What should
authors receive as fair compensation for their works?
The industry
norm dictates the following:
25% of the net
e-book proceeds
10-15% of the
hardcover net proceeds
7.5% of the
trade paperback net proceeds
8-10% on mass
market net proceeds
One might ask
why different percentages come with each format, especially since each format
has a different cover price.
There’s a lot of
debate about the e-book royalty since so many copies of an author’s work are
now sold in that format. One day it may become the dominant format.
Maybe the
publishers should do away with the percentage scale and instead have a scale
based on total revenue coming in. For instance, let’s assign a core cost for a
book to be acquired, edited, sold, and printed at ,ssy, $12,000. Everything after
that is pure profit.
So maybe of the
first $12,000 in net proceeds, the publisher gets 75% and the author gets 25%.
On the next $12,000, it’s a 50-50 split. Maybe on the next $12,000 or more,
it’s a 60-40 split in favor of the author. What one tries to balance is a
publisher’s risk and costs with the author’s efforts and creativity. Who should
be rewarded for doing what here?
Authors can
always self-publish if they choose to. There are pros and cons to publishing on
your own, as there are with going with a traditional publisher.
Perhaps royalty
rates should also be based on the marketing budgets/efforts of publishers. This
goes back to the publisher’s fixed costs/risk and investment taken.
No formula will
be perfect nor please all sides, but the goal is to reward success and to be
fair to all those involved. It’s a collaborative effort between author and
publisher, each needing the other in order to get what they want.
Excerpted: The Humanist, January/February 1984, by Frederick
Edwords
“We humanists think for ourselves as individuals. There is no area of thought that we are
unwilling to explore, to challenge, to question, or to doubt. We feel free to inquire and then to agree or disagree
with any given claim. We are unwilling
to follow a doctrine or adopt a set of beliefs or values that does not convince
us personally. We seek to take
responsibility for our decisions and beliefs, and this necessitates having
control over them. Through this
unshackled spirit of free inquiry, new knowledge and new ways of looking at
ourselves and the world can be acquired.
Without it, we are left in ignorance and, subsequently, are unable to
improve upon our condition.
“We practice our ethics in a living context rather than an
ideal one. Though ethics are ideals,
ideals can only serve as guidelines in actual situations. This is why we oppose absolutistic moral
systems that attempt to rigidly apply ideal moral values as if the world were
itself ideal. We recognize that
conflicts and moral dilemmas do occur and that moral choices are often
difficult and cannot be derived from simplistic yardsticks and rules of
thumb. Moral choices often involve hard
thinking, diligent gathering of information about the situation at hand,
careful consideration of immediate and future consequences, and weighing of
alternatives. Living life in a manner
that promotes the good, or even knowing what choices are good, is not always easy.
Thus, when we declare our commitment to a humanist approach to ethics,
we are expressing our willingness to do the hard thinking and work that moral
living in a complex world entails.”
DON’T MISS THIS!!!
Here is my 2014 Book Marketing &
Publicity Toolkit: Based on 20+ years in publishing --
Brian Feinblum’s views, opinions, and ideas expressed in
this blog are his alone and not that of his employer, Media Connect, the
nation’s largest book promoter. You can follow him on Twitter @theprexpert and
email him at brianfeinblum@gmail.com. He feels more important when discussed
in the third-person. This is copyrighted by BookMarketingBuzzBlog © 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.