There has been a lot of talk as to whether or not social media is the front runner in another inflated internet bubble waiting to burst, leaving users “virtually” friendless and clueless. Will everyone be out of the loop, with no one keeping track of daily deals, happenings or status updates? Warren Buffet confirmed this fear stating that although it’s not as big as the dot com bubble, social media is not long term by any means. However, industry trends and buyer behaviors are stating otherwise.
Facebook has proven beneficial to marketing efforts for B2C companies, but B2B marketing has struggled to find its footing on the platform. That’s where LinkedIn has emerged as the go-to medium for B2B marketers.
A recent study done by BtoB Magazine, showed that when asked “Which of the following social media methods does your company currently use for your B2B marketing (i.e. not personal use)” 72% of B2B marketers said LinkedIn. After reaching more than 100 million users, LinkedIn has solidified its niche as Facebook in a business suit, and B2B companies have taken notice.
The 2011 State of Inbound Marketing (an annual report done by HubSpot, an inbound marketing software company) found that 61% of B2B marketers who participated in the survey acquired a customer through LinkedIn. The targeted and measurable aspect of inbound marketing is what makes it so attractive to smart business owners who are tired of spending money on marketing with no proof that it’s working. Former Chief Marketing Officer of McDonald’s, M. Lawrence Light said, “It no longer makes economic sense to send an advertising message to the many, in hopes of persuading the few.”
Continued on the next page
There has been a lot of talk as to whether or not social media is the front runner in another inflated internet bubble waiting to burst, leaving users “virtually” friendless and clueless. Will everyone be out of the loop, with no one keeping track of daily deals, happenings or status updates? Warren Buffet confirmed this fear stating that although it’s not as big as the dot com bubble, social media is not long term by any means. However, industry trends and buyer behaviors are stating otherwise.
Facebook has proven beneficial to marketing efforts for B2C companies, but B2B marketing has struggled to find its footing on the platform. That’s where LinkedIn has emerged as the go-to medium for B2B marketers.
A recent study done by BtoB Magazine, showed that when asked “Which of the following social media methods does your company currently use for your B2B marketing (i.e. not personal use)” 72% of B2B marketers said LinkedIn. After reaching more than 100 million users, LinkedIn has solidified its niche as Facebook in a business suit, and B2B companies have taken notice.
The 2011 State of Inbound Marketing (an annual report done by HubSpot, an inbound marketing software company) found that 61% of B2B marketers who participated in the survey acquired a customer through LinkedIn. The targeted and measurable aspect of inbound marketing is what makes it so attractive to smart business owners who are tired of spending money on marketing with no proof that it’s working. Former Chief Marketing Officer of McDonald’s, M. Lawrence Light said, “It no longer makes economic sense to send an advertising message to the many, in hopes of persuading the few.”
Continued on the next page
bench craft company
Deron Williams reportedly said that he likes the Nets and would be open to an extension.
bench craft companySo we have rolled out a redesigned Google News for Opera Mini in all 29 languages and 70 editions of Google News. This includes an enhanced homepage featuring richer snippets, thumbnail images, links to videos and section content ...
bench craft companyGwyneth Paltrow makes bulimia fancy again. - Robert Pattinson is spreading disease. - Emily Browning stars in a movie about high-end date rape and,
bench craft company Video calls were a mainstay of classic sci-fi films, and even today there’s something almost magical about seeing your friends and family on the screen of a portable device. Video calling has been around for some time, but it’s only really in the past year or so that its got more attention among regular users. That’s thanks in no small part to Apple and FaceTime, as found on the iPhone 4, iPad 2 and other gadgets from the company’s range. Read on as we give FaceTime the full SlashGear 101 treatment!
So Apple invented video calling, right?
No, not at all, though they did do a lot to make it easier to use – just as long as you have the right hardware. Video calling is actually a part of the 3G standard, which – if the carrier and whatever phone you’re using supports it, which isn’t the case in the US – has been available since around 2003. Unfortunately a combination of high pricing, poor understanding by users, mediocre quality and patchy reliability meant this form of video calling has never really taken off.
Apple’s FaceTime takes advantage of the company’s tight control over the iPhone, iPod touch, iPad and MacBook software, which has allowed it to polish the video calling experience to the point where everyday use is possible. Now FaceTime is available to anybody at the touch of an on-screen button.
Do I need an Apple phone to use FaceTime?
Not necessarily a phone, but definitely something with the Apple logo. FaceTime was first supported on the iPhone 4, which was Apple’s first mobile device with a front-facing camera (i.e. one that looks at the user, rather than out the back of the handset). The latest iPod touch and iPad 2 both have front-facing cameras and FaceTime support as well, and Apple has released a FaceTime app for its Mac and MacBook computers so they can join in the fun as well. FaceTime comes free on the mobile devices and the very latest Macs, and is a $0.99 download from the Mac App Store for earlier Mac owners.
Okay, so how do I use it?
It’s pretty simple, just as Apple was aiming for. On the iPhone you make a voice call in the normal way and then tap the FaceTime button on-screen to switch to video. On the iPod touch and iPad 2, you start a video call in the FaceTime app. You’ll need an Apple account in order to make and receive calls, since that’s used as the “phone number” for devices other than the iPhone 4.
Currently, FaceTime video calls can only be made when you have a WiFi connection, not when you’re using the mobile network for data. That’s a limitation Apple has put in place itself, though the company has said it is working on removing it in the future.
I’m not into Apple, can I video call with something else?
You certainly can, though the process gets a bit trickier. Various apps are available for Android and other mobile phone platforms which promise video calls, sometimes over not only WiFi but the 3G mobile networks too. That means you can make video calls when away from your home network or a WiFi hotspot, as long as your signal is strong enough.
Skype, Fring and Qik are all among the companies offering video calling apps, though their effectiveness often varies on a phone-by-phone basis. Not all phones have front-facing cameras, either, though they’re becoming more common on the latest handsets. A future SlashGear 1010 feature will look at the best video calling apps if FaceTime isn’t your thing.
Apple has said it plans to open up FaceTime to other manufacturers, so that non-Apple phones can make and receive calls too, but so far there’s no sign of that actually happening.
More information at Apple’s FaceTime page.
Apple has reportedly become more aggressive in securing components from overseas suppliers, making moves such as upfront cash payments to both ensure supply and block out competitors.
Analyst Brian White with Ticonderoga Securities said in a note to investors on Thursday that Apple began "aggressively attacking" the component situation in Japan following the earthquake and tsunami that struck the country. The iPhone maker reportedly sent executives to suppliers immediately to ensure adequate supply of components, and also began offering upfront cash payments.
Separately, White's contacts in Taiwan also revealed that Apple is allegedly securing component capacity using what is known as a "three cover guarantee," referring to capacity, stock and price. Apple's move is seen as one that could potentially block out competitors and prevent them from building ample supply of devices.
The information comes as a separate report out of the Far East suggested that a one-month delay for Research in Motion's PlayBook tablet was as a result of Apple securing most of the available touch panel production capacity. The delay has forced the PlayBook to go on sale after Apple's in-demand iPad 2.
Last month, it was said that Apple could agree to price hikes in order to secure touch panel supply, particularly in the aftermath of the Japan earthquake. Apple was said to be in talks with component makers about touch panel pricing, and allegedly considered some price increases in negotiations.
In the company's last quarterly earnings call, Apple Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook revealed that Apple had invested $3.9 billion of its nearly $60 billion in cash reserves in long-term supply contracts. He declined to reveal what components Apple had put its money toward, citing competitive concerns, but said that it was a strategic move that would position the company well in the future.
Analysts largely believe that the secret investment was related to touch panel displays that are the centerpiece of devices like the iPhone and iPad. One cost breakdown estimated that such an investment could secure Apple 136 million iPhone displays, or 60 million iPad touch panels.
It's a move similar to 2005, when Apple inked a major deal with Samsung to secure longterm supply of flash memory. NAND flash would go on to become a major part of Apple's products, including the iPhone, iPad and new MacBook Air.
bench craft companybench craft companyOver the years, entrepreneurs and corporate executives have devised any number of clever ways for getting rich off the working poor, but you'd have to look long and hard to find one more diabolically inventive than the RAL. Say you have a $2,000 tax refund due and you don't want to wait a week or two for the IRS to deposit that money in your bank account. Your tax preparer would be delighted to act as the middleman for a very short-term bank loan—the RAL. You get your check that day or the next, minus various fees and interest charges, and in return sign your pending refund over to the bank. Within 15 days, the IRS wires your refund straight to the lender. It's a safe bet for the banks, but that hasn't stopped them from charging astronomical interest rates. Until this tax year, the IRS was even kind enough to let lenders know when potential borrowers were likely to have their refund garnished because they owed back taxes, say, or were behind on child support.
Hewitt didn't invent the refund anticipation loan. That distinction belongs to Ross Longfield, who dreamed up the idea in 1987 and took it to H&R Block CEO Thomas Bloch. "I'm explaining it," Longfield recalls, "but Tom is sitting there going, 'I don't know; I don't know if people are going to want to do that.'"
Tax-prep shops are as common as fast-food joints in many low-income neighborhoods—there are at least half a dozen on one three-block stretch of South Broadway in Yonkers, N.Y., where these photographs were taken. A few offer reasonably priced accounting, while others charge hundreds of dollars for 20 minutes of work. But Longfield knew. He worked for Beneficial Corp., a subprime lender specializing in small, high-interest loans for customers who needed to finance a new refrigerator or dining-room set. His instincts told him the RAL would be a big hit—as did the polling and focus groups he organized. "Everything we did suggested people would love it—love it to death," he says.
He also knew Beneficial would make a killing if he could convince tax preparers—in exchange for a cut of the proceeds—to peddle this new breed of loan on his employer's behalf. Ultimately, Longfield persuaded H&R Block to sign up. But no one was as smitten as John Hewitt—who understood that people earning $15,000 or $20,000 or $25,000 a year live in a perpetual state of financial turmoil. Hewitt began opening outposts in the inner cities, Rust Belt towns, depressed rural areas—anywhere the misery index was high. "That was the low-hanging fruit," he says. "Going into lower-income areas and delivering refunds quicker was where the opportunity was."
Customers wanting a RAL paid Jackson Hewitt a $24 application fee, a $25 processing fee, and a $2 electronic-filing fee, plus 4 percent of the loan amount. On a $2,000 refund, that meant $131 in charges—equivalent to an annual interest rate of about 170 percent—not to mention the few hundred bucks you might spend for tax preparation. "Essentially, they're charging people triple-digit interest rates to borrow their own money," says Chi Chi Wu, a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center.
In 1988, the first year he began offering the loans, Hewitt owned 49 stores in three states. Five years later, he had 878 stores in 37 states. And five years after that, when Cendant Corp.—the conglomerate that owned Avis, Century 21, and Days Inn—bought Jackson Hewitt for $483 million, his earliest backers received a $2 million payout on every $5,000 they'd invested. Today, with 6,000 offices scattered across the country, Jackson Hewitt is more ubiquitous than KFC, and has about as many imitators.
THERE WOULD BE NO refund anticipation loans, of course, without tax refunds. And by extension there would be no RALs without the Earned Income Tax Credit, the federal anti-poverty initiative that served as the mother's milk nourishing the instant-refund boom. Welfare reform was the catalyst for the EITC, which was aimed at putting extra cash in the pockets of low-income parents who worked. What motive does a single mother have to get a job, conservative thinkers asked, if there was scant difference between her monthly take-home pay and a welfare check? It was Richard Nixon who first floated the idea that led to the Earned Income Tax Credit; Ronald Reagan dubbed it "the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress." In 2007, the US Treasury paid out $49 billion to 25 million taxpayers.
The Business Rusch: Royalty Statements
Kristine Kathryn Rusch
Imagine this:
Pretend you run a very large business. The business has a lot of built-in problems, things not easily fixed. You’re aware of the problems and are trying to solve them. A decade ago, you actually had hope you could solve them. It will simply take time, you thought, but back then, your business was a leisurely business. Back then, you had no idea that the word “leisure” would leave your vocabulary and never return.
In that decade, your business has changed dramatically. Your corporate masters sold out to large conglomerates, so now you can no longer point to your small but steady profit as normal for your industry. The conglomerate doesn’t care. All the conglomerate cares about is quarterly profits, which should rise steadily.
Your industry doesn’t work that way, but you do your best to make those quarterly balance sheets work for the conglomerate. Unfortunately, that means any long-term outlook you used to have no longer works for your corporate masters. Now you can only look one year ahead, maximum, because that’s all the focus the conglomerate will allow.
One of your business’s largest problem comes out of the nature of the industry itself. The success of each product cannot be replicated. Just because you build one really good widget doesn’t mean that your next widget will sell at all. Your business has a luck aspect to it, an unpredictability that no matter how much you plan, you can’t fix.
The other built-in problems mentioned above cause your prices to verge on too high. If you solve the built-in problems, you might lose even more revenue, because most of those problems benefit the stores that sell your product. Those stores have made it clear they will not order from you if you take those harmful (to you) perks (to them) away. So your prices hover at a point too high for an impulse purchase, even though your business does better when consumers can buy your product on impulse.
You have maintained this system for decades now, trying different ways to fix the built-in problems. None of the solutions work, because the only way to fix the built-in problem would be to have an industry-wide change, one that all of the businesses in the industry agree to. Unfortunately, if all of the businesses in the industry make that change, it will hurt stores, which will say that the industry businesses colluded to hurt their retail business—and sadly, the stores, under U.S. law, would be right.
So the easy solution is impossible, and all other solutions are half-assed. You hang on and your business maintains a consistent, if unspectacular, profit year after year after year.
Then some changes hit your industry that force you to cut costs where you can. Some of that cost cutting comes in employees. You have to lay off necessary folk and hope that the remaining staff can pick up the slack. These things have happened before, and you believe that you’ll be able to rehire in a few years.
Only this time, the economy “craters” and a global recession hits. Every business loses much-needed revenue and products like yours, which are not necessities, sell to fewer and fewer consumers because the consumers have less disposable income.
You anticipate, cutting everything you can, dumping real estate, abandoning rent, maybe even negotiating your way out of some long-term contracts. At the very end, though, you can’t prevent it: You cut staff to the bone.
Now, in some departments of your business, one person quite literally does the job that five people used to do as recently as a decade ago. You have no flexibility left.
And then the industry you work in undergoes a technological revolution, one so big, so profound, that it changes the way business gets done. Because you aren’t flexible, you adapt to the change late. You can’t hire new employees to help with the shift without firing the remaining good, valuable (and dare we say it), unbelievably efficient employees that you kept when the recession started. Yet your old employees can’t adapt to the new world.
Worse, this new world requires new systems. You have to figure out new ways to produce your product. You need to shoehorn these changes into the existing contracts with your suppliers. You need an entirely new production crew because the old ways to produce your widgets are becoming obsolete.
And, most annoyingly, you need to develop an entirely new accounting system, because everything you’ve known, everything you’ve done, no longer applies in this brand-spanking new technological age.
But you can’t hire employees who can actually help you develop these systems. Because those employees won’t earn you any money. At best, they’ll prevent a loss of revenue. At worst, the systems they develop will cost you money because your suppliers, whom you pay a percentage of the retail price of the product they supply, will realize you’ve been inadvertently shorting them since the technological change hit at the same time as the beginning of the global recession.
In other words, to fix this problem, you will need to invest—in new employees, in brand new technological systems, in new ways of doing business. More importantly, you will have to take a huge loss as you make this change. A loss that might eat into your profits for not one, not two, not three quarters, but maybe for two to three years, something your corporate masters will never, ever allow.
Better to close your eyes and pretend the problem doesn’t exist. Better to hope no one notices. Better to keep doing business as usual until profits rise, the recession ends, the world becomes wealthy again, and you can make the changes without causing a series of quarterly losses on your balance sheet.
Better to keep kicking this problem down the road until you retire or move to another company, preferably one which has already solved this problem so you don’t have to deal with it.
Does this scenario sound familiar? It should if you watch the evening news or read a daily newspaper. Industry after industry suffers a variation of these problems, some caused by inefficiency, some by technological change, and all exacerbated by the worst recession to hit in the last eighty years.
But this blog deals with publishing, and what I just described to you is the situation at traditional publishers—the big publishers, the ones most people mistakenly call The Big Six (there are more than six, but leave it)—all over New York City.
Last fall, I dealt with these problems in depth. Before you decide to comment on this post and tell me that traditional publishing will die (which I do not believe), read the first few posts I did in the publishing series, starting here.
I’m grappling with the changes in publishing just like everyone else is. I knew that the changes—particularly the rise of e-publishing—would hit traditional publishing hard. And it has, although not as hard as I initially thought. As Publishers Weekly reported earlier in the month, traditional publishers have remained profitable in the transition so far.
The reasons why should sound familiar to those of you who read my earlier posts. Publishers Weekly puts it succinctly: “While the improvement in the economy helped all publishers in 2010, companies where profits improved all pointed to two main contributing factors—cost controls and skyrocketing e-book sales.”
Right now, e-books comprise about 10% of the book market, but some analysts believe that e-books will be as much as 50% of the e-book market by 2015. Some see evidence that e-books will grow faster than that. A month ago, a Barnes & Noble executive made news when he stated in a speech that e-books will “dominate the market” in 24 months.
We all know these figures are important. Daily, writers tell me about their careers and then ask me if they should become independent publishers or go to traditional publishing. As I’ve said repeatedly, I see no harm in doing both.
Earlier this month, however, I opened my mail to find a big fat warning sign of the future. And if the problem that I—and hundreds of other writers—noted doesn’t get resolved, then traditional publishing will cease to be viable for all writers.
What happened?
I got a royalty statement for backlist titles of one of my on-going series. The statement came from a traditional publisher. Let me give you some background.
A few years ago, the publisher refused to buy the next two books in the series saying that while the series had some growth, the growth was not enough to justify the expense of a new contract. I started writing some novellas in that series and publishing them in the magazine markets while I searched for a new publisher.
Then the e-book revolution hit, and as an experiment, I put up two of those novellas as e-books. Since they were the first two e-books I had ever done, the covers—in a word—sucked. I did no promotion and no advertising, except to say in the cover copy that these e-books were part of this particular series.
In the first six months of 2010, those badly designed short novels sold about 300 copies each on Kindle, the only venue they were on at the time. No advertising, bad covers, just hanging out waiting for buyers to find them.
I would occasionally check the Amazon sales ranking (that weird number you see on each book Amazon publishes, the thing they use to compile their hourly bestseller list). Even though that ranking did not give me actual sales numbers, I did note that the sales of the novellas were less than the sales of the traditionally published e-books on Kindle in the same series.
In August, I wrote to the traditional publisher, asking that my rights revert. The kind woman in rights reversal explained to me that she couldn’t revert the book rights because the e-books were “selling too well” to revert. Okay. All well and good. What I care about is getting books into the hands of my readers. I figured I would eventually be compensated for this. I just had to wait until the royalty statement hit.
Which it did. At the beginning of this month.
How many e-books did the traditional publisher say I sold? 30. That’s right. 30.
When the novellas, which had worse sales rankings from Amazon, sold 300 each.
That 30 number didn’t pass the sniff test for me. So I talked with other writers who have books in the same genre with the same company. The writers I talked with also had some e-book savvy.
Guess what? They had been shocked by how low their e-book numbers were as well, especially in comparison with their indie published titles. The indie books which had Amazon rankings indicating fewer sales sold more copies than the traditionally published books by a factor of ten or better.
Let me indulge in another sidebar for a moment. I’m involved with four different indie publishers, two of which allow me to see the day-to-day operations, and one of which I own part of. We’ve been having trouble setting up an accounting system that works efficiently for more than 100 different e-book titles. The problem is, in short, that the ebook distributors report sales by publisher and then by title, and not by author, so if you’re published by AAA Publishing and your book is called The Embalming and I also have an older book called The Embalming through AAA Publishing and they’re both in e-book, AAA Publisher will get sales figures on a daily basis for The Embalming. Which Embalming does that statement refer to?
Also, the e-stributors report at varying times throughout the year (some daily, some monthly, some quarterly), so if I want to know how many copies my book The Embalming sold in March of 2010, I can’t easily get that information because the info might not have been reported yet from some e-bookstore in some faraway country.
What all of the various indie publishers have figured out is that using a standard spreadsheet for each title is labor-intensive. You can easily input data into a spreadsheet for one or two or even ten novels. But when it comes to 50 or 100, the data-entry—figuring out what book belongs where and when (even if you use the estributor’s the computerized spreadsheet)—becomes prohibitive.
What we need is a cloud-based system that can be queried. For example, the system should easily answer these two questions: How many copies did KKR’s The Embalming sell worldwide in March; and how many copies did KKR’s The Embalming sell through Kobo’s out-of-country distribution channels? Right now, no spreadsheet program can answer that information easily from a pool of 100 titles and various e-book outlets without a lot of man-hours of data entry.
Traditional publishers—and indie publishers, for that matter—don’t have the staff with the ability to organize this wealth of information. Still, traditional publishers must —by contract— report the information to the best of their ability on royalty statements.
To do so, they revert to an old pre-computer accounting method. The method existed back when there was too much data to be quickly processed. We all learned it in school. They used little snippets of data to estimate, often using an algebraic equation that goes something like this: If The Embalming sold (x) copies in January and e-books sales rose on a trajectory of (y) copies over a six-month period of time, then (x) times 6 adjusted for (y) equals the number of sales of The Embalming.
Close enough. And frankly, I would be satisfied with that, if the number the publisher had come up with wasn’t so wildly off.
For me, in the instance with the traditional publisher I mentioned above, the difference between 30 copies per title and 300 copies per title is pennies on the dollar. It’s not worth an audit.
But I never think in small terms. My training in three fields—journalism, history, and the extrapolative field of science fiction—forces me to think in terms of the future.
Right now, e-book rights are a subsidiary right, negligible and relatively unimportant. Between two and five years from now, e-book rights will become the dominant book right.
If traditional publishers do not change their accounting methods now, then these accounting methods will end up costing writers hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. (In some writers’ cases, millions of dollars.)
Those of you who have any knowledge of journalism have just looked up and asked, Why the hell did Rusch bury her lead? That’s the story: publishers are screwing writers on e-book royalties.
But those of you who have had journalism careers know why I buried that lead. When I was a news director faced with a reporter who had brought me information like the information I gave to you above, I would have said, Sounds like a good story. But it’s all supposition. Now get me something concrete. Somthing I can use.
So that’s what I tried to do. Last week, I contacted dozens of traditionally published writers who also had put up some backlist on their own in electronic format. The writers who had the information handy responded with actual numbers. The writers who didn’t told me that they had worried about their royalty numbers when the statements arrived, but had no real proof that anything had gone awry.
I also spoke to some trusted agent friends, several lawyers who are active in the publishing industry, a few certified public accountants, and other professionals who see a lot of publishing data cross their desks, and I asked those people if they had heard of a problem like this.
To a person, they all confirmed that they had. All spoke off the record, none with numbers. A few hinted that they couldn’t talk because of pending action.
In other words, I got the confirmation I needed, just nothing that a reputable journalist could print. Most people spoke to me on what’s called deep background, confirming my theory, and giving me some suggestions of places to look, and people to contact. Several people, mostly writers, spoke on the record, but rather than using their information in isolation, I’ve chosen to keep their statistics confidential and to only go with mine.
Frankly, what I’ve learned is this:
Right now, some—and I must emphasize some, not all—traditional publishing houses are significantly underreporting e-book sales. In some cases these sales are off by a factor of 10 or more.
This is a problem, but at the moment, not a serious one. When e-books are 10% of the market, we’re talking a relatively insignificant amount of money per author. As one long-term writer said to me, “Ever since I got into this business, I expect my publisher to screw me on the sales figures. This is no different.”
If you don’t understand that writer’s point of view, read the trust-me post I wrote a few weeks ago.
In the past, I would have agreed with that writer. But I don’t in this instance. We’re at an important moment in publishing. We have the opportunity to change the behavior of traditional publishers. We can, with an effort, get them to change their accounting practices.
The reason I started the blog post the way I did is this: I wanted to explain, before I got to the heart of this post, how traditional publishing works. I wanted understanding before I worried some of you.
Because here’s the truth: traditional publishers are not indulging in a criminal act. They’re doing the best they can out of necessity. They see no reason to spend precious dollars revamping their accounting systems to accommodate e-publishing when those dollars can be used elsewhere in the company. Especially when an accounting change will cost them money, and might lead to payouts that will hurt quarterly profits for months to come.
It’s up to writers—and writers organizations—to force publishers to allocate those scarce dollars to develop systems for accurate e-book accounting.
If you are a traditionally published author, do not—I repeat, do not—write a blistering letter to your publisher accusing him of stealing your money. Instead, contact any writers organization you belong to and point that organization to this blog.
What needs to happen is this: writers organizations need to band together and order group audits of e-book sales on behalf of their traditionally published authors. One organization cannot handle the cost of this group accounting alone. It’s better to have all of the writers organizations work in concert here.
A group audit of all the traditional publishers in various publishing divisions will force an accounting change—and that’s all we need. But we need it before e-books become the dominant way that books are sold.
If you’re a traditionally published author who has also produced some self-published e-books and you want to do more than contact your organization, do this:
1. Look over all of your royalty statements. Compare your indie e-book sales to your traditionally published e-book sales. Make sure your comparison is for the same time period. For example, do not compare January 2011 sales to January 2010.
2. Compare similar books. It’s best if you have books in the same series, some indie published and some traditionally published. If you don’t have series books, then compare books in the same genre only. Comparing romance sales to science fiction sales will not work because romance novels always outsell sf novels.
3. If you see a discrepancy, report that—with the numbers—to your writers organization. Be clear in the letter you send to your organization as to what level of involvement you want in this issue. Are you only there to provide background information? Will you take part in a group audit? Will you work on this project?
I’ll be honest. I’m not going to participate in any group action. Even though I’ve published with every single major publisher in New York, I only have two books caught in this problem. I’m more interested in getting the rights in those books reverted than I am in insignificant back royalties.
If I was still a reporter, I would spend the month or two going after this story with a vengeance. But I am not. In nonfiction, I am just your humble blogger, stirring up the pot. My career is in fiction, and I have found no problem with the publishers of my frontlist books. I also have six novels with firm deadlines that won’t allow me to take time away from fiction writing to pursue this.
So all I can offer is a blueprint.
If you’re a reporter who specializes in the publishing industry and you want to tackle this story, e-mail me privately. I’ll tell you what I can without revealing confidential sources.
If you’re a traditionally published writer, please follow the steps above.
If you’re an indie-only writer, stop gloating and for heavens’ sake don’t tell me or anyone else that this is proof traditional publishing is dead. The majority of writers don’t want to self-publish, even when told how easy and financially beneficial it is. They want a traditionally published novel.
Here’s what I believe: If a writer wants to publish traditionally and can secure a contract, then that writer should be treated fairly, with accurate sales reporting and good royalty rates.
Let me state again for the record. I do not believe that anyone in traditional publishing is setting out to screw writers on this issue. I do believe the scenario I wrote in the first 800 words of this blog: I think traditional publishers are overwhelmed and stretched to the limit. Accurate e-book sales reporting is not even on their radar.
Right now, changing the accounting system is not high on their priority list. It’s up to the writers—acting in concert through their writers organizations—to make accurate e-book sales reporting and accurate e-book royalty accounting a number-one priority in publishing houses across the country.
Let’s work together to solve this glitch before it becomes an industry-wide disaster for writers—anywhere from two to five years from now.
Last week, a few of you asked in e-mail why I have a donate button on this blog. Also, last week, this blog marked its two-year anniversary. Every Thursday for two years without a miss, I have published an article on freelancing, business, writing or publishing (and sometimes on all four of those topics). For the first 18 months, those blog posts were part of a book I was writing called The Freelancer’s Survival Guide (which, even though it’s now published, is still available for free on this website).
Initially, I had hoped to make my publishing articles into a book as well, but the industry is changing too fast. I cannot make the publishing articles into a book that will be accurate in the short time it takes to produce. So when this month rolled around, I did the numbers like I always do. When I do a strict economic analysis, I am losing about $100 per week on each post—even with donations. That’s because I can’t leverage these posts into any other income source.
However, I always ask the next question: am I getting something besides money out of these blogs? Right now, I am. I would be doing the same research, the same work, and the same analysis with or without the blog. I would be discussing the changes with my writer pals. But I would lose the week-to-week contact with writers all over the world, who comment on the blog or in e-mail, sharing their own stories.
And that would be a significant loss. It more than makes up for the financial loss. But the donate button is here to minimize some of the financial damage, and to encourage me in busy or difficult weeks to carve out the time to write my post.
I hope that answers the question. As always, I appreciate the feedback and all of the support.
“The Business Rusch: Royalty Statements” copyright 2011 by Kristine Kathryn Rusch.
bench craft companyUPDATE: As of 4:30 p.m. EST, Fox has apparently pulled the article in question from their site.
bench craft companySo we have rolled out a redesigned Google News for Opera Mini in all 29 languages and 70 editions of Google News. This includes an enhanced homepage featuring richer snippets, thumbnail images, links to videos and section content ...
