The PROs of no/low advances at new HarperCollins imprint
So what are the pros of a new HarperCollins imprint’s plans to offer low advances or none at all?
Emily Gould, a contributor to the Galley Cat blog over at Media Bistro, talked to some literary agents and others for MB and found some of these industry insiders to be surprisingly open minded to the profit-sharing approach that the imprint will play up. She levels with us and says she used to work at Disney’s Hyperion and is a “fan” of Hyperion founder Robert S. Miller, shown here, who will run the new imprint. Just the same, her post is worth considering on its own merits. Significantly, Bob Miller is ex-chair of the Association of American Publishers, among his other credentials, so lots of people will be watching for reasons beyond HarperCollins’ importance.
Caroline Kennedy-type writers in mind for experiment
In the end, it could be a “Depends” deal. If your agent is sharp and powerful enough, you probably can avoid profit-sharing, Hollywood-style. None other than Caroline Kennedy and Mitch Albom are the types of writers HarperCollins says it has in mind for the new arrangement. And I doubt their agents just fell off the turnip truck.
For less famous authors, it’s hard to say what will happen if the no/low approach catches on (related, for those interested in treatment of independent writers: “Newspaper till your drop” vs. “Blog till you drop”). I just hope that profit sharing works out for writers, not just publishers, and actually does pave the way for greater experimentation with e-books, which don’t yet sell nearly as well as P.
Among other innovations—such as no returns allowed from p-bookstores—some hardback buyers might end up with free e-books and audio books. That is A Good thing.
Agent: “Worthy experiment”
“I actually think this is a worthy experiment and I think Bob Miller really gets the untapped potential of online marketing, direct Internet sales and online market research,” one agent told Emily. “I would be thrilled if as an industry we started putting serious money and brainpower into the online side of the business. As more and more book sales move online, we have to figure out how to target readers (particularly non-fiction readers) and the Internet is much more efficient at doing that than the old bricks and mortar method of simply getting the books onto the front tables of bookstores in bulk.”
Hey, I like that! I’m among those telling the big publishers to do more E, even though, yes, the numbers are already up to an extent. Getting serious about .epub standard at the consumer level, and experimenting with social DRM and other alternatives to DRM, could help grow E’s numbers for innovative approaches such as Miller’s. E’s often a waste of time for anyone, but especially for HarperCollins-sized conglomerates, if it isn’t done right. You can’t separate the technical from the rest. If Harper Collins sticks to the same old, same old, consumer-hostile ways of traditional DRM and the rest, Miller will be disappointed. He should aim for books that consumers can easily enjoy on a variety of devices, from cellphones to tablets and laptops and encourage tech companies to offer decent e-reader software for .epub. Adobe’s .epub-capable DigitalEditions is far, far below proprietary Mobipocket in usability.
Agent: A possible “way forward” for publishing
Now back to the financial aspects of the HarperCollins experiment. “I’m not sure I’d want one of my clients to be the test case,” another agent said, “but I suspect the whole endeavor could offer this endlessly ailing business a way forward.”
Exactly—but, again, just so HarperCollins deals with writers in good faith and avoids creative accounting.
Different authors’ needs, different biz models, please
I would also caution against eliminating advances for cash-strapped writers who can use the money for ambitious projects they might not otherwise undertake. Not every writer’s needs will necessarily jibe with Miller’s business model.
While Stephen King has experimented with profit sharing, he isn’t exactly worried about where his next dime is coming from. Same for Caroline Kennedy and Mitch Albom.
A less hopeful take on the HarperCollins experiment: Here, from novelist Paul Witcover, who writes: “I’m not arguing that the industry doesn’t need to be reformed. But let’s face it: publishers are part of the problem, not the solution. The solution, I believe, whatever it may turn out to be, will come from below, not above: from writers and readers. Something analogous to the way in which the music industry is being transformed is needed, and will ultimately occur — or so I tell myself. In the meantime: caveat author!”
Correction: That was Emily Gould, Galley Cat’s new contributing editor, rather than Ron Hogan, who posted the Galley Cat item. I’ve fixed the text above. Thanks, Ron.
April 6th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
That post was actually written by GalleyCat’s new contributing editor, Emily Gould.
[Thanks for the catch, Ron. Fixed, with a pointer to your note. Oh, that small print at the end. Glad you're getting help to keep the Cat-lovers well fed. David]