This was in the Wall Street Journal today.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120723631543086595.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

It doesn't sound very good for the writers not to get an advance. What happens if they spend all of that time writing a book and it doesn't sell? I understand that the publishers have to make a living as well and if a book doesn't sell they are out of a lot of money but they also make a lot of money when a book does sell well. I would think it would even out. Meanwhile the authors are the ones to really get hurt by this. Not so much the established ones who have a loyal fan base but the ones trying to get a foot in the door.


Kim

WoW....I am not sure, but i thought Authors counted on that money to live, while reaserching or writing the next book or books....

That has got to make it hard for them...

I guess this is only one publishing company trying something new. Maybe new authors will just take their books to someone else?

Kimberly

That doesn't make sense. Why would they cut off the advance to an author. It seems the only ones making any profit would be the publishing company. They would use authors work for their own gain and they expect their authors to put up with that?

its probably because they know they can...
the new up and comers just want their names out and will take anything at first, and the established have contracts they have to honor...

its deffnately a rotten thing to do!

If anybody has subscription can you post the full article here?

From what I read though it looks like they are going to lose a lot of people, If it doesn't work the publishers are going to lose big time. They can't implement these new plans that sound really ridculous, who'd want to sign a contract with them when they won't give you a safety net?

It just doesn't make good business sense. Just to make a quick buck they are going to lose worthwhile authors. Does that make any sense or am I missing a piece of the puzzle.

Sorry guys! When I did this earlier, the entire article was visible. I haven't been able to find the entire thing on any other website but I did find these things:

http://www.writerswrite.com/wblog.php?wblog=403081

http://www.graphicartsonline.com/article/CA6547797.html?industryid=47572

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HarperCollins

On Wikipedia, they have a short mention of this new "imprint" near the bottom and they also list all of HarperCollins other "imprints" one of which is Avon which is who publishes Lynsay's books.

I wasn't sure what an imprint was at first but it sound like this is a somewhat separate division or company and therefore will not affect Lynsay or a lot of other authors. Maybe just new authors who have been rejected by the other imprints and are willing to take a chance to get their books published.

I read the entire article first in the paper version of the Wall Street Journal and I'd retype it here but I think that may be copyright infringement so I won't. That's why I tried to find it online and just have a link to it. But I think I'm okay if I just summarize it and use just a few quotes.

It seems the main reason for this lauching of a new imprint is to try and cut down on book returns. "The current practice encourages retailers to order huge quantities of potentially hot new titles, sending back those that don't sell." However, "between 30% and 40% of all consumer books shipped are returned to publishers..."

There is a quote from a chief executive at Barnes and Noble who said "he would like to be able to mark down books rather than returning them." However, the article also said that "Back in 1980, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc. announced it would provide retailers with larger discounts and end returns. Orders fell off, however, and the publisher reversed itself."

The current economy seems to be affecting stock prices at both Barnes and Noble and Borders. In fact, Borders put itself up for sale last month. (Both of these things are mentioned in the article) So I can see why the publishers are trying this. It does make sense from their point of view. And since this is just one division rather than something that is being implemented across the board, I think I overreacted a bit. I had no idea what an "imprint" was when I first started reading this article which I think the author of this article should have made more clear so I believe I was confused and missed it when at the end of the article it says that there will only be about 25 new titles published a year. ("shorter hardcover tites priced at about $20).

"Mr. Miller said that many authors who currently receive large advances won't be interested in the new model. However, he thinks he will attract major authors who have a book in the desk drawer that doesn't fit their image, as well as up-and-coming writers."

If this is something that works though, the publisher is probably going to push for it to be implemented at the other imprints. Then all the new writers will have a reason to be worried.

Hope this helps clear up any confusion that I might have caused.

Kimberly

I think it would be fine for authors who already have a best selling series and just want to try something else out, their publisher probably wouldn't mind it if they didn't have to pay it out considering they already do pay out for her best selling series

A couple points came to mind as I read the various comments.

First, there are so many unpublished writers out there who would be willing to not take an advance. . . You would be amazed. They want the chance to get a book in print and build a readership and don't care if they get paid ahead or if they have to wait and get paid a year and a half after the book comes out.

Second, most writers don't get much of an advance anyway. The standard when I started was about $2,000 for a newbie. I had heard it had dropped to as low as $1,000 at some pub houses recently. Most writers write two books a year. That's only $2,000-$4,000 a year. Hardly enough to keep anyone alive while they write the next book. Most writers have at least one other job to keep body and soul together while they try to build a readership and enough success that they can quit their day job and write for a living. Most never reach that point. I've read various statistics and they tend to say that only the top 3 to 5% of writers can support themselves on their writing and without a job job to supplement it.

As for writers doing it as a sideline, as in having books with one publisher who pays advances and then publishing without advances here...well, that might not work so well. Some publishers tend to try to tie up their writers and prevent them writing elsewhere. They always have a first read and reject clause in contracts, as in they have first crack at your next story after the one they've contracted. But some work in things that make it so that you can't write for anyone else. Period.

Lynsay

Unless they really like the publisher and have good sales I don't see people really wanting such a contract as not being allowed to write for anybody else is really restrictive because if that publisher won't accept your stuff your screwed

Who said anything about the writer wanting it? LOL. Gees, you guys tend to think we have so much power. Book covers, blurbs, titles and contracts we don't really have much control over any of them in the end. Not unless your name is J.K. Rowling or Stephen King and probably they don't have as much control as we like to imagine either.

The problem is, Acal, we all have bills to pay and unless you're Stephen King and extremely rich, bills influence your decision. Besides, as I say, they have this in EVERY contract. At least they've had it in every contract I've seen or heard of over the thirty some books I've written for three different publishers and my agent says it's standard. Sometimes it's called RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL, sometimes it's just called OPTION. The wording is along the lines of "In further consideration of this Agreement, the Author grants to the Publisher an option on the Author's next book-length . . . "

It goes on to say you will give them (sometimes it's an outline sometimes a full length novel) and they have 30 days AFTER ACCEPTING your last contracted novel (They still haven't "accepted" the novel from last November and have no deadline for accepting or rejecting it) which means you could be held up six months, seven months or even longer before you can send it elsewhere and then that publisher can take six months to a year to decide if they want it and then there's the negotiating the contract and waiting for them to pay the advance, etc. You could go a year between contracts and even longer between getting paid. If it's your sole income, that's just not feasible, and if it's side income its no better. Aside from no one wanting to wait that long for income, it means a long time between books out and it's hard to build a readership without books on the shelves.

Lynsay, off to work

Well lets cross our fingers that you can become as rich as JK Rowlings so you can have a little more influence with the publisher. I promise to keep buying and reading your books if that helps any.

Hehe, that would be good..

Geez why do publishers take sooo long in deciding things!