'Innovating' on the backs of writers

HarperCollins* last week announced a new imprint whose focus will include "innovations" in the book business. This translated, in the mainstream and business media reports, to two major items:

- no returns
- no (or very minimal) advances to writers

(To define terms for the uninitiated: returns are books that were shipped to stores but not sold. Unlike soap, books that are in stores have not actually been bought by the stores; they're in effect there on consignment and can be returned to the publisher if unsold. The model - similar to that used in the newspaper and magazine industries - has been criticized for years as antiquated, but no publisher has been able to change it.

An advance is a sum of money given to an author before the book is published. In theory, it represents the royalties that the author will be paid when the book is actually sold in the stores generally a year or two later. The relationship between royalties and advances can be more theoretical than real. Assuming a book is published, writers don't repay the advance if less than the required number of books are sold. Just because a doesn't "earn out" - or pay off its advance - doesn't mean that it hasn't made money for the publisher, though most of the mainstream press doesn't realize this.

And one other common misconception while we're at it - advances are far lower than most people believe; the majority of writers get in the low five-figures for their books, and even a best-seller may be paid barely six figures as an advance. Not bad money, except when you remember how long it takes to write a book.)

Frankly, the reporting - even in the industry press - sucked. There were few details, and frankly it would be unfair to criticize or even comment on the plan based on the reporting. But there are a lot of misconceptions, particularly over advances, embedded in the stories, and these should be pointed out. Most specifically, advances don't just benefit writers. They help publishers as well. And readers.

Now publishers have complained about giving advances to authors since Cervantes' time, so there's nothing really new there. And I'm sure Cervantes complained about the paltry advance, at least to his friends. But the system has made the modern book industry possible.

While there are exceptions, the process of writing, publishing and selling a book can take years. Even someone considered relatively fast can take a year to deliver a book. The editing process will usually stretch anywhere from a few months to another year. Then the book is set for a publishing season - give it another six months. It hits the stores and stays on the shelves for anywhere from a few weeks to . . . well, it could be forever, but generally mass market is only going to be on display for a few months.

It takes a while to account for sales, especially when you allow for returns. And publishers still follow a schedule of reporting sales back to an author every six months (some are a year) - but typically delay those reports, by contract, three months after the period ends. Current technology gives them the relevant numbers on the period nearly instantaneously, but this is the way it's been done for decades, and since it benefits the publishers . . .

All told, it could take three years for a writer to go from idea to money in the pocket if he's paid strictly on sales - and that's if he's a very fast writer and the book comes out very quickly. Four or five is probably a better average.

Now, it's possible that the original idea of an advance was completely altruistic - a publisher didn't want his friend the writer to starve, and this was a face-saving way for the writer to basically take a loan.

Right.

But assuming that is somehow true, by paying writers before a book was even finished, publishers were able to guarantee they'd have that book in the coming publishing seasons. The writer didn't have to interrupt his work by going out and getting a job at 7-11 (though it may have paid more). This stability in the publishing industry allowed publishers to set up publishing programs that could develop a consistent cash flow, as well as set the stage for blockbusters and best sellers. They were in effect developing "product" and guaranteeing that it would be around when needed.

Readers responded - and still do. They get used to regular releases by their favorite authors, and demand (apparently) a wide-ranging selection in all genres. Advances make that all possible on a regular and predictable basis - critical points in the modern marketplace.

This is rarely if ever acknowledged, and wasn't mentioned in any of the stories that I've seen. On the contrary, the reporters all managed to convey a suspicion that conniving writers are pushing conglomerate book publishers into the red.

Instead of advances, writers will supposedly share in profits of their books. This process, of course, is never explained - and it's clear from the stories that the reporters didn't pursue answers very hard. Probably because they have no clue what questions to ask.

Forget the fact that, in essence, that's what traditional royalties are supposed to represent. And I'll save the analysis on costs for some other lifetime. The bottom line is this: unless a publisher is willing to give authors a hell of a lot more access to their accounting records than they've ever done before, the system won't work in any sort of fair way. It may work, but it won't be really based on profit any more than the present system is - and very likely a lot less.

Computing overhead is everything when determining profit - and not just because of the hassles involved when it comes to trying to figure out what fraction should be used for each book. Royalty schedules based on cover price and sales - or net received, another system reporters don't seem to know about, since it's never mentioned - is simpler and more predictable for all concerned. Which is why, with all its faults - and they are legion - it's stayed in place all these years.

These so-called "innovations" and especially the media noise around them are the latest examples of the adversarial relationship that is developing between authors and publishers at a time when the opposite should be happening. Technological changes, shifts in the marketplace and the uncertain economy are stressing the entire industry. What's needed - for publishers as well as authors - is are strong voices that recognize not just the challenges but the fact that the solutions require cooperation.

Publishers Marketplace had some "elaborations" on other ideas that actually may have exactly the opposite effect of all this. But even there, they were pretty sketchy. And there was a line to the effect that writers who "make more than publishers" probably wouldn't be interested.

Ain't too many of them, believe me. And I'm going to guess that both the editor who said it and the reporter who wrote it actually know that. But the perception is that they're legion.

Hell, all the editors I know want to get good reads out to readers. So do writers. That's really the bottom line. But it's never mentioned anywhere.

And now back to our regularly scheduled mayhem . . .

* A house which has published me very well, and whose editors and staff I respect very highly. But if this pisses them off, so be it.