In Salon.com, http://www.salon.com/books/laura_miller/2010/06/22/slush?source=newsletter, Laura Miller bemoans the advent of subsidy self-publishing and asks how the reader will find something worthwhile in the pile of books now being produced. 

She reminds us that 700,000 books get ISBNs every year.  That whopping number includes text books, non-fiction, fiction, and new releases of old editions. What she really addresses in her article is the roughly 46,000 fiction titles produced each year.  That’s a lot of books but significantly less than 700,000. 

If readers attempted to wade through all those titles unaided, the results would undoubtedly be as she predicted. They would get tainted by some of the poorly written material that is out there.  In her analysis, however, she overlooks the word-of-mouth factor.  It is the recommendations or warnings from countless book clubs, backyard barbecues, and family parties that help us find buried treasure and avoid books that should have stayed in a writer's imagination. Word-of-mouth is the reason Iron Chef America exits.  There was a time when no one had heard of Pixar or J. K. Rowling. 

The Internet and social networking have created a marketplace that will weed out much of the garbage and lift up some wonderful finds. Today’s readers have no illusions about finishing something they dislike.  They don’t waste time wading through a bad book.  If they don’t like it, they put it aside and pick up another.  Whether today’s books are whipping cream or sour milk has less to do with how they are printed than with what readers actually think of them.   

As you read the dire predictions about the demise of the traditional publishing model, keep in mind that change is often difficult. In the long run, it won’t matter at all whether a work appears on paper or in pixels. Its success or failure will depend entirely on what people think of it. That is the reason you should make your work the best it can be.

An interview with Anne Lamott, author of both fiction and non-fiction including "Imperfect Birds," appeared in the June 8 issue of the Chicago Tribune.  In it she said, “With a novel, it’s a very, very solid year getting an unbelievably bad first draft together.” (Anne Lamott Interview). She validated something writers know but major publishers refuse to acknowledge – it takes longer than seven months to write a book.

I know several writers who committed to publishing contracts that required new books every seven to nine months. Lamott joins Lawrence Block and several others who agree that is an unrealistic goal.

There are several factors every writer, agent, and publisher should consider when setting submission deadlines.

• First, the writer has a life. Whether that includes children, aging parents, or a spouse, the writer has obligations other than to a publisher.  It is from that life that the writer draws inspiration. Cut it off and the writer loses touch with her world. Loss of that connection will affect the end product.
  
• Second, if the writer does nothing but write, the writer is not out promoting existing work. As talented as we all are, we cannot defy the laws of physics and be in two places at one time.
  
• Third, good stories are worth waiting for. One only has to look to the Harry Potter series to see that readers are willing to wait for something they want. If the story and the storytelling are good enough, readers will still be there when the next title comes out.
  
• Finally, like most readers, I enjoy the work of more than one author. I do not enjoy a steady diet of only one writer's work. If I have chocolate cake after every meal, I quickly lose interest in chocolate cake. Publishers run the risk of alienating readers and reducing sales if they don’t give the fans time to read the current title and build anticipation for the next.
  

So three cheers for Anne Lamott and other A-list authors who have the courage to speak out about how long it takes to create a good book.  As a writer, I want to be proud of my product, taking time to hone and improve it. As a reader, I’m happy to wait for something that is really worth my time and my money.

For more information about libel tourism and why it is an important issue, please read: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/454162-SPJ_Urges_Senate_to_Pass_Libel_Tourism_Bill.php

I bring this to your attention for two reasons.

1. You may think this does not affect you but if your books are available on Amazon.uk, it does.  Passing this bill is one thing your representatives can do for you that won’t cost you any money.  In fact, it could save you thousands of dollars.
2. Say a little prayer of thanks that you are in the United States where you have First Amendment protection.  The men who crafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights put freedom of speech first for a reason. 

Sure, there are goofs out there who abuse the privilege.  There will always be people who do not treat Freedom of Speech with appropriate respect.  Some will say things that are hurtful or blatantly untrue. Others try to prevent opposing ideas from being voiced, refusing to acknowledge that there are two (or even three) sides to every story.  However,  in all of that mess, we writers and publishers should be grateful we are here and not attempting to apply our craft somewhere else – like England.

On the anniversary of the declaration of our independence from England, perhaps we should encourage Congress to take that declaration one step further and protect our writers and publishers from the English courts. 

Happy 4^th of July.

In my book, Dollars and Sense for Writers, I address book royalty calculations in Chapter Four and how there are two starting points. Some authors are paid a percentage of the cover price and others earn royalties based on the net price. Net price is the cover price minus any discounts that were given to distributors or wholesalers.

Royalty calculation was a lead article in this week’s Publishers Weekly online edition. http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/43469-guild-objects-to-wiley-changes-in-bloomberg-contracts.html

There are several issues involved in the Wiley/Bloomberg changes. Obviously the first is how royalties will be calculated and consequently how much money authors will earn. The second is a reduced royalty for books “no longer in print.” And finally, the new Wiley contracts will keep a book in print through print on demand. That means that rights never revert back to the author. Wiley will own rights in perpetuity.

The second and third issues are the most serious.

A reduced rate for print-to-order (POD) is a more than a red flag.  This is HUGE. How a book is physically printed should be immaterial. Royalties should never be tied to a manufacturing process. Let’s be clear – POD is a printing method and that’s all it is. In fact, all books should be printed as they are ordered. The wasteful process of creating large print runs and then destroying the leftovers is an archaic business model benefiting none of the parties involved.

As to a publisher keeping rights forever, this issue surfaced in 2007 when Simon and Schuster made a similar rights grab. Authors Guild blew the whistle then but they object here only to the paltry royalty rate Wiley proposes. The digital retention of a manuscript occurs no matter how that manuscript is ultimately reproduced. The moment a writer uploads the work to the published, the publisher has a digital copy of it. That digital copy remains digital whether it is printed on paper or “printed” as an e-book.  Because there are no storage costs associated with retaining digital copies and because a digital copy can be used for reproduction of a manuscript in multiple formats, publishers have the means to hold on to rights forever. Think Wiley is only looking at the print-to-order process? Watch for reduced royalties and rights issues on e-books to come next.

Remember – a publishing corporation is in business to make money. It does not concern itself with the wellbeing of its authors. Authors must protect their own interests, either individually or collectively.

This latest maneuver by Wiley forces writers to ask themselves some tough questions. What are we willing to give up in order to be published the old-fashioned way? At what point is that no longer worth the sacrifice?  I see some difficult choices ahead for all authors.

Nope.

You may wonder how I can answer the question so easily.  It is because I am a writer and I earn income from what I create.  If that creation appears in digital form rather than ink on paper, am I any less entitled to payment? Of course not. 

Somewhere along our travels down the technological path, we users got the idea that all digital content should be ours to use at no charge. We associate easy access with no cost.  Remember what happened in the music industry?  People exchanging recordings all over the world with no payment going to anyone?  That trend continues as people happily download copies of books, movies, and reference material for which they have not paid.  

I sympathize with the desire not to fund the record, movie, or publishing companies.  Corporations tend to be greedy and we resist that.  However there is more to those companies than a faceless name.  People like me work for those companies.  They have families and mortgages just like me.  If I don’t pay something for their songs or movies so they can earn a paycheck, how will those employees be able to buy my books? 

It’s a simple case of what goes around comes around. 

Whether we write books, screenplays, or songs, most of us hold down second jobs to pay the bills.  If we are lucky, our writing pays for itself and adds a bit to our retirement fund.  Those who help themselves to our work without paying for it are literally taking away our grocery money.

If you write, no matter what you write, remember that someone wrote whatever it is you are about to use.  Did you get it through appropriate channels or did you help yourself to something that does not belong to you?  To save a few dollars are you preventing another writer from earning a living?

Something to think about.

I didn’t post last week because I was driving home after enjoying Davenport, Iowa and its first annual Quad Cities Book Fair. 

I made the trip for several reasons.  First, I wanted to meet readers and writers who are outside my current acquaintance.  Second, I hoped to introduce Dollars and Sense for Writers to people who would benefit from it.  Third, the event was within reasonable driving distance. Finally, I always need a short break after tax season. 

In Chapter Nine of Dollars and Sense for Writers, I include a checklist to help writers decide whether or not an event is worth their time and expense.  In considering the Quad Cities Book Fair, I went through the list, evaluating key points and setting goals.  For the reasons given in the first paragraph, the trip made sense.

As more and more of the marketing tasks fall to authors and writers, it is important to consider each opportunity for public appearance carefully.  Some will be of great benefit and others will not.  It is up to the writer to decide which to attend and which ones to pass up.  That is made particularly difficult when the event is new.  However, it says a lot about a community that demonstrates so much support for reading and writing.  The fact that Davenport would hold a book fair at all was appealing.

The book fair organizers worked hard to publicize the fair. A Web site was up quickly.  Registered participants were kept informed on advertising and promotional efforts.  During the event, I was pleased to hear readers say that they had heard about it on local media. 

I also applaud the organizers for sending out a participant feedback survey.  It shows they are serious about improving for next year.  Evaluating a conference or fair after it happens is as important as the process is before you go.  The final portion of my checklist helps you do that.

All-in-all, I had a great time in Davenport, Iowa.  I thank the sponsors of the Quad Cities Book Fair, the fans, and the other writers for a wonderful day.  Now if you could just do something about the weather...

The local middle school holds a career day for its students every spring.  Because some of the kids come year after year, I try to come up with a new viewpoint for each presentation.  This time I focused on writers who are making a good living but whose names are not in the public spotlight.  It turns out, that was a good move.  Only one student mentioned J K Rowling.  Last year, she was the role model for at least ten of them. (Oh how fleeting is fame.)

I put six names on the board – three men and three women.  In addition to one novelist (Cressida Cowell), I included a screenplay writer, the head writer of a video game, a lyricist, a comic book writer, and the writer of a famous ad campaign.  I talked about all the ways a person can make a career out of the written word. 

The kids had not considered this.  In their minds, writers do one of two things: writers are journalists or writers are novelists. 

This same misconception is often a topic in my writing workshops.  Fledgling writers come to the seminars because they want to be famous novelists like James Patterson.  I remind them that “famous” and “income” don’t necessarily go together.  Cressida Cowell, the author of How to Train Your Dragon, is a perfect example.  Because of the movie, most people are familiar with her title but she is not famous - as demonstrated by the fact that not one student recognized her name.  I imagine, however, that she earns a good income.

Writers have lots of options and we can mix or match non-fiction, fiction, long or short as inspiration or our checkbooks dictate.  If you are paying the bills with your writing, you have already accomplished a great deal.  Most artists would love to be able to do that.  Just ask any actor who is waiting tables.

You may never be famous but you are a winner if you are able to work in your art full time. 

If you are tracking the latest thing in publishing, you have probably seen the terms “business model” and “agency model.” 

These models do not showcase designer clothing and one size definitely does not fit all.  They are broad plans for how the business intends to make and spend its money. Models are not as finely tuned as business plans and a model can cover all or part of a business. 

The term is probably overused but the practice has been around a long time. We think business is always conducted as we see it today but it evolves like everything else.  The current distribution model used by book publishers was developed during the 1930’s as a way to keep bookstores in business.  Think Hewlett Packard was the first company to understand that the hardware could be sold at cost because the real profits are in the software?  They simply adjusted the 1903 Gillette model from razor blades to ink cartridges.

As writers, we should keep an eye on the changing models so when we see them reflected in the contracts we are offered, we understand their impact.  The hot item currently is digital rights.

• Newspapers struggle with free versus paid content.  It is not uncommon for freelancers to see their work on publication Web sites without receiving any addition compensation for it.  As newspapers and periodicals begin to charge for access to those sites, that may change.  As a writer, I certainly hope so.

• Book publishers are toying with something they call the “agency model.”  Traditionally, wholesalers and retailers have set the selling price for books, whether in physical or digital format.  In the agency model, the publishers would treat e-book outlets as agents.  The agent would receive a commission on the sales.  The big difference here is that the publisher, not the wholesaler/retailer, sets the price for the product. 

No matter what model a publisher is using, it will impact the contract that publisher offers its writers.  Writers should be diligent in reviewing those contracts.  Look for digital rights and distribution clauses.  Do the Math (explained in detail in Dollars and Sense for Writers) to calculate what the contract means in real dollars.  Expect to see multiple compensation scenarios depending on which distribution model a publisher is using and what rights are being purchased.  The flat rate and the single royalty percentage are becoming a thing of the past.

So when you hear the term business model, remember Heidi Klum is in business and she’s a great model but she is not A business model.

I am cheating a bit with this week’s entry.  I focused on the word “soon” in my blog, Reflections, and will discuss it here as well because I recently took action on something that did not happen “soon” and surprised the recipient of my email. 

In February, I was told that I would hear about an appearance date “soon.”  When March turned into April and I had heard nothing, I wrote to the PR person at the company to ask if he had canceled the program.  The PR person was surprised by my question.  Apparently six weeks was still “soon” in his mind.   

According to Webster’s dictionary, “soon” means “almost immediately, shortly, rapidly, in a short while.”  I personally define “soon” as within a week or two at most.

One of the things my editor repeatedly cautions me about is that I must understand the meaning of words when I use them.  If we do not correctly convey our intentions, we confuse those to whom the communication is directed.  Confusion is never a good thing.  It leads to misunderstandings and disappointments – which can be costly in both real and figurative ways.

Perhaps we use “soon” when we are reluctant to be held to a more specific time frame but “soon” has some expectation of immediacy built into it.  If you tell me at the end of February that my account will be credited soon, I expect to see that credit before the end of March.

In business, if we commit to producing a work “soon,” we run the risk of annoying our agent, our editor, or our readers.  If your editor’s definition of soon is “tomorrow” and you define the word as “next week,” the editor’s expectations will not be met and you may lose a future writing assignment. We cannot escape the unspoken time element that lives within the definition of the word “soon.”

When you are negotiating anything that contains a time frame, try to be specific so that both parties fully agree to whatever that time definition is.  It’s good for business and good for the language.