "no basket clause" provision with publishers.

* Royalties - you MIGHT get them to add an escalation but I've never heard of anyone getting the 25% of net changed.  I have heard that there are some really really big authors that have higher - (or who have escalations) but again this is for the top .5% of authors)

* Subrights -keeping movie/TV and merchandising is fairly easy.  Audio, as I said seems to be a deal breaker for publishers and will be even worse now that audio is making some serious money.  Graphic novels and bookclubs - they are still hanging on to these pretty tightly - I think you COULD probably fight these free - but to what end?  You have to pick your battles and unless you already have someone lined up to do the graphic novel - it's not worth fighting over. 



stephenspower said:


> In my experience, publishers want to close the deal and make the author comfortable so they can create a long-term, mutually beneficial relationship, not lock a person into one they'll want to escape.



Again if you are talking about a small press I totally agree.  Big-five...they generally have already negotiated with a given agency "the best" contract that agency could get and all other contracts will follow suit.  So for instance if you sign with Noah Lukeman who gets you a contract from Simon & Schuester they are going to start with the "standard Lukeman" contract and there won't be much wiggle from there as all that has been done previously.



stephenspower said:


> Publishers aren't out to get you.



Agreed.



stephenspower said:


> They probably have language for most any situation to address an author's concern, and if they don't have the language they'll create it.



I'm going to have to say this falls under the YMMV - because my experience is exactly the opposite of yours.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Part 2



stephenspower said:


> Even parts of a contract that can't be changed, such as the warranty clause (because it's written with the publisher's insurer), can be added to such as with a clause on author's insurance.



Usually this is pretty standard, so I've not been in a position to get it changed. One thing to look out for.  Sometimes they slip into this section: "The author warrants that this will be the next book they publish." - which you definitely want to get out.  Such a phrase has no right to be in an indemnification or warranty clause which sole purpose is to attest that the book is yours and you didn't steal it.  Most contracts will have language that means it will be a very long time until the book is on the shelf.  In my contracts it COULD take up to 2 years (although it never has).  But if it DID then such language would prohibit me from releasing something while I wait - totally unacceptable.



stephenspower said:


> Non-compete clauses aren't written in stone either. You can add day to day business language.



Again, I don't agree.  When I first objected to the non-compete. My agent said, "This is boiler plate coming from Hachette, Orbit will not change it - they have no ability to all Orbit authors have signed with this clause."  I did some research and sure enough all the Orbit authors I talked to did sign with that clause (although none of them even knew it was there until I asked them to read to me what there paragraph 16 says).  My agent also hired a IP attorney who pulled me contracts from all the major publishers and he repeated what my agent said...they all have them...they won't change them. You are fighting a losing battle just sign.  I refused.  It took six-months and a threat to walk that wasn't a bluff to get mine defanged. (And also the leverage of the fact that they had already done all the editing, cover design and were even taking pre-orders on a book not yet signed)



stephenspower said:


> And you can excempt other works from it



Yes, this was the one concession that my publisher said they would make. That if I had other works already written to be exempted they would add them.  But that's silly I was worried about work I hadn't even dreamt of yet.



stephenspower said:


> just as you can limit or delete an option clause.



Agreed, but to be honest - I have no objection with option clauses, a well written one just says, you show it to us first - which I would anyway so it's not a problem. Some early versions also had language such that if they matched another author they could "quick claim it back" which I objected to.  Sometimes you are moving publishers because you have disagreements and having to sign up with someone you don't see eye to eye with anymore is not what you want to do.



stephenspower said:


> You likely won't be able to change how royalties are calculated (because that's baked into the sales system)



Agreed -although the "Baked in" has fields for royalty rate and for escalation levels - so it can accommodate a change, I just don't think they will.



stephenspower said:


> or the assignment clause,



I've never tried - so have no data on this.



stephenspower said:


> but you can certainly keep some subrights if you'd like.



Addressed above.



stephenspower said:


> That said, if you don't have an agent actively marketing rights, then the quality of publishers' rights team is worth analyzing if you're choosing between two offers. You can also add stuff that may not be addressed in a contract, such as audits.



Your contract most definitely should have language about audits. I don't think most will be in a position to have two simultaneous offers -but yes if you do, then I can certainly see where you would have leverage to ask your preferred publisher to match a clause of your secondary one.  If it is an area they normally change (like basket accounting) I think they will. If it's a matter of changing from life of copyright to 5 years - I think they won't and if that is important to you - go with contract B.



stephenspower said:


> I wouldn't try to rewrite the contract sentence by sentence. Pick your shots and ask for what you need, not to assuage your fears. And don't quibble over the small stuff that's highly unlikely to ever come into play. For instance, force majeure language.



Agreed you have to pick your battles. For me non-compete was more important than retaining audio rights (which I didn't think would ever be produced).  With 20/20 hindsight I should have fought harder for audio -because I'm giving up 50% of every audio sale to the publisher which will cost me more than $100,000. 



stephenspower said:


> If the publisher's office is hit by an asteroid, the last thing they're going to be thinking about is getting your book out within 18 months of d&a as contractually agreed to.



Agreed.



stephenspower said:


> Regarding platform, something I'm struggling with, I would ask yourself: How will you get your first 3500 buyers? You might even break that down into more manageable chunks: first 100/500/1000/2500. Then build a social media platform to hit these milestones in terms of followers, that is, adherents who want to read what you write. Publishers look for this when assessing whether a book will sell. That said, you could ask a publisher, once they've offered, how they'll get the first 3500 buyers too.



Having a plan for you to get to such milestones is reasonable - but followers does not a buyer make. Have your goals set to buys not just collecting Facebook likes or Twitter followers.  As for asking your publisher how they are going to get the first 3500 buyers...the answer will be vague and non-specific. They won't share marketing $ expenditures or make any promises on specific initiatives. As opportunities arise...such as "we're going to put a floor display in bookstores at Christmas - what titles shall we put in it" then they'll either add your book or exclude it - but that is more of "as it happens" then planning anything post release date activities.



stephenspower said:


> Regarding an advance, theoretically, that indicates how many copies the publisher thinks they can sell, and here's where I get those 3500 buyers. Let's say you're offered $5000 for a book they'll put out as an $8 mass market and ebook. If they figure a 50/50 p/e sales split with 10%/25% list p/e royalties, that projects about 3500 copies sold.



Agreed, although keep in mind Publishers get in the black - much faster than you earn out. Also there are some contracts designed to NEVER earn out - again these are the really big sellers where they offer xx Million with no chance of earning out but it is the publisher / author way of diving up the expected profits before release. The whole thing about royalty rates only matters to the authors not in this situation.  For those at the top the royalty could be double what it is now - but they have already gotten all their expected income on the form of the advance.



stephenspower said:


> That's a year one projection. But here's a depressing thought: At B&N books are not given 3-6 months to work. They're given as little as 6-12 weeks.



They are indeed.  And what is worse is sales fall off at an alarming pace.  Here is some bookscan number of a randomly picked hardcover fantasy release:

* Week #1: 320 
* Week #2: 190
* Week #3: 155
* Week #4: 90
* Week #5: 45

Of course each book's sales history is going to be different but I've seen enough of these to know that it falls off much quicker than I would have suspected before getting bookscan access.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> The sad thing is, even at the highest end, publishers really don't as a rule have much of an idea how to get those first 3500 readers. They're very good at selling books to bookstores. They're mediocre at best at selling books to readers. *shrug* Think about it - it's not their fault, really. It's not a role they've ever had to fill, before. Selling to readers was the bookstore's job.



I agree with this.




Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> Here's an interesting essay by H.M. Ward, about her results on the topic. She posted about turning down $1.5 million in trad pub contracts offered in the past year - and why. A lot of the "why" is focused around their lack of experience in connecting with readers and selling books.
> I turned down over a million bucks in trad deals, plus other tips for Indies



Aye, I've been watching Ms. Ward for some time - it boggles me why someone hasn't offered her a print-only deal.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

stephenspower said:


> Her story is so typical, and it leaves out two details someone outside publishing wouldn't see.
> 
> One, the publisher wasn't buying her books. There are a ton of books exactly like hers around, however compelling. The was offering to buy _her_ marketing plans and that 30K-person list. That's the rare commodity.



I'm going to respectfully disagree.  Holly was the top selling kindle author over Christmas, I don't care how many "other authors" you have or how many "similar books you have" that's a ton of profit that any smart publishers would want to take on. The really sad thing is that none of them offered print-only which is the only thing she would likely offer. They wouldn't have the "full pie" but they would make back their money and then some.



Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> Two, after 50 Shades of Gray got so huge, calls surely rained down from every executive suite in publishing to the editors: "Where's our 50 Shades of Gray? Spare no expense. Find it. We have to get into this game." As if its success could be replicated.



I do think there was a lot of that going on.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> Excellent points, Stephen. No disagreement there. Interesting, though - the publisher is trying to pay for HER marketing expertise, and she's seeing marketing as really the only advantage the publisher can still offer her. But of course, they can't.



It was ironic, but also a good thing, that my publisher had several meetings and conversations with Robin to pick her brain on marketing.  And they put that to work both for her an their other authors.  I wasn't looking to them for marketing - as we already had that well in hand.  I was looking for better distribution and to accelerate my career.  I wanted those that "never would try a self-published book" to look at my stuff. That's what I wanted and what I got.  I have no regrets.


----------



## stephenspower

Michael

Thanks for the details response. I'm speaking about my experience at publishers Big 5 and not.  Just a few thoughts:

Term: Yea, no pubilsher is going to change this for an original title, but if it's a reprint maybe you can get the old paperback terms, usually 7 years, and throw in a couple of plus ones in case the book hasn't earned out.

Out of print: $750 seems reasonable. Frankly, it makes sense to go out of print and pulp unmoving stock long before it gets to this point.  

Non-compete: Excellent defanging. The key is get publishers to see the language from your point of view and consider the ramifications on your career. That said, if any publisher ever tried to say, You can't publish in your world after we've given up on you, the halls of agentdom would resound with shields and swords getting ready for battle. No author with a continuing character could ever move, and that happens all the time. In addition, if someone else made the character/world work, again the original publisher would sell the earlier backlist titles, which every new reader would turn to.

Joint accounting. This makes sense for publishers. Are their contracts with an author or for a series of single titles? In this the author has to share the risk. Why should an author get to benefit from one book that earns out while the publisher is sitting on unearned advances for other books?

Rights. Yes, a publisher will want ebook rights just as they'll want pb rights. A book is a book is a book in their minds.  If you can sell audio separately, try. It's a growing part of the market. Most of the books I read are audio books. I wonder if Amazon has set up such a program with their audio divisioin to cater to self-published authors.

Stephen


----------



## MichaelSullivan

stephenspower said:


> Term: Yea, no pubilsher is going to change this for an original title, but if it's a reprint maybe you can get the old paperback terms, usually 7 years, and throw in a couple of plus ones in case the book hasn't earned out.



I will be watching the warehouse numbers and if they ever do stop re-printing, then yeah I'll ask for just that right back - they may grant it.




stephenspower said:


> Out of print: $750 seems reasonable. Frankly, it makes sense to go out of print and pulp unmoving stock long before it gets to this point.



A little better than $500 - but I still think it is ridiculously low. I'm publishing with them because they can produce me an income.  When we get down to a few dollars a day - that's not paying the bills - and since I know I could do better than that on my own, I would prefer for it to revert.



stephenspower said:


> Non-compete: Excellent defanging. The key is get publishers to see the language from your point of view and consider the ramifications on your career. That said, if any publisher ever tried to say, You can't publish in your world after we've given up on you, the halls of agentdom would resound with shields and swords getting ready for battle. No author with a continuing character could ever move, and that happens all the time. In addition, if someone else made the character/world work, again the original publisher would sell the earlier backlist titles, which every new reader would turn to.



Yeah, but what about "before they've given up on you." I should be free to move books to other publishers or self if I don't like what they are doing. So why agentdom may get upset at what you mentioned. I want them to consider what is best for ANY future work of mine - and that may mean not being with the same publisher. And yes it does happen all the time because most publishers haven't enforced the non-competes...but can I have that dagger hanging over my head - no.  



stephenspower said:


> Joint accounting. This makes sense for publishers. Are their contracts with an author or for a series of single titles? In this the author has to share the risk. Why should an author get to benefit from one book that earns out while the publisher is sitting on unearned advances for other books?



It is an indication of where the power lies.  Look, one party is going to get "the better side of this" - joint accounted = better for publisher, non-joint = better for author.  You question why they should benefit but I can say the same thing back.  Why should I give up royalties that book #1 earned?  



stephenspower said:


> Rights. Yes, a publisher will want ebook rights just as they'll want pb rights. A book is a book is a book in their minds.  If you can sell audio separately, try. It's a growing part of the market. Most of the books I read are audio books. I wonder if Amazon has set up such a program with their audio divisioin to cater to self-published authors.



They may see it that way, but to me each right is a potential revenue stream.  Pay me a big sum for audio - and I might sign it over.  But they just want it "thrown in." Yes Amazon has ACX to cater to self-published authors and they have an amazing royalty for them 50% - 90% if exclusive 25% - 70% if non-exclusive.  I really wish I would have been able to keep my rights and use ACX as I would be VERY wealthy if I did.


----------

