Rule #1 - the money flows TO the author - poppycock

[crystalwizard]

I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but the money doesn't flow to the author. It flows TO the publisher. Even publishers who give out a pretty nice split of the profits are still getting more of the cash than the author does.

I'm getting very tired of hearing that phrase spouted off by people in this industry who don't have a clue, and that includes authors who have been in the business for a long time.

The PUBLISHER is making the money. The PUBLISHER is giving the author some of it. Big houses are giving the author pennies of the profit of each book and keeping dollars of profit. Small houses give a better cut.

IF the AUTHOR is ALSO THE PUBLISHER they are getting 100% of the profits.

But beware before you self-publish - if you do that you are starting a business. You'll be on your own and totally alone. If you don't know how to do everything that goes into publishing a book, you'd better learn fast because small mistakes can cost you large sums of money. DO NOT SELF-PUBLISH if you are not prepared to go into business, put in 16 to 18 hours a day running the business and learning how to be a marketing guru, and probably not writing for long stretches of time OR you have no desire to see your book sell very many copies.

[Lyn McConchie]

Let me put this into actual figures from the first book I sold in 1993. This was sold to (for New Zealand) a major publisher and the book appeared for retail sale to the public at $20. I received $2 per copy. The book shop paid 60% of the retail price and paid the publisher $12. The publisher received $12 but from that paid my royalties plus editing/printing/promotion and review copies given out. To sum up. I wrote the book and received $2 per copy. The publisher netted around $6 per copy. The bookshop, least involved with it all, received $8 per copy. Interestingly, many bookshops these days do not buy books outright but 'on consignment'. In other words if they don't sell after a while, they can be returned for credit. Some bookshops fully expect to return year-old books, light-damaged, dog-eared, with bent covers, for full refund.
About ten years back I sold work to the first issue of a new glossy UK genre magazine. The editor/publisher folded after a handful of issues. Why? Because the bookshop chain distributing it, demanded a completely unrealistic number of copies to display (on sale or return) and then returned about 65-75% per issue. In less than two years they'd ruined the publisher and the magazine folded. So, note,that it isn't always the publisher at fault, or the one making money on the backs of poor slaving writers.

[crystalwizard]

>So, note,that it isn't always the publisher at fault, or the one making money on the backs of poor slaving writers.

Wasn't trying to imply that. My issue is with the quote I used for the subject line of this thread. The money, which should flow to the author, does no such thing. It flows alright but it only dribbles to the author. Most of the flow gets log jambed and diverted long before it gets anywhere near the author.

Yet the people who quote "The Money flows TO the author" the most are authors who have been in this business for a long time and who know they are only getting some where around 40 or 50 cents royalty on each book sold. It normally gets quoted as a way of insinuating that all self-published books are trash and worthy only to start fires or make compost out of.

[von Darkmoor]

Excellent break down, Lyn. Thanks for sharing this!

[Richard H. Fay]

I see the claim that "the money flows to the author" ALL THE TIME, often with the strong implication that "4 the luv" markets are contrary to the way the business SHOULD operate. The implication buried just under the surface is that those writers who send material to "4 the luv" markets are doing a disservice to the writing community as a whole (and are less-than-real writers).

I find this stating of the truth of the matter to be positively refreshing, especially when compared to all the ridiculous notions one encounters in the realm of writing.

[erazmus]

It is a mantra for new writers to remember, so they will avoid the real pitfall of beginning writing, rip-off artists trying to scam money out of would be writers. It is important to remember-The money flows to the author- because it should be true, and because it really means "you don't send anybody a check, they send you one." That's all. Its for writers, not publishers, not agents, not critics or whatever. Writers don't care how those people are getting ripped off, they are too busy trying to put the people ripping off writers out of business.

Mike

[Window Bar]

DO NOT SELF-PUBLISH if you are not prepared to go into business, put in 16 to 18 hours a day running the business and learning how to be a marketing guru, and probably not writing for long stretches of time OR you have no desire to see your book sell very many copies.

These are sage words, Wiz. My website partner and I began our self-publishing quest many months ago. Now the book is on line, but we still don't have the commercial interfaces complete. Then the marketing begins.

Still, most of it has been fun, and I've definitely learned a great deal. If nothing else, it will erase for all time my illusion that the writing was 90% of the work.

--WB

[tchernabyelo]

The point of the "money flows to the author" is more that "money does not flow AWAY from the author". It's a sound piece of advice to would-be writers, as Erasmus says. (Richard, you can choose not to have money flow towards you, and that's entirely your prerogative. I choose otherwise. You do seem to have a really big chip on your shoulder about it, though).

Back to th OP: Small publishing houses may give a bigger cut than large ones - but it's usually a bigger cut of a smaller pie.

Margins on mass market paperbacks are thin and publishing houses lose money on a lot of their output - their problem being that they can't predict which books will be the next big hit and which will not (same as movies - no-one sets out to make a loss in business but all know it can happen). Note that an author who doesn't earn out a publisher's advance is NOT asked to give the money back - the publisher takes the hit.

And Lyn - 67% markup on wholesale price is pretty much at the low end of retail operations. Most will try for at least 100% markup, maybe more. But book prices in most markets are controlled in strange and arcane ways (normal market practice is for the final sale price to be entirely up to the retailer, but books are a rare commodity in that the manufacturer actually prints a price on them. You don't see that happening on furniture, or on food, or on clothes).

[Richard H. Fay]

You do seem to have a really big chip on your shoulder about it, though).

Good grief! THIS is why I am sick to death of all these writerly discussions.

I'm done.

[Jaqhama]

All Dean meant in his article, and I'm guessing it's Dean we're talking about?
Is that the author shouldn't be paying anyone anything to get their book published.
Unless it's a POD book, in which case the author will be paying for the initail set up costs.

That's all I ever took the comment to mean.
Nothing to do with how much the bookshop/publisher/agent makes compared to the author.

[crystalwizard]

It was Dean who said it first, but no, I'm talking in general. That quote's a mantra now and regardless of what Dean originally meant, it's frequently not used the way he intended.

[tchernabyelo]

Good grief! THIS is why I am sick to death of all these writerly discussions.

I'm done.

*shrug* sorry you feel that way. I just called it like I see it - you make the same defensive point over and over again. From where I sit, it looks like a chip.

[erazmus]

I don't think the rule was first posited by DWS. A quick Google search shows its called Yog's Law and was first put forth by James D. Macdonald several decades ago.

Mike

[Rob K]

The money should flow to the writer. That doesn't mean some of it doesn't split off to other parties along the way. Generally, what it means is that the writer shouldn't be PAYING out anything directly. It does not mean that a cut of the writer's pay can't be taken out by an agent or publisher.

[Rob K]

Richard,

There is something about the paying versus non-paying debate that really gets writers riled up. And I think it's because as writers, we want the best pay we can get. Or at least some of us do, and perhaps some don't care as much. Regardless, if we come out too strongly in support of the non-paying markets, it looks like we don't care about getting paid for our work and that doesn't sit well with some. I used to be a defender of the non-paying markets, but then I realized I was sort of cutting my own throat. The idea that writers should be paid--and the more pay, the better--is, in my opinion, a good concept to embrace. That doesn't mean I'm saying all non-paying magazines are crap and shouldn't exist (I am published in a few of them, after all), it just means that I would rather promote the idea of writers getting paid.

[erazmus]

And I don't see why that is a problem. Looking up at the start of this thread, CW might as well have said the money flows to the bookstores, or the printers. Everyone, at every step of the process excepting the ultimate customer, the reader, is or should be getting paid. That includes the editor, the proof reader, the editor's assistant, the publisher's secretary, the art director, the cover artist, the printer and the guy who drives the truck hauling books from the printer to the warehouse. Yog's law is just a way of reminding writers that they too are supposed to get paid, and that in current business models legitimate publishing puts money in their pockets, and never takes it out.
How is this a wrong idea? Even in the small press, where their may not be money coming to the writer right away (as in advances against royalties) there is no up front fees. Technically, even self-publishing follows this rule, as the writer takes on the role of publisher, and as publisher incurs the up-front moneys for any service they can not do themselves (be that printing, distribution, editing or whatever.) Money, when it comes in and if it does at all, naturally must go to recoup those up front costs before before you (the publisher) can legitimately pay you (the author) profits from sales.
And any arrangement with anyone who says they are going to publish your book, and all they need is some cash up front, is still a scam. If they are dealing with you as a writer and they want money, they are a scam. That is all this rule is about. It only applies to writers, and it doesn't say no one else is getting paid or your agent shouldn't be getting his fifteen percent or the publisher shouldn't be making money or shouldn't be making more than you, or less than you or that they should get you your money before they get theirs (although that is what an advance is, money you get before the publisher has made a dime). All it is trying to convey is that you don't send a check in with your manuscript, they send a check with your contract.
What is wrong with that?

Mike

[erazmus]

And it doesn't say that you must get paid, though many try to read that into it. Its completely neutral on the subject of for the love markets and magazines paying only in copies. What it says and means is, when an author is dealing with someone who is publishing them, any payments should be made by the publisher, if there is no payment then there is no problem. The only way to "violate" this "law" is if a publisher asks you for money. If they don't promise money, and don't pay any, that's fine. Even if they are selling your work, so long as they are not selling it to you (and as most scam companies do, selling it exclusively to you).

Mike

[tchernabyelo]

Well said, Michael and Rob.

[erazmus]

Reputation gladly accepted for good posts.

Mike

[ghostposts]

same here. It's a good way to help weed out the con artists who advertise themselves as publishers, then expect the author pay to have their book printed. They act more like vanity press, but try to sound like a regular publisher.

This bothers me, as I've run into it from an unexpected source. One publisher "accepted" my book, evas' son, and agreed to publish it if I would agree to pay several hundred dollars. Yet I've seen this same publisher come out with other books and do fairly well.

They said that I was a new author and that I might need more experience before I wouldn't be asked to pay. I got irritated and told them no.
I realize that I've only had a handful of books come out, and that they've all been in e book format, but they did pretty well on fictionwise. It proves to me that not only is there a market for my kind of stories, but that my writing is good enough to meet the needs of that market.
I may not be a big name, and my writing style is far from perfect, but if a book makes a best seller's list on fictionwise, it should at least pay for the printing cost when issued in hard copy.

I just told them there was no way I'd pay to be printed. Yet for a new company, the idea of asking an untested author to help with the cost of printing books bothers me. It feels like they don't really expect the book to sell and think they will gain profit from it only through the author's willingness to pay to be printed.

If the publisher can't afford to come out with a book, they should let it go or ask the author if they can hold onto it for a few months. If the author wants the book out, they might be willing to help pay, but I wouldn't do it. It says to me that the publisher is either overloading themselves or is a bad business manager. I mean let's face it, someone shouldn't open a business without the capitol to at least produce the basic product without asking for a donation.

I would offer to donate my share of the profits on a book if I liked the publisher and trusted them, but I won't pay them to print it. It just hits me the wrong way to be asked to hand over my work to a publisher who has no faith in it. Then I was asked to invest in the company before they even put out an arc.

If you're a publisher and you find a fairly good manuscript, you should either be willing to take a chance on the author or turn their manuscript down.

[nathan]

K is correct: if you self-publish a book you are becoming a small business owner.
Really the correct term should be self-printing a book.
You aren't paying to be published because you're not published. *You* are the publisher--you're paying -- just like any publisher, a business expense to get your product manufactured.

She is exactlly correct.

I think money should flow in a river to the writer.
Its headwaters are the book buyer.
It then flows through the publisher downstream until it ends up (in whatever amount) in the pockets of the writer.

This is what "flows" means; movement in a direction.
Sometimes the flow gets you damp sometimes it drowns you--but you always end up moist.

What dries you up is when *you* are the headwaters and the money is flowing away from you to vanity publishers, book doctors, pay-to-play fiction contests, reading free charging agents, etc, etc.

[Greybeard]

This is what "flows" means; movement in a direction.
Sometimes the flow gets you damp sometimes it drowns you--but you always end up moist.

What dries you up is when *you* are the headwaters and the money is flowing away from you to vanity publishers, book doctors, pay-to-play fiction contests, reading free charging agents, etc, etc.

That is what I understood it to mean. Any meaning of "flow" other than a simple indication of direction is mistaken.

[Jaqhama]

Should we be using the term 'trickle' rather than flow?

Like I don't think we'll ever be needing a life-jacket to keep our heads above the cash 'flow'. LOL

[ScrewMoonshine]

Like I don't think we'll ever be needing a life-jacket to keep our heads above the cash 'flow'. LOL

We can dream, can't we?

Robert Orme

[JoshBrown]

Big houses are giving the author pennies of the profit of each book and keeping dollars of profit. Small houses give a better cut.

I'd like to throw in the fact that "big houses" deal with much larger print runs / sales quantities than "small houses" do.

So when you say "small houses give a better cut" it's a bit of a misnomer, as the percentage is about the same.