Random House Changes E-book Royalty Scheme for Worse

Any time a publisher talks about shifting from royalties based on cover price to royalties based on money they actually see, look out. You are about to lose income. That's what is happened over at Random House regarding e-books. Starting December 1, the royalty rate will be 25 percent of the amount Random receives.

A recent Random House contract states that on all copies of a work sold as an electronic book, the royalty will be 25% of the US suggested retail price until the book's advance has earned out, and 15% of the list price thereafter. Under the current (pre-change) royalty structure, on a book retailing for, say, $10.00, the e-book royalty would be $2.50 per download at 25%, then $1.50 per download when the royalty rate shifts to 15%.

By contrast, the new royalty of 25% of the net receipts comes to something like $1.25 per sale on a $10.00 book (25% of 50%). So, Random House's change is definitely a reduction of e-book income for authors.

Well, there's a surprise - a publisher trying to take even more of the money pool. Here's the other shoe that the article doesn't mention: that leaves the publisher open to striking better deals with the retailers because they have more room to give in some as a bargaining chip for, say, better placement on a web page (called marketing dollars) while still maintaining the previously realized margin. It's the writer who does the subsidizing.

Figure that if you deal with Random House this will affect you, according to the letter that has been floating about:

With the widespread use by consumers of electronic devices such as the iPod, the Amazon Kindle, and the Sony Reader, a significant market for ebooks and digitally delivered audio content is finally ready to emerge. In response, Random House is making major investments in our digital infrastructure and is creating digital files of active titles so that they are available for sales as ebooks, as downloadable audio, and for Internet search and discovery."

Might as well have all the authors chip in for Random's profit goals.

Authors Guild Warns About Simon & Schuster E-Book Letter

The Authors Guild has sent a message to its members, warning that Simon & Schuster is trying to get many of its authors to sign an e-book royalty rate amendment to their contracts. They're trying to "set those rates at 15% of the 'catalog retail price' of the e-book." The organization suggests caution:

1. Discuss the amendment with your agent or attorney, if you have one.

2. Depending on your existing contract with Simon & Schuster, the amendment may grant the publisher rights that you've otherwise retained.

3. Be aware that the amendment may affect your ability to obtain a reversion of rights.

Furthermore, the Authors Guild thinks that 15 percent of retail price will be "the low-water mark for e-book royalties." The reason is that the publishers virtually no costs in warehousing, printing, shipping, or handling. My guess is that e-books probably strip a good $2 to $3 from the actual cost of a given title. (And if any publishers read this and disagree with my estimation, I'd be glad to hear the arguments on how it should change and why.)

However, I think we all have to keep aware of the broader economic issues that are happening. Yes, costs for publishers drop, but if Amazon has its way, so will the money that the publishers get in the first place. And by no means am I suggesting that S&S has got the best interests of the authors in mind. If they are trying to set the amount at 15 percent, I suspect they are trying to offer something that sounds generous compared to print royalties, but that leaves more money in their pocket. If you figure a $20 cost for a trade paperback and 50 percent discount, that means the publisher is saving maybe $2 on income of $10, which is an additional 20 percent in available profit. Instead of 15 percent, an author might reasonably get 20 or 25 percent of the sale price.

But read about the prices Amazon is charging for big titles. It's very little compared to print prices - even though Amazon itself is also saving lots in the new format - and the company is taking aggressive portions of the money that comes in. That's why they're pushing on the Kindle so hard. Should other e-book readers come out and become popular as well, there might be multiple formats and outlets, meaning far less ability to twist arms. If the publishers are forced into taking $5 to $7 for a title, there's a whole lot less money now available for all of us.

More on Movies, Net Profits, and Authors

Well, I've just been pointed to another LA Times piece that goes over the numbers a bit more:

• Olivia Goldsmith, author of The First Wives Club, was paid $250,000 for the movie rights, although worldwide gross for the film was reputedly $181.4 millon.


• Winston Groom was promised $350,000 and 3% of the net profit for the movie rights to Forrest Gump. He got ... $350,000.


• Alice Walker, who was supposed to get 3% of the gross for the movie version of The Color Purple, eventually got something, but only "a fraction" of what she thought she was owed.


• Art Buchwald sued Paramount Pictures for what he said was theft of the concept from his treatment for the idea of Coming to America. He won in court, after being told by the studio that although the movie grossed $350 million, there wasn't any money to pay net profits. Must have been a catered lunch or two that put them in the hole that completely.

The story has a great quote:

Ernest Hemingway once noted that authors should drive up to the California border and throw their books over a fence while studio officials throw bags of money back over the fence. That, he said, should be the end of the transaction.

Net Profits Screw Book Author

A studio taking advantage of an author - I know, it's hard to believe, eh? Thanks to a reader pointing to Sarah Weinman's blog, which pointed to this LA Times piece, we have a story of an author, Deborah Gregory, who wrote a popular line of books for girls: The Cheetah Girls. But when she signed on for a cut of net profits of the movies, CDs, DVDs, and even concerts that Disney has sold, she didn't realize she was also signing on for Hollywood accounting:

Her breezy, street-smart tales of five girls chasing pop music careers were turned into two hit television movies, and a third is now being filmed in India. Cheetah Girls CDs and DVDs have sold in the millions, and concert tours have hit more than 80 cities. Meanwhile, Disney's fabled merchandising machine flooded the market with Cheetah Girls shoes, dolls, toothbrushes, video games, backpacks, note pads, pillows, posters, T-shirts and the like.

Gregory expected to get a piece of the action when she signed a 2001 contract promising her 4% of the net from all of this activity. But like many other authors who have signed away dramatic rights, she says she never got a penny of the profits. Unlike screenwriters, who were backed by a strong union in their recently ended strike, most literary writers are at a disadvantage when negotiating with Hollywood. And it is difficult, if not impossible, for them to crack the safe.

According to the story, Gregory has seen $125,000 total in the last nine years. She's never gotten a "net profit participation statement" from Disney, although she's been asking. She lives in a studio apartment in Manhattan.

"This is an old, old story in Hollywood," said literary agent Nicholas Ellison, who has represented numerous clients in book-to-film negotiations. When studios are asked why an author has not received any net profits, he said, they often point to expenses that have grown larger than expected and contend that a hit picture has not, in fact, made money.

It's called "Hollywood accounting," and in some cases studios may be on solid ground, citing legitimate costs such as promotion and development. But in other cases, contracts contain definitions of "net profits" that make it all but impossible for an author to collect money that once seemed tantalizingly at hand.

No kidding. According to the WGA, 43 percent of Hollywood movies over the last five years were adapted from books, articles, and other writing. As Paul Aiken of the Authors Guild said, "The best advice we give is that you should try to get as much of your money upfront. You can't count on net profit deals for anything." And apparently the studios are ready to walk away from writers, including ones that aren't big names, because there are always other books available.

But don't think this is restricted to Hollywood. I've often found these "net profit" clauses in both book and magazine publishing contracts. Writers assume they're getting something real, rather than asking just what the hell gets taken out before you get to "net." It makes me angry - really angry - because this isn't some accident, or just a poor choice in wording, or even contract terms taken from some other kind of contract and assumed to be applicable, as happens often in publishing agreements. This to me reads as the deliberate intent to trick a writer into the assumption of getting one thing, while offering an opportunity to play with definitions to deliver a great big fat zero.

Let me ask you: Have you ever signed a contract that provided for participation in net sales through syndication, or licensing to overseas magazine titles? Now, I've known a couple of writers who have gotten extra money from Hearst, but other than those couple of cases, I've never heard of anyone getting money down the line.

This suggests that writers should absolutely push back on these net deals. Either the publisher isn't using the rights you grant and there is no money of which to get a cut, in which case this is opportunity wasted, or they do make sales and come up with ways of not paying. Do you ever get notification of other sales? Is there a clause, as in the book publishing business, where you could audit them? Nope, and I'm betting that's for a reason, though I cannot bring myself to calling it good. According to the story, Gregory wrote 16 novels in the Cheetah Girl series, sold 2 million copies, and got $180,000 in advances. Think that's good? Do the math: it's $11,250 per book. You could write how-to series titles and probably do better. As for the pittance she saw from what Disney got, I guess their expenses were inordinately high:

The first movie was broadcast in 2003, drawing an estimated 6.5 million viewers on its first night; the second aired in 2006, attracting 8 million. Two CD soundtracks sold a combined 3 million copies. National concert tours in each of the last three years have played to sold-out crowds. Merchandise made by a flurry of companies who leased the rights from Disney began flooding into malls across the nation.

Hollywood is again courting Gregory over a new series she's written. And this time she's not depending on just her agent, which is William Morris these days, but is independently hiring an experienced entertainment lawyer to represent her interests. You and I can't do that with magazine contracts, so maybe a "get this out of the contract" approach is what is necessary. And if the publisher insists that it needs the rights, then tell them you want something in there about being able to audit the results and to get notification of when these deals happen. Oh, and a definition of exactly what comes out between gross and net.

Story of a Blockbuster

The Wall Street Journal had a story last Friday (which may or may not be available depending on when you look at this and if you have a WSJ.com account) about how Viking used a series of calculated moves to turn "Eat, Pray, Love" into a best seller when it finally came out as a paperback from Penguin, another imprint owned, as is Viking, by Pearson.

If you can get a hold of a copy of the article, it's worth reading to get a sense of how publishers are trying to change their marketing, and how they approach the business. Note this bit:

The vast majority of books face a tough reality. New releases that fail to take off in the first couple of weeks -- when publishers often pay to place copies on stores' front tables -- are relegated to the back shelves.

That sentence alone is worth a wow. Up until now, I thought the usual practice had become a month on the shelves and three months of publicity and marketing. Apparently I've been over-generous. The only way this changes is if the publisher thinks the book has break-out potential.

That means a number of things. One is that platform, which has become a heavy stone crushing the chests of many authors, is becoming every more weighty. And the early reception to the book is critical. "Eat, Pray, Love" got an excerpt in O and a cover article in the NYT Book Review. Here's another reality check:

Each month Penguin publishes 15 to 20 fancy "trade" paperbacks -- high-quality editions that are larger in format and easier to read than their cheaper, mass-market cousins. But it only really lends its weight to one or two.

This is like literary Calvinism, only with clear proof of predestination rather than theological speculation. Penguin, in this case, invested in freestanding store displays and ads, and the marketing person in charge asked everyone in sales and marketing to read the book, so they could effectively convey enthusiasm. And now for the "beautiful author" part, as I mentioned in my writing and literature blog:

Selling Ms. Gilbert, the author, was just as crucial. Unlike many writers who don't like touring and are uncomfortable in front of crowds, Ms. Gilbert has a sunny, upbeat personality that plays well on television and in personal appearances. Notes Ms. Court: "When the writer of a book is attractive, generous, and funny, booksellers end up rooting for her."

Then it was touring, getting book club traction, and so on. Here's another tidbit that tells you how sales work these days in moving from hardback to paperback:

"One of the mantras of publishing economics of the 1970s and early 1980s was that mass-market paperbacks could achieve 10 times the sales of a hardcover," says Stuart Applebaum, a spokesman for Bertlesmann AG's Random House Inc. Then retailers started discounting hardcover titles, and the smaller, cheaper paperbacks lost ground.
Laurence Kirshbaum, a book agent who heads up LJK Literary Management in New York, estimates that the current ratio between hardcover and paperback sales is one to one -- mostly because so many hardcover books are so steeply discounted. "These days the bulk of the people who are interested in a book buy it in hardcover; that's what makes titles such as 'Eat, Pray, Love' so exceptional," says Mr. Kirshbaum. "They are throwbacks to the days when paperbacks sold huge multiples of the hardcover."

In case this isn't sinking in, most book authors don't have a snowball's chance in hell of mass market success. That means you have to find a different business model, and fast - one that doesn't rely on big publishers and traditional marketing, and one that doesn't leave you trying to eke out a living from a relatively tiny royalty.

How Bad Publishers Are at Managing Royalties and Rights

I'm a fairly cynical guy when it comes to trusting what publishers do, but Art Hutchinson, a strategic planning consultant and owner of the Mapping Strategy business blog, managed to surprise me. He had posted an interesting take on a New York Times article about publishers not having a clue as to why some books sell better than others. I responded in a comment and his answer is a must read for book authors, or those who wish to be. Go to this link, scroll down, and see his post about how one major publisher only paid attention to royalties and rights for big-wig authors, and otherwise didn't worry about things.