Publishing Portents

Everything changes and yet everything stays the same. Seems like an oxymoron. In publishing, that is exactly what it is -- an oxymoron. The more things change, the more publishers seek to maintain the status quo, scaring authors into believing there are nothing more than an unimportant cog in the vast machinery of publishing.

I began writing about the truth in publishing years ago -- 8 years ago -- when a writer I knew set down the path with a specific agent in mind. The writer was determined to have this one agent and approached the agent to take her on as a client. The agent refused; the  writer had no backlist and no publishing credits to speak of. It didn't matter that the writer had more than 10 years of experience writing articles and blogs and had co-written a book on writing; she didn't have enough experience -- or income -- to interest the agent, not even with a book that had series potential.

The writer went out and got a contract with a publisher through unusual channels and went back to the agent, newly signed contract in hand, and begged to be taken on as a client. The agent said yes and took her 15% off the top for doing nothing. The writer had done the hard work and, hat in hand, was shark bait.

I was outraged that the writer had so little faith in herself and couldn't see what was happening, but when the agent's contract, which the writer asked me to read, included an annual fee for the cost of doing business, I begged the writer to look for another agent or at least tell the agent to forget about the contract unless the annual fee was deleted. The writer signed anyway, consigning 15% of the hard earned royalties to agent for the life of the book, and the planned series. I wrote about it in 2004, but it was merely a portent of the coming storm. Other writers with a wider readership and more years in the publishing business began writing about what was going on behind the scenes.

Since the Dept of Justice case against 5 of the Big 6 publishers and Apple hit the news, Joe Konrath has written extensively about what is happening, and he continues to inform the reading and writing public exactly what it all means. It's all about who has the power.

Writers do not seem to understand that they have the power. Without the words, publishers have nothing to publish. Readers don't generate books. Publishers merely print what authors write and without the words, there is no business. As I explained to my writer friend 8 years ago, a conversation that ended our friendship, the writer has the power, not the agent. An agent might have great contacts, but those contacts exist because the agent is representing the writer. No writer, no words, no contract, and no money, despite the fact that agents are determined to bite the hand that feeds them.

Agents may believe that publishers feed them, but that's only because publishers take agents out to lavish lunches and dinners, give them booze, invite them to launch parties where the food and booze flow freely, and sign the check made possible by the author who put the words together so a book was possible. It's hard to see who is really paying the bills when the publisher's name is on the check, a check that wouldn't exist without the writer. It's called exploitation and agents and publishers have been exploiting writers since the first mass market book rolled off the Gutenburg presses.

When workers, in this case writers, are exploited, they form unions that bargain for the collective power of the workers (writers) and strike if necessary until terms are met and conditions changed. Writers have a union of sorts in the Authors Guild, but that union hasn't been doing much to help out the people (writers again) that make the Authors Guild possible. Joe Konrath and Barry Eisler hit it out to the cheap seats. Once again, people, even authors, forget who has the power.

That writer friend I mentioned told me that refusing to sign the agent's contract, annual fee and all, was not an option since the writer was a small fish in a very big ocean. I still believe that someone must take a stand and put a stop to the exploitation of writers. I would have refused to sign, but then I wouldn't have chosen that agent in the first place. The agent has done little for my writer friend's career except collect her 15% and she still charges for the cost of doing business, rather like the phone company or the utility company adding an annual fee for the paper clips, ink, paper, and postage necessary to send you a bill. Those charges, overnight mail fees included, should come out of the 15% the agent already gets. Thinking that only a Stephen King or J. K. Rowling could stand up to the agent and get the annual fee rescinded is wrong thinking. Every writer, every author who writes a book that is published is powerful enough to say NO very loudly and be heard -- and heeded.

There will be scabs who will work during a strike because they have no other choice, but Joe Blow who has never written a book before cannot replace a Barry Eisler or Ted Dekker, and that will become obvious when sales fail to make it possible for publishers to take agents out to lavish lunches where the martinis and whiskey flow so freely.

The signs are obvious. Pay attention. Writers have the power. They always did. It's time to use that power. We are authors, hear us roar.

 

More Bread and Circuses

An agent asked a question on her blog about why authors really wanted to go with traditional publishing in this day and age of easy access to self-publishing. Almost all of the answers were the same. Many writers wanted the resources (copy editing, marketing, promotion, covers, etc.) of traditional publishers, but most repeated reason was validation.

Self-publishing and traditional publishing have co-existed since the beginning. In the early days, an author went to a printer and paid him to typeset his work and many authors, or their spouses, as in the case of Virginia Woolf's husband, set up their own printing pressed and called themselves publishers. It was the only way to see their work in print.

As Barry Eisler said, getting an advance from a publisher is a short term, or long term, depending on the deal, loan against future advances and self-publishing, or indie publishing, means putting your own money up front. It's not for the faint-hearted. Then along comes Mark Coker with Smashwords and changes everything, offering a free publishing model, complete with do-it-yourself instructions, to publish your own work for free. Coker does offer some other services and allows cover artists, editors and proofreaders to advertise on the site (without recommendations)available for variable fees. This is far different from the vanity publishing model where ancillary services cost more, often a lot more. As I've said before, publishing in the 21st century is rapidly changing, and it's a change that agents and big publishers really don't want to see. Why? Perceived value.

If agents and publishers can continue to convince authors that their best and most accepted route to publication is through them, and that validation comes only with a big publisher and agent behind you, then indie publishing will always be marginalized and the authors diminished in the eyes they see in the mirror each morning.

On that same thread, I mentioned that Mark Twain was a self-published author and the agent responded that Twain's books were classics and had sold thousands, even millions, of books. She missed the point I was making to someone else on the thread that validation can come from indie publishing. Even her response to me that because Twain sold millions of books that made him valid and his work worth noticing. She has it backward.

When The Celestine Prophecy became a wildfire best seller, it wasn't due to a big publisher or an agents because several of both had rejected the book. It wasn't until the author James Redfield put his own money into the venture and sold thousands of copies before publishers and agents flocked to his door to offer their services. The same is true of Amanda Hocking and several other authors too numerous to mention. Redfield, Twain, Hocking and others validated their belief in themselves when they put their time and efforts, and even money, into getting their work before the public. The traditional publishing world just grabbed onto their coattails and came along for the ride.

The publishing world is full of such tales and I seriously doubt that scenario will ever change as long as publishers and agents hold the keys to what they keep touting as the kingdom of validation. It is in their interests to criticize indie publishing and the few who have made it and keep everyone's eyes focused on validation -- on being a real writer. They have no jobs and no product to sell if authors catch on that they can do the same thing themselves and do a better job, as is the case with some of the error-ridden books that have come out of publishing in the past few years, often with terrible covers and no marketing or promotion to speak of.

I am reminded of an old movie about a young man who took New York by storm with his debut novel. The movie was Youngblood Hawke, played by James Franciscus, who was a truck driver and took NYC by storm with his first novel. His book is optioned for a play by a has-been actress and Hawke becomes the toast of the town. His second book is an even bigger success but his third book bombs. What I remember about the movie is the part where the third book was published with bigger type and with generous margins to make the book seem bigger than it is; it's called cheating, and the critics caught on and mentioned it. Hawke eventually goes back to Kentucky to write another book and there the story ends.

In order to capitalize on sales of Hawke's previous books, the third book, which the publishers knew was not a winner, was given the treatment to make it look better than it was, but content always tells. A flashy cover, great end papers and gilding on the edges make a nice looking book, but it all comes down to the words. That is what publishers and agents don't really get. They give million-dollar deals to celebrities that are ghostwritten and hype the dickens out of them, riding the fickle tide of public interest that soon wanes, but they give the public nothing tangible. What they give the public is a modern version of bread and circuses. Is that validation? Is Snookie, the girl from The Jersey Shores who got punched in the face, really worth reading about? Does she have anything to say beyond what she's already said? Then why is she getting a million-dollar book deal when good writers are politely and thoroughly rejected? Because publishing is gambling that Snooki's book will earn back their advance.

Outside of the freak factor and celebrity mania, there is nothing of value to offer the public, except more of the same dreck. There are no interesting stories, no good writing and no validation for writers unless they prove themselves first. Snooki has proven that she can get people to look at her, but that's about all. An MTV teen mom is coming out with two books about herself, but from the ads, I doubt the book will be worth buying or reading. More bread and circuses.

Meanwhile, on the indie front, there are terrible writers who are slapping up any old thing on Smashwords and Amazon and Barnes & Noble, but that is nothing new. Garages, attics and dumps are full of boxes of vanity published books that never sold and were not worth publishing, but there are always vultures. With the new technology available and the bad taste left in the mouth of traditionally published midlist and best selling authors, they are flocking to do it themselves and reap the benefits, only one of which is money. They are seeking to be validated in their belief that good books written well and with professional covers and editing (yes, some of them actually do pay editors and artists) will sell -- and they do -- by the thousands. Indie publishing will find its level and there will be midlist writers and best sellers who emerge from the press and whose work will endure as long as Mark Twain's, or even beyond. They have the reins and they're not going to take their obligatory lap around the colisseum before fading into the sand.

Agents and publishers fear the technology and they fear the authors who are flocking to indie publishing to get a bigger share of the pie, but most of all to be validated. Agents and publishers will never go away, and maybe agents will turn their businesses into e-distributors, as Joe Konrath speculates, while publishers keep doing the same old things the same old way and expecting different results. I believe that is the definition of insanity.

Instead of taking a hint from the exodus of solid midlist writers who have earned millions of dollars over the course of their caareers, publishers will keep the focus on validation and the services they offer. It's true, they have hundreds of years of experience, nearly half a millennium, in knowing how to manipulate the public and authors to stay on top, and that may be changing. Publishing is sliding down the chute, but it isn't out. They have too much to lose and too much money invested in their monolithic businesses to quit. Whether they reinvent themselves or continue with business as usual is anybody's guess, but from what I read on the agent's blog, the belief that only traditional publishing can offer what an author values most, validation that what they have produced is worth publishing, will not change until more authors like Barry Eisler, Joe Konrath, Amanda Hocking and even Mark Twain show them the way.

There is room for traditional and indie publishing without slinging mud and denigrating what the opponent has to offer. It's a matter of the bottom line, not the immediate value, but the long term bottom line, which is something traditional publishers never think about. Publishers and agents focus on the immediate bottom line, on immediate perceived value, but that will change.

If Mark Twain can do it, so can other authors, and I hope I'm one of them. It's not about how you got your book to the market and onto the shelves, but that you did and people picked them up, bought them and took them hold to read and then told their friends who told their friends who told their friends until people began to speak their name in whispers and then in shouts.

Publishing shouldn't be about bread and circuses, keeping the masses fed and entertained for the moment so they forget when they get home there is no bread and no more circuses. Publishing should be about bringing good books to the masses and feeding their souls and their minds, not just their bellies. Only time will tell which way the wind blows, but I'd say the wind from indie publishing that whispers validation is growing in strength and offers, as it has always offered, a different path to acceptance and success. Publishers seems to be more interested in EX-clusion than IN-clusion and that may be their downfall, or maybe it's just their dogma. The long term bet is on a mutually effective and useful co-existence with bread at the circus and at home. Keep your fingers crossed.

The Age of Service

Once upon a time, long, long ago -- and it was a very long time ago -- you would drive up to a gas station and a man in a starched and ironed uniform would hurry to your car, greet you and ask if you wanted a fill-up. Whether for two dollars or a full tank, he would then proceed to pump the gas, wash the windows, check the oil and air in the tires (replacing where necessary) and take your money with a smile, offering green stamps in return that could be exchanged for lovely gifts.

All of that is gone now with do-it-yourself and self-serve where gas station attendants stand or sit in booths behind glass and stainless steel walls and shove metal drawers at you with a nifty and handy little weighted cup to send back money, credit cards and receipts. The age of the polite and tidy service attendant is gone. Service has been glassed in or sent offshore.

This morning I was strongly reminded of the age of service with Dean Wesley Smith's blog post about what Joe Konrath calls estributors, which are distributors of electronic books and content. In other words, e-book packagers. This is what Konrath believes agents and agencies will morph into, a one stop service for proofing, formatting, book covers and uploading e-books. What it comes down to is cost. Should we continue to pay the estributors 15%, as in the old agency days, or should they be paid a flat rate that isn't tied into a book's earnings. There were compelling arguments on both sides, but I think we know on which side of this argument I weigh in. Like Dean, I don't what to pay what he calls "day labor" rates for someone who does so little. Barry and Joe were willing to give up 15% of all their future earnings to be able to write and produce more work for agents to take 15% of.

If the future looks anything at all like the present, it won't be long before agents will have authors doing more of the work for their 15%. Remember? The age of service is long gone. If the services remain, authors will have to pay an extra annual fee for the cost of doing business: long distance phone calls, copying, overnight mail, postage and paperclips. Not for me.

It all comes down to value and perception. We have been taught that an agent is key -- and in some cases necessary according to some big publisher's rules -- to get through the gate to be published. Authors have been taught that it is the way things are done to hire an agent and pay them 15% (what happened to the days of 10%) of earnings for their services. After all, the agent introduced you to the publisher and got you a deal. The publisher reciprocates by paying the agent, who then takes his percentage (the cream) off the top of your check and sends you the rest (you hope). You get to send in a 1099 at the end of the year to the agent, who has been keeping the books, so the government knows how much you paid the agent. Not all agents are honorable or even honest, but that's a tale for another time. One hopes the agent hired is of the honest and forthright type, and there is a clause in every publishing contract where the author gets the check first and then deducts the percentage and sends it to the agent. I wonder how many authors know about that little detail.

As for me, I figure if they're going to charge me for postage anyway, I should get to send them a check; it's my postage after all.

The best solution is for the agent to submit a bill each month, or quarterly, detailing charges and pay the bill. No more 15% with me doing most of the work. They get paid, I get to keep more of my money, and I stay in control.

In this increasingly serviceless age where the emphasis is on doing it yourself (gas stations, grocery stores, Home Depot, etc.) I keep wondering how much of that mentality will leach back into the system. Publishers and agents expect authors to do most of the marketing and publicity for their work, a task that once upon a time was handled by agents and publishers and the author just had to show up. (Check out Return to Peyton Place for a look at the good old days when publishers edited and publicized authors.) What's to say that the future agencies won't end up requiring authors to do more of the proofing, formatting, and uploading once they have their 15% locked in?

As Dean says, that is doing business the old way, the way we've been taught -- and have come to expect -- to do it. Times change.

Although it's more work, I'm used to doing things for myself and having control over the end result. I don't mind doing all the hard work, especially since the work gets easier with practice. It's not that much different than working a full time job in order to continue writing. I hope for a time when I can just write, but I doubt that will ever happen.

I've tried to come up with a better corollary for an agent's percentage than Dean's. He uses a gardener who, for keeping the outside of a house looking nice, gets 15% of the worth of the house. That doesn't really work. A gardener is day labor, but we need a stronger example.

I thought of pirates. On a pirate ship, the captain gets the biggest share of the booty and the rest of the crew, right down to the cabin boy, get smaller shares. The booty is a finite amount. Whatever is captured is divided up according to shares, sort of like a doubloon and gold ingot pie. While I like the pirate motif, and it does feel right, there really is nothing that compares outside of owning shares in a company. Those go on hopefully forever -- if the corporation continues.

For doing little more than loaning the company capital by buying shares, the shareholder gets a return on the investment.The problem with that example is that the shareholder puts up something of value -- his hard earned cash -- and gets a return based on how the company profits by using the shareholder's money. An agent puts up his connections and contacts and expertise to promote a book, so that is sort of like capital, and earns a return on the proceeds of said work in the form of a percentage of royalties, except that many agents don't put up enough capital. It's like expecting a shareholder who bought five shares to have more control than someone who bought 40,000 shares, which is the split between what agents and authors contribute. I still like the pirate motif.

At any rate, in this do-it-yourself world, it's best to be the head of the corporation delegating tasks that are compensated with flat rates. I do the writing and work, choose cover art and send out the marketing team to do their jobs, and I pay them and keep the rest for myself. I earned it and the others are just day laborers. I would feel different if agents and publishers did more of the work and offered more for their share. Since they have gone the way of the service station attendant and stand in a glass and steel booth shoving a metal drawer at me, I'm going to pay the amount on the pump and go my merry way with the rest of my money intact.

Now, if they start offering green stamps, I might reconsider.