tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post1681943480803103833..comments2024-03-18T06:16:18.802-05:00Comments on A Newbie's Guide to Publishing: Authors Behaving Badly and Authors Who Aren'tJA Konrathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comBlogger114125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-81958004290259208562014-07-14T00:02:49.563-05:002014-07-14T00:02:49.563-05:00Power plays are not unusual for mega publishers.
...Power plays are not unusual for mega publishers.<br /><br />My problem with the Big 6… now 5… publishers goes back to the early 2000s. This was the dawn of the Digital Age of publishing. POD was the new evolving branch in the industry. Bookstore chains were special ordering POD books and even adding a few books by regional authors to in-store inventory. Indie bookstores were stocking POD books and scheduling book signings featuring local authors. These POD books by unknown authors were starting to sell in respectable numbers in a retail market dominated by the publishing giants. This influx of POD books by unknown authors into the marketplace could not be allowed to happen!!!<br /><br />There’s no way to prove there was collusion to suppress the sales of POD books through the bookstore chains, but follow a suspected chain of events and connect the damning dots. The mainstream houses talked with the owners of the major newspapers expressing concerns that their mega advertising budgets might need to be reduce if their book reviewers wasted a column inch reviewing those damn POD books. Newspapers survive on advertising dollars, the big publishers were big advertisers, thusly ended the opportunity of reviews in the major papers. <br /><br />Next the publishers had a conversation with the bookstore chain executives to bluntly explain if they wanted to continue to receive sweetheart deals and have A-list authors appear at store events then they damn well better keep POD books out of their stores. This was a no-brainer, business was business and famous authors were good for business—customers bought discounted books hyped onto the bestseller lists by the traditional publishers. <br /><br />The gigantic publishers, major newspapers, and bookstore chains created a perfect Catch-22. The major reviewers could tell POD authors without distribution through the national chains we would anger our readers if they couldn’t buy reviewed books in their favorite bookstore chain. The chains refused to handle POD books that weren’t reviewed by the major reviewers—no reviews equals no sales. The reviewers and chains had perfect excuses for having nothing to do with POD books. Blocking the marketplace would bring a quick end to the foolishness of this POD fad. <br /><br />Thankfully there were two exceptions of vital importance to authors. <br /><br />Amazon continued to feature POD books on their website just like every other published book. Someone explained to the Big Publishers’ big wheels that to do otherwise would be contrary to Jeff Bezos announced mission to build Amazon into the world’s largest bookstore offering customers every book in print—POD never goes out of print. There’s no profit from books not offered for sale. <br /><br />Thankfully, indie bookstore owners loved stocking POD books because these were books their customers couldn’t buy at the competing chains. One innovative POD publisher offered bookstores standard industry discounts with a liberal return policy that wasn’t a financial noose around the publisher’s neck.<br /><br />Motivated authors directed interested folks to purchase their POD books from Amazon or indie bookstores. In spite of being shutout of the chains, POD books sold steadily in ever increasing numbers. The digital publishing branch evolved and produced sweet fruit for authors—naturally watered by Amazon because that’s where the most money flows from product enhanced pages on the website with heaviest customer traffic. <br /><br />The publishers’ power-play to control ebook pricing is easy to understand—the greatest future profits will come from the digital rights to the author’s content. <br /><br />A side note, B&N bookstore buyers weren’t ordering POD books, but bn.com continued to display and sell POD books from their website. Also, mainstream publishers covertly added all titles in-print into POD publishing systems. The books would never go out of print, thusly rights to the content would never revert back to the author. Authors and agents cried foul and forced a major modification. Authors discovered they have voices beyond the printed pages. <br /><br />Enjoy often… JohnAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16370746535750410680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-8689231481595051352014-07-07T22:03:23.239-05:002014-07-07T22:03:23.239-05:00Joe, you're up to 6,150 signatures, and it'...Joe, you're up to 6,150 signatures, and it's growing fast.<br /><br />So does that mean everyone's going to ignore it? Close their eyes and put their fingers in their ears and sing la-la-la.<br /><br />I'm sure Preston and others are rationalizing it away. It means nothing. . . . <br /><br />but think how they'd be reacting if Preston's letter got 6,150+ signatures in 4 days.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-17262209926435752362014-07-07T13:23:37.651-05:002014-07-07T13:23:37.651-05:00Mr Konrath, I am curious to hear how you think you...<i>Mr Konrath, I am curious to hear how you think you would be effected by this dispute if Hachette were to "win"</i><br /><br />I'd probably sell more books, since Hachette, and the Big 5, would be charging higher prices for theirs. And many of my peers would continue to get screwed.JA Konrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-61644362140007068392014-07-07T11:53:56.792-05:002014-07-07T11:53:56.792-05:00Mr Konrath, I am curious to hear how you think yo...Mr Konrath, I am curious to hear how you think you would be effected by this dispute if Hachette were to "win"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-37481375984426546432014-07-07T10:17:29.382-05:002014-07-07T10:17:29.382-05:00Rob Gregory Browne said: "I think these folk...Rob Gregory Browne said: <em> "I think these folks (if I read the remark correctly) are merely protective of the hand that feeds them and I can't, frankly, blame them for that—even if they're basing it on misinformation."</em><br /><br />I understand that, but I'm still wondering what it was in Joe's fisking that Laura Lippman read and then decided to sign the Preston letter, which she says she was on the fence about. Was it Joe's tone? Or was it something more specific? Because the implication was that something in Joe's post tipped the scales for her. Not only that, but she felt that she should point it out in the comments. (shrug)Scotthttp://scottdyson.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-6525965751310073722014-07-05T21:47:44.748-05:002014-07-05T21:47:44.748-05:00Signed, shared, posted everywhere! Thank you Joe e...Signed, shared, posted everywhere! Thank you Joe et al.D.G. Kayehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04292901895982357952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-27574669160785710532014-07-05T17:09:40.082-05:002014-07-05T17:09:40.082-05:00lol@"unpublished nobodies"
What a bliss...lol@"unpublished nobodies"<br /><br />What a blissful individual. :D<br /><br />Does he/she know that some of them there "nobodies" pocketed over $5,000 in March royalties? Thank you, o' KDP, from the indie writers who now boast some semblance of a retirement plan.<br /><br />Forget signing. I just might write a sonnet...L. R. Styleshttp://www.lrstyles.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-18641048950069087962014-07-05T14:36:21.963-05:002014-07-05T14:36:21.963-05:00If you want to call someone names, have the courag...If you want to call someone names, have the courage to sign your own.<br /><br />I won't allow anonymous name calling. It's cowardly and unproductive.JA Konrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-53313037956315657352014-07-05T00:12:48.155-05:002014-07-05T00:12:48.155-05:00I was disappointed to see some names on the list s...I was disappointed to see some names on the list such as Grisham and was going to say that I would not buy any of their books, but looking at Amazon many of Grisham's books are actually $5.99 or less on the kindle.<br /><br />So now there is a part of me that says I should buy them from Amazon at that price point as a way of showing my support not just for Amazon but also for the more reasonable $5.99 price point. <br /><br />It's a shame though that he won't get the percentage of my money that he deserves for writing the books.Tom Maddoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06302510202946560117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-54052823077037969422014-07-04T22:11:04.570-05:002014-07-04T22:11:04.570-05:00"IMO, Doug hasn't done enough to be on my..."IMO, Doug hasn't done enough to be on my Do Not Read list. Neither has Patterson or Turow, for that matter."<br /><br />These authors may not have done enough to put them on my Do Not Read List, but it does factor in when making decisions on who to read. They may be good writers but I have been exposed to so many great authors who are trying to make a go of it -- many from your blog. When deciding on the next book to read, I would prefer to support indie authors, and when someone speaks out against them, or the means of making self-publishing possible, I can't help but put them on a Why Bother List.<br /><br />SylasAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07504475401820135087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-82431412948787413422014-07-04T22:06:08.324-05:002014-07-04T22:06:08.324-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07504475401820135087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-47566569739110427462014-07-04T20:04:46.714-05:002014-07-04T20:04:46.714-05:00A friend of mine who wrote three books was just ra...A friend of mine who wrote three books was just ranting about this on social media. I'll have to send him this link.Alice Ungerhttp://www.destinattorneyjohngreene.com/criminal-defensenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-35259552927843537102014-07-04T17:57:58.445-05:002014-07-04T17:57:58.445-05:00Joe, have you seen the piece Scalzi posted yesterd...Joe, have you seen <a href="http://whatever.scalzi.com/2014/07/03/amazon-hachette-etc-its-not-a-football-game-people/" rel="nofollow">the piece Scalzi posted yesterday</a>, in which he proceeds to bash Amazon and then exhorts people not to take sides?<br /><br />(I wrote my response to it <a href="http://www.teleread.com/ebooks/in-taking-sides-in-amazonhachette-dispute-john-scalzi-tells-readers-to-do-as-he-says-not-as-he-does/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.)Chris Meadowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04298615284856498608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-55804787171563052432014-07-04T17:51:07.803-05:002014-07-04T17:51:07.803-05:00It will be interesting to see where this all leads...<i>It will be interesting to see where this all leads.</i><br /><br />More authors leaving publishers and going indie. More publishers merging, then downsizing, then closing. More bookstores closing. More literary lawyers hired to get rights back.<br /><br />And, ultimately, readers doing what they've always done--looking for good books to read. Amazon is fighting for readers right now. They're also fighting for authors in a round about way. How many authors would sign a contract that prevents them from being sold on the biggest bookstore on the planet?JA Konrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-15345944671532157982014-07-04T17:45:40.713-05:002014-07-04T17:45:40.713-05:00Anonymous at 2:09, shut your cakehole
LOL. Confli...<i>Anonymous at 2:09, shut your cakehole</i><br /><br />LOL. Conflict in the comments is good, even if it gets heated. I didn't see anyone being overly excessive, or I would have stepped in.<br /><br />I've met Doug Preston several times, and he's a nice guy. Whether he sincerely believes his letter, or he's intentionally blowing smoke, the things he's saying are untrue, and potentially harmful. Writers who aren't informed could read his letter and come to the conclusion that Amazon mistreats authors and is a bad platform to publish on. Readers could read his letter and decide not to support Amazon--where I currently make 95% of my income.<br /><br />Speaking to your issue, Joshua, I have met some authors whose work I loved, but in person they were jerks. I tried to separate the work from the man, and I just couldn't. So I stopped reading them, even though they were still good storytellers. I wish I could be bigger and more logical, but I'm human and flawed.<br /><br />IMO, Doug hasn't done enough to be on my Do Not Read list. Neither has Patterson or Turow, for that matter. I don't think any of them are evil, just ruthlessly self-interested. They're also all big boys, very rich, and open themselves up to ridicule and criticism when they post dumb shit like that letter.<br /><br />Calling big authors names is one way--albeit a childish one--to make the mighty more average and take their exhausted status down a notch. When used properly, it can be effective. My tone on this blog is carefully cultivated to draw attention to certain issues in a snarky, dismissive way, and I believe that being an asshole is one of the reasons I get so much traffic.<br /><br />I'm a dick. People come to see what the dick will say next.<br /><br />But beneath my attitude, I make good points. <br /><br />Doug didn't make any good points in his letter. That doesn't mean his Pendergast books suddenly suck. But I have lost some respect for him.JA Konrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-7796967313091267452014-07-04T16:52:39.486-05:002014-07-04T16:52:39.486-05:00I don't think Preston is intentionally lying, ...I don't think Preston is intentionally lying, but I do think <a href="http://www.teleread.com/ebooks/author-douglas-preston-entitled-to-change-his-mind/" rel="nofollow">his attitude toward consumers</a> leaves much to be desired. <br /><br />(Yeah, sure, he got angry and said some things he didn't mean. In my experience, when you get angry you usually say the things you really <i>do</i> mean but usually stop yourself from saying.)<br /><br />If you think consumers who don't want to spend more for e-books than they have to have a "sense of entitlement," then naturally you're going to support your publisher in wanting to raise prices. (Which makes it all the more amusing that here he's complaining about Amazon <i>not</i> discounting his books, but I guess there's just no pleasing some people.)Chris Meadowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04298615284856498608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-23011471131060424392014-07-04T15:09:51.189-05:002014-07-04T15:09:51.189-05:00"I understand that you're in love with th..."I understand that you're in love with the sound of your own voice, but can this just go away now?"<br /><br />Nah. In person, I'm as shy as they come.<br /><br />"You don't like me, I don't like you. I question your integrity, you think I'm a hack with no right to an opinion. We get each other."<br /><br />I'm not gonna lie to you; interacting with you for the past couple of days has been unpleasant. But I wouldn't say I don't like you. I don't know you. For all I know, you could be a hell of a great guy, the kind that would help me change a flat tire if I was stranded on a highway. I'll reserve judgement until I actually meet you and spend time with you. That's what rational people do.<br /><br />And please stop assuming that I'm assuming you're a hack. Tell you what: if you're the same Dan DeWitt that wrote and self-pubbed ORPHEUS and UNDERNEATH, I'll read your stuff and give it a shot. If I like it, I'll loudly sing your praises. If I think you're a hack, I'll keep it to myself. But don't tell me how I feel about you or your writing or anything else. I'll make up my own mind.<br /><br />- Joshua Joshua Simcoxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-19784399470017449752014-07-04T15:03:45.179-05:002014-07-04T15:03:45.179-05:00I sent Mr. Bezos a very lengthy letter applauding ...I sent Mr. Bezos a very lengthy letter applauding his actions. I doubt that was the original intent when they publicized his e-mail. If he does read all of our letters personally, I hope he will see the support he has. <br /><br />If your business model isn't working, change it. The government does not need to step in. It has it's fingers in too many places that it does not belong in anyway. <br />Lauren Orbisonhttp://www.orbisonhearts.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-37077938472669663402014-07-04T14:27:56.489-05:002014-07-04T14:27:56.489-05:00Antitrust and Amazon, Seriously? The two have abou...Antitrust and Amazon, Seriously? The two have about as much in common as the Yankees and the rules of football. <br /><br />For those who want to know more, here's a brief recap of the 3 antitrust laws:<br /><br />The Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize." Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. For instance, in some sense, an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are "per se" violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed.<br /><br />The penalties for violating the Sherman Act can be severe. Although most enforcement actions are civil, the Sherman Act is also a criminal law, and individuals and businesses that violate it may be prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Criminal prosecutions are typically limited to intentional and clear violations such as when competitors fix prices or rig bids. The Sherman Act imposes criminal penalties of up to $100 million for a corporation and $1 million for an individual, along with up to 10 years in prison. Under federal law, the maximum fine may be increased to twice the amount the conspirators gained from the illegal acts or twice the money lost by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is over $100 million.<br /><br />The Federal Trade Commission Act bans "unfair methods of competition" and "unfair or deceptive acts or practices." The Supreme Court has said that all violations of the Sherman Act also violate the FTC Act. Thus, although the FTC does not technically enforce the Sherman Act, it can bring cases under the FTC Act against the same kinds of activities that violate the Sherman Act. The FTC Act also reaches other practices that harm competition, but that may not fit neatly into categories of conduct formally prohibited by the Sherman Act. Only the FTC brings cases under the FTC Act.<br /><br />The Clayton Act addresses specific practices that the Sherman Act does not clearly prohibit, such as mergers and interlocking directorates (that is, the same person making business decisions for competing companies). Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers and acquisitions where the effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly." As amended by the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, the Clayton Act also bans certain discriminatory prices, services, and allowances in dealings between merchants. The Clayton Act was amended again in 1976 by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act to require companies planning large mergers or acquisitions to notify the government of their plans in advance. The Clayton Act also authorizes private parties to sue for triple damages when they have been harmed by conduct that violates either the Sherman or Clayton Act and to obtain a court order prohibiting the anticompetitive practice in the future.<br /><br /><br />JohnJohn Ellsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10253978941460283164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-79584408867524868092014-07-04T14:24:08.032-05:002014-07-04T14:24:08.032-05:00Anonymous at 2:09, shut your cakehole. I've as...Anonymous at 2:09, shut your cakehole. I've asked to drop it twice now. I never wanted the argument in the first place.Dan DeWitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10670824200284467170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-57284508453102071222014-07-04T14:13:04.604-05:002014-07-04T14:13:04.604-05:00The petition is up to 3,700 and growing fast. Lots...The petition is up to 3,700 and growing fast. Lots can't sign because they are in traditional contracts, but I'm sure there is a lot of sympathy among lots of the trad authors who can't sign.<br /><br />I think it was Publisher's Marketplace that said lots of Hugh's signers must be readers because the numbers are so high -- but why can't these all be authors in various organizations?<br /><br />It seems to me the heart of the problem is those on the Hachette side (including Shatzkin) genuinely truly believe that successful traditionally published authors are superior to self-published and small-press published authors and deserving of privilege. From that point of view, what they're saying makes some sense. They also truly genuinely believe that publishers like Hachette add enough value to justify their high profits. Finally, they truly believe that mixing the two camps, the way Amazon does, destroys literature by mixing the true authors with dreck. Again, from that viewpoint, what they're saying makes sense.<br /><br />It will be interesting to see where this all leads.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-74062505009960157342014-07-04T14:09:29.168-05:002014-07-04T14:09:29.168-05:00Dan and Joshua. Get a room. You're making a me...Dan and Joshua. Get a room. You're making a mess of this blog and I'm sick and tired of having to skip over your extensive playground pissing contest. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-74835509134253617762014-07-04T13:45:57.616-05:002014-07-04T13:45:57.616-05:00Yes, I think that Preston is DELIBERATELY spreadin...Yes, I think that Preston is DELIBERATELY spreading misinformation (read: LYING) to serve his own self-interests. If he's as bright as you say, there's no other option. Also, I don't have to meet people to judge a fucking petition, which is the only thing I ever did. I said Preston SOUNDED LIKE fill-in-the blank, but it was lost in the din of your non-stop squeeing. <br /><br />You were far more disrespectful to me than I was to Preston, and wouldn't even own up to it. So how does that fit in with your view that everyone has a right to an opinion? Wait, I forgot, that's dependent on career success. Either way, you were incredibly hypocritical.<br /><br />At least you're not being super-dramatic. :rolleyes: I understand that you're in love with the sound of your own voice, but can this just go away now?<br /><br />You don't like me, I don't like you. I question your integrity, you think I'm a hack with no right to an opinion. We get each other.Dan DeWitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10670824200284467170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-39926704775458306022014-07-04T13:36:33.142-05:002014-07-04T13:36:33.142-05:00The original letter seems to have backfired big ti...The original letter seems to have backfired big time. Most of the comments are definitely pro amazon. I buses the whining of millionaire authors isn't very convincing. And scan the list, I'm actually surprised at how many author names AREN'T on it. Some pretty popular names are missing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-84038619089602695622014-07-04T13:24:21.953-05:002014-07-04T13:24:21.953-05:00(Continued)
You say that I wouldn't have defe...(Continued)<br /><br />You say that I wouldn't have defended Preston if he was a writer I didn't care about. I've never read word Scott Turow has written and I defended him at one point. (Not his statements, mind you, but his right to make them given his status as an industry vet.) Joe and Barry had plenty to say about how wrong he was...but somehow they found a way to express their views without making it personal.<br /><br />I get that the whole "You couldn't lift Lee Child's balls" statement felt mean-spirited and like a personal attack on you as writer. It wasn't. I couldn't lift his balls, either. My point is that it's absurd to dismiss the brains, tenacity, and talent of these authors because they signed a silly petition. Having a beef with Amazon doesn't wipe away their value as authors and human beings with one clean stroke. Nor does it make them shitty, disingenuous people.<br /><br />Yes, I said things I'm not proud of. But I only went there after you crossed a certain threshold of rudeness and condescension. And before you start questioning my integrity, keep in mind that I wasn't the one calling a man I've never met names and dragging his character through a wet puddle of shit. Neither was Douglas Preston.<br /><br />- JoshuaJoshua Simcoxnoreply@blogger.com