Showing posts with label HarperCollins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HarperCollins. Show all posts

Friday, October 24, 2014

Legal Shake-ups in the Publishing Biz

We're still in the middle of moving into the new place. The new mattress DH and I ordered won't be delivered until next week, so we're still crashing at the in-laws.

Which means I'm finally getting caught up on industry news. Two major events happened on the legal side of the publishing industry.

The first is the lawsuit by Ellora's Cave against blogger Dear Jane was removed to federal court. Both The Passive Guy and romance author/attorney Courtney Milan have more intelligent commentary than I can provide.

I will say that I've been on the receiving end of of a relatively mild rebuke by a federal judge. It was not pleasant. If Tina Engler thinks she'll get away with the antics she's pulled in Summit County, she's sadly mistaken.

The other big news is the resurrected case against Harlequin for its slight of hand with author royalties was certified as a class action suit by the trial judge. By no means does this indicate the screwed-over writers will win their case. But the judge's cert along with Torstar's quick divestiture of Harlequin to HarperCollins doesn't indicate good things ahead for the publisher. Once again, The Passive Guy has posted the legal paperwork for those who enjoy reading court documents.

Catch y'all on the other side of the weekend!

Friday, August 8, 2014

Hatchette Can't Keep Their Stories Straight

In an article released last Thursday, American publishing industry magazine Publishers Weekly claimed Hatchette Book Group's sales rose 5.6% despite their current lack of a contract with Amazon in their headline. The next day, British newspaper The Guardian claimed a 1% dip in sales in theirs. So who's telling the truth?

Actually, both are once you dig through the respective articles. But the headlines are the amusing aspect.

It shows the difference in how Hatchette and the rest of the BPHs are twisting their PR campaign against Amazon in the U.S. The PW article plays into the David succeeding against Goliath meme that is extremely popular in American culture.

Just one little problem with that. Hatchette Book Group is owned by Lagardere Group, a French company whose 2013 revenues exceeded 7 BILLION euros. Compare that to Amazon, an American company, whose 2013 revenues were $74.5 MILLION U.S. dollars. Exchange rates aside, who is exactly the Goliath here.

Hatchette isn't the only foreign player in this game. Most of the Big Five are owned by non-American concerns.Penguin Random House is co-owned by German corporation Bertelsmann and Pearson PLC, a British company. Harper Collins is owned News Corp., whose primary shareholder Rupert Murdoch is Austrailian. Macmillan in controlled by Holtzbrinck, another German concern. Simon & Schuster is the only American player, and it's a teeny, tiny part of media giant CBS Corp.

In Europe, the BPHs don't have to worry so much about getting the news media on their side. A huge chunk of the news outlets are already owned by the parent companies of the Big Five, and they consider Amazon a snotty little American upstart.  But the sad part is the newspaper outlets are facing the same problems as their American counterparts--a loss of readership as more people switch to the internet and other electronic media for their news. And this is why The Guardian had an alarmist headline. "The American are coming! The Americans are coming!"

So what does this all mean?

In the end, not a damn thing. One of my great-grandfathers was fond of the saying, "The only constant in the universe is change."

The Big Five may think their conspiracy and now their little PR war with slow adaptation of e-books, but they're wrong. Not when e-book sales have jumped from less than 1% to over 40% in the last five years. It's time for the Big Five to jump on the change train before they get run over.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Why Traditional Publishing Is Having Problems Defending Itself

Considering what we call "traditional publishing" has been around for roughly seventy-five years, you would think they would know what they bring to the business table. If folks in the publishing houses do know, they are having a very difficult time articulating those points.

The first major problem is how publishers and editors regard writers. They say they treasure writers, but in reality, they view us as needy, whiny pains-in-the-ass. Even Kris Rusch mentioned writers who go into hysterics over changing a comma, and she's an author so she's very much PRO writer.

Another example is a discussion over at The Passive Voice when a Kensington author anonymously mentioned that her editor didn't edit her books. Rather than checking out the writer's story, publisher Steven Zacharius castigated Anonymice on the public blog, which kind of proved why this writer didn't go to him in the first place.

This brings me directly to one of the major services publishers claim they provide--editing.

Barry Harbaugh, an editor at HarperCollins, was trying to refute an essay by Andrew Martin in The New Yorker that talked about MFA vs. NYC. He really stepped into steaming pile when he insisted that editors do edit, but added that he only edited about fifty to one hundred pages a week. Of course, it's all Amazon's fault that editors get a bad rap.

I'll give Barry credit that he does do some editing, but the amount?

Excuse me? The night before I saw Barry's piece, I had edited a fifteen-page short story that I'm about to submit and twenty pages of novel prior to posting the sample online. All of this was done the forty minutes while I ordered and ate dinner at a local Mexican restaurant because I needed to get out of the house and away from Alter Ego's current wip.

Many more trad authors are coming out of the woodwork and talking about no editing, or even worse, abusive editors. In the same link to Kris Rusch's blog above, she talks about an editor who was downright psychotic and gives good advice for dealing with difficult people in the industry.

So what about cover art?

This is the notorious cover for Barry Eisler's book, Fault Line, issued by the French trad publisher. All cultural differences aside, does this look like an international, jet-setting thriller?

And if the writer gets a bad cover, can they do anything about it? Generally, no. The publisher complains about the cost (if the writer is lucky), or simply ignores you.

Not too many writers can turn a bad cover into a plus, but Christina Dodd did. Go ahead. Count how many hands the lady on the cover has. Dodd used the screw-up as a marketing gimmick. But a bad trad cover can't always be changed into gold so easily.

One of fabulous pluses as an indie is the ability to change your cover on a moment's notice. Like when several retailers decide out of the blue that your erotica covers are too risque. *wink*

Another factor is that the writer is blamed for the editing and the cover art, not the publisher, because it's the writer's name on the book.

The publisher doesn't care. There's a million writers banging on their doors, so they'll chuck the one that complains and grab another serf writer at the gates.

So what about promotion, publicity, and marketing by the publishing company? These should be the publishers' biggest strengths, right?

Fuhgeddaboudit! Seriously. Nearly every mid-list writer I personally know who signed a contract within the last ten years spent their entire trad pub advance on getting word out about their books. And with advances getting smaller and smaller and costs rising, that means more money out of a writer's pocket.

Even worse, trad publishers seem to have no marketing savvy in today's world (though they will command the writer to participate in every social media known to humankind).One of the selling points they brought to the table when they tried to woo H.M. Ward was their 2K e-mail list. Ms. Ward has a much bigger e-mail list already. MUCH bigger.

And heaven forbid if you ask the trade publisher to put specific marketing efforts in the contract!

These are the three big things that trad publishers could bring to the table for writers, but they refuse to do so. Here's the thing--it really wouldn't cost them a lot to do even one of these three. Do it cheap. Do it right.

Because indie writers are doing it every freakin' day!