Harlequin: Taking Heat for Taking Risks?
So, news flash – the world of the traditional publishing is in chaos. The high advance/giant print run model is no longer viable, and publishers have gotten the message: change course or go out of business.
We’re all aware of this, right? I mean – not only is there a never-ending stream of articles, blog posts, and radio and television segments clamoring to tell us all about the dying industry, there’s even a blossoming mini-industry of conferences devoted to the topic – a mini-industry that appears to be quite a bit healthier than publishing itself.
Given that even the casual reader/author/consumer can’t throw a rock without running into a headline declaring the death of the traditional publishing model, I’m really perplexed at the smackdown (largely from agents, authors and aspiring authors) that Harlequin got after announcing it was going to try something different with the addition of a self publishing (aka: subsidy publishing) offering: Harlequin Horizons.
The SmartBitchesTrashyBooks blog had a great post yesterday that sums up what Harlequin’s new service is intended to be all about. Let me excerpt it for you here (but go over and read it, and read all of their posts – they write good stuff over there):
Thinking about self-publishing a book? Wondering what a publishing house really has to offer you, if you’re digitally savvy and know your XML from your epub, and already know marketing and promotion are on your shoulders?
To hell with apps: say it with me now. There’s a Harlequin for that.
Sound good? I think so. But, apparently not everyone agrees that this is a good service for Harlequin to be offering. Cries of “author exploitation” and “reader confusion” are flooding the blogosphere. And, I don’t get it. As a reader, it’s kind of a moot point. All disclaimers are in place, and if confusing the reader is really an issue, we’re already in trouble since there are a lot of self-published books out there doing their best to confuse us. Um, in spite of ourselves, somehow, we feeble-minded readers have still managed to find quality books (and on rare occasion we’ve even located a winning read amongst the so-called slush pile of self-published books).
I direct you to the comments of Michael Hyatt (CEO of Thomas Nelson, a well-respected publisher that is also experimenting with the offering of subsidy publishing services through their WestBow Press arm), over at agent Rachelle Gardner’s blog:
Personally, I think this is much to do about nothing. Shelf space is still at a premium. Self-published authors will not have easy access to that, any more than someone who produces a YouTube video will get their creation into a theater. I don’t think we need to worry that bookstore shelves will be flooded with substandard books.
However, if someone has a specific platform, why should the gatekeepers (me, Rachelle, and retail buyers) keep them from getting into print. Self-publishing, vanity publishing, subsidy publishing are all simply options. They aren’t right for everyone. But who should determine that? Agents? Traditional Publishers? The RWA?
The economy is changing. Technology is changing. Publishing business models are changing. We are only going to see more of this.
As a person whose professional interests lay in the continuing survival (and thereby, evolution) of storytelling in all its forms and formats – having a publisher like Harlequin (or Thomas Nelson) explore new business models that can potentially keep them financially viable, while also providing aspiring authors some options seems pretty smart. So, hearing that the Romance Writers Association, the Science Fiction Writers Association, and the Mystery Writers Association have taken very strong positions against Harlequin’s announcement of Harlequin Horizons kind of leaves me dumbfounded. What are they so angry about (or should I say, what are they so afraid of)?
For these organizations to argue that they are looking out for the best interests of their constituency by denouncing a publisher who is exploring new publishing models is ridiculous. Are their members really so naive and lacking in business savvy that they can not be trusted to navigate and weigh all their publishing options? And, if they truly believe that their member authors really are incapable of understanding various publishing options, shouldn’t the RWA, SFWA, and MWA be offering more information and education about the options — wouldn’t that be of more service to their constituency than across-the-board condemnation of new models?
Just how do these organizations plan on serving their author memberships when book publishers have gone completely out of business due to that pesky broken business model? Remember back in paragraph one of this post where we were talking about how the traditional publishing model is broken? Well, I’ve been working on this post for about an hour now, and I just checked the Internets to be sure, but yup – that traditional publishing model is still broken. So, unless the leadership and/or membership of the RWA, SFWA, and MWA have come up with their own solution to the broken publishing model, they might want to be a bit more open-minded about their definitions of publishing.
Aspiring authors, in particular, would be wise to consider their publishing goals and explore ALL their publishing options, as the first-time, unknown author is the least likely to reap any benefit from the broken model of traditional publishing. Who benefits from pushing the traditional, broken model of publishing? Pretty much no one – except maybe the writers associations who, it could be argued, are much guiltier of preying upon authors than are those publishers who offer options to the endangered traditional publishing contract. Consider this, the RWA and other writers’ associations refuse to acknowledge that publishing is changing and that the traditional model doesn’t work. They maintain the status quo in regard to their educational offerings, conferences and author support (all of these predicated on a broken publishing model) while continuing to take membership dues and conference registration fees. Not exactly providing a great service if you ask me.
Do I have any qualms or see any danger with WestBow or Harlequin Horizons? Actually, yes, I do. I think there’s a big risk to the Thomas Nelson and Harlequin brands there — not because they are offering subsidy publishing and editorial services, but because they are outsourcing those services to Author Solutions. Why is this an issue? Quality control. Any author who publishes with WestBow or Horizons is, in actuality, publishing with Author Solutions. Harlequin and Thomas Nelson have no little or no control over what happens once that author gets turned over to ASI, so Harlequin and Thomas Nelson may be risking the reputation of their brand. If Author Solutions screws up (and this can and will happen in any number of ways – customer service, production, accounting, etc.) it’s not Author Solutions that is going to take the hit, it’s Harlequin and Thomas Nelson.
So, who is really at risk? Not authors or readers– whom I’d like to believe are capable of making decisions about how and what they publish and read, but the publishers who are trying out new models. Of course, they’re at even more risk if they don’t try anything at all, and I, for one am impressed that they are not just talking about the broken publishing model, but are trying to find solutions. It’s sad that Harlequin’s history of author advocacy, smart business decisions, and leadership in the publishing world aren’t enough for authors (or agents) to trust them as they explore and introduce these new models.
Of course, this is just my opinion. What do you guys think? I’m all ears!!!
Luv,
Kat
Kat, great post. And not just because you mention me.
At Thomas Nelson, we are monitoring Author Solutions closely. Before we ever got into a business deal with them, we visited their offices in Bloomington and went through their entire operation, including their editorial and marketing processes. We came away very impressed.
We are in daily contact with them. They have one of the best publishing management teams I have ever seen.
The other thing to consider (shh … don’t tell anyone), traditional publishers outsource the bulk of their own editorial work already.
I’m glad TN will be monitoring things closely with ASI. As you no doubt live and breathe over at Thomas Nelson, it’s so important to be able to respond quickly when an author/reader has an issue with any book, product or service that has your name on it. It’s a lot of work to keep those lines of communication open and manage expectations – and I wish you the best of luck with WestBow.
As someone who knows only the basics of publishing after reading and following blogs and news articles on publishing for one year, I have a very laid back attitude in regards to what Harlequin chose to do with this Hh subsidiary. If people can honestly afford to do this, then let them do so. I don’t know too many struggling writers who have not yet published a single word that could afford to pay for any of those services, myself included.
The surprise and outrage comes from Harlequin labeling this new venture into publishing in a way that is possibly misleading. I had to read several articles about what Harlequin was offering before I realized that Horizons is all about you paying them to do everything. The more you want done with your book, the more you pay. If authors are willing to go that route, wonderful. But most aren’t or simply can’t.
I truly think that the ones that can’t afford Horizons’ prices will not go out of their way to squeeze blood from a stone in order to get the money to do a vanity publication. And I, like you, hope these authors are smart enough to read all fine print before they go into any contract. Especially one they have to pay for.
I don’t agree with Harlequin’s methods. But who am I to say? I’m just one voice.
Who’s at risk? The authors.
Repeat after me – money flows from the publisher to the author and not from the author to the publisher.
Where is this etched in stone? We have sellers and we have buyers. Sometimes the publisher buys; sometimes the publisher sells. The same is true of the author.
There are a lot of sharks in the self-publishing tank. Harlequin and Thomas Nelson are the good guys. There may be other good guys too but how does someone like me tell them apart?
I’m not trying to make money by writing books (though I’ll happily cash the checks). I need help with editing and publishing professional books that support my consulting business and my brand.
I for one am grateful to see Harlequin and Thomas Nelson offering self-publishing services. Even though they are outsourcing their services to ASI, the weight they carry for ensuring good customers service, quality control and problem solving will be of tremendous value for authors like me.
Doug
I’ll say Amen! to several of the things in this post. The main ones being yes, there are options and part of an authors job must be to figure out which is best for their project. No way around it really. In the past, maybe some of those options were on the shady side or not handled well, but much of that is improving, and there will be good and bad as there is in any industry.
I also agree, that much of what is driving the writing associations and the like to trash different solutions has to be fear of some sort for their way of life, not so much warm-hearted concern for authors. The traditional industry cannot adequately serve the needs of all authors, why can’t something else work too? (One answer of course is because they can’t control the other stuff as well). Other publishing possibilities are here to stay. Telling people just to simply avoid them because you say so or essentially painting them to all be horrible is a disservice.
Every writer/publisher/association has the right to live in the past. What they don’t have the right to do is to drag everyone else back there with them when they don’t belong there.
I completely agree. Whilst I’m not planning on using Harlequin’s new service, I believe that every writer should have the facility to choose what is right for him/her, based on his/her own specific requirements. We’re all individuals, with individual goals. Surely what is right for me isn’t going to be right for every other writer on the planet, and vice versa.
I keep on reading people going on about how the old publishing model isn’t working… then I read the same people insisting that we should stick to it in the face of these evil developments that will end civilisation as we know it. It’s just too ironic.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by peglouke: Great post! RT @MichaelHyatt: My friend, @KatMeyer, weighs in on the self-publishing controversy, too: http://bit.ly/7mkcBo…
This is not self-publishing, this is vanity publishing. A vanity publisher is a company that puts out books under its own imprint but actually requires authors to pay the entire cost of production — in advance. You get to pay THEM and THEY get to still keep 50% of your revenue.
Again I say – money flows from the publisher to the author and not the other way around.
Sean – I agree that using “self-publishing” is sometimes construed as a misnomer, which is why many advocate the use of “subsidy publishing” (to use vanity publishing can be confusing as well, as it is largely tied to the process of paying to have an entire print run produced by the service provider).
The terminology aside, I don’t think anyone is arguing that Harlequin Horizons, WestBow, or any other subsidy publishing service is a paid service. And, I think Harlequin and Thomas Nelson are being rather upfront (explicit in some cases) about the fact that this is a “pay to be published” service.
Whether this service is something that an author would wish to pursue is entirely up to the author and their goals. I’d echo Heidi and Cheryl in saying that this is just one of many options for authors. As subsidy publishing services go, it’s probably a better bet for many authors than would be going direct to Author Solutions or another service. As Michael Hyatt has commented in this thread, what Harlequin or Thomas Nelson brings to the author in this subsidy publishing solution is (ideally/hopefully) a certain measure of assurance that they’ll get what they are paying for. In Harlequin Horizons and WestBow, Author Solutions has a bigger (and more powerful) customer to answer to — the author benefits from that.
And, yes – I’d encourage everyone participating in the greater discussion to take up the term “subsidy publishing” in lieu of “self-publishing.”
That is exactly my biggest problem with it.
Mr. Hyatt, you have the resources to do it inhouse and AuthorSolutions uses Lightning Source the way the rest of us micropresses do. Did you do a cost analysis of doing it inhouse versus outsourcing to AuthorSolutions?
I’m completely baffled by this decision.
Yes, we did. In fact, we studied it for a year. Our traditional publishing paradigm kept getting in the way. Plus, ASI has the scale to do it more efficiently. It really is a different business.
That has no bearing when one makes a business decision to build and sell a product versus seeking someone who will do it for you.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kat Meyer, SFU SummerPublishing. SFU SummerPublishing said: Also very well positioned on the Harlequin initiative. http://ow.ly/163bDI #pubwest [...]
Kat:
I have a big problem with a rejection letter from Harlequin telling an author their book sucks monkeybutt and should be buried for a thousand years but for only $699 you too can be a published author through our Harlequin Horizons imprint.
That’s a massive conflict of interest for about a thousand different reasons. The market can barely support the books that are for sale through legitimate publishers – now Harlequin wants to dump yet more crap onto an already bloated market?
There is something insidiously greedy about this move and I think it has more to do with the dire financial straits Torstar which is literally bleeding money through it’s pores and very near collapse.
Is that what the rejection letter says? If so, I agree with you – that’s a problem.
However, in principle I have no problem with any publisher offering an alternative way to publish.
And, thanks for using the phrase “sucks monkeybutt” in your comment. I feel I’ve found a kindred spirit!!
Ya know, I’m just tired of being lectured about all the “oh oh the future, yer doin it wrong now, oh look, shiny!”
The problem is, this vanity stuff ISN’T a shiny new business model. It’s older than the hills.
Instead of making money off of readers buying books, it’s making money off of writers printing books.
I don’t think an entire “publishing” industry is going to be supported by the profit available off of writers, who are not known for having a lot of money to throw around, ya know?
And nobody in their right mind would think the whole industry will go this way either, so I’m more and more suspicious of those who keep trying to sell this as a “new model.”
Come up with an ACTUAL new model, that makes ACTUAL money for authors who write ACTUALLY GOOD books, by selling those to an ACTUAL market, and I’ll start paying attention to all the oooh shiny new models.
So far all I see is Amazon taking big advantage of all you shiny new guys. You can’t even get out from under ‘em at the start, much less down the road when the new model matures.
Until you come up with something real, instead of a lot of fluffy talk, you are just preaching to your own choir. If you really “just don’t get it,” about vanity press, then you need to learn more about markets in general.
When SB’s, as much as I love ‘em as reviewers and readers of the romance genre, are quoted as authorities on the publishing industry…well…I think I’ll stick with my own knowledge and common sense, thanks. Along with a lot of other writers who came to the same conclusion I did.
Publishing will change, but it’s a long long way from dead. (And they’ve been saying it’s dead for the past 25 years I’ve been writing, so yeah.) Try not to fall too hard for your own PR.
While you guys are recruiting wannabe writers to pay you to publish them, I’ll be selling my books to the people who want to read them, thanks. You are in an entirely different industry, apparently.
Hi Laura:
I didn’t mean to lecture. And, I’m very happy that you have found a publishing model that works for you. I honestly wish you continued success with that model.
But, I think in reality, the odds are increasingly against one model working for every author, publisher, and reader. Not every author has the same goals that you have, not ever reader wants to be limited to the books that are available via the traditional (and broken) model, and gosh darn-it, not every (or even most) publishers can make that traditional model make financial sense anymore.
If you interpreted my post as a suggestion that subsidy publishing is some sort of silver bullet, wow — I apologize and will have to work much harder at expressing myself clearly.
What I do intend to suggest with this post is that there is not one solution for all authors, publishers or readers, and that each of us needs to be open to the possibility of different business models – even if we don’t necessarily see the value or benefit, doesn’t mean we should stop others from pursuing them.
The problem is that self-publishing and vanity publishing are two different things. This is not a NEW publishing model. Vanity publishing is as old as books. Protecting unaware writers from them is the reason we join groups like RWA, MWA, and SFWA.
Hi Jill:
I think I made that same remark – self-publishing and vanity (or as I prefer to call it, “subsidy publishing) ARE indeed two different things.
I would like to argue however, that not all subsidy publishers are alike, and that for Thomas Nelson and Harlequin, the addition of offering subsidy publishing services IS a new model for them. I’d also argue that it’s in Harlequin and Thomas Nelson’s best interests to see that authors paying to have their books published either by Horizons or WestBow know what they will be getting and get what they have paid for. As long as that is the case, and an author wants to go that route, why shouldn’t they have the option?
Harlequin has taken great pains to make sure that authors did not know what they were getting — in particular, strongly implying that they were going to get the Harlequin imprimatur, while simultaneously telling existing Harlequin authors, “No, no, it’s okay, they aren’t REALLY Harlequin books.”
When you add that to Harlequin’s giving appallingly counterproductive advice (they said somewhere that you could use your bound copy to give to an agent), they are deliberately misleading people about the publishing industry.
50% royalties are appalling when Harlequin has invested not one penny in the book. Why does Harlequin get 50% of the royalties in perpetuity for contributing nothigng
I would likely not have a huge issue with these sorts of ventures, if they were actually in authors interests, but I don’t believe they are. I see claims about making publishing dreams come true and having choices, but honestly, I think it’s crap.
If a writers dream is merely to see their book printed and bound in a cover, well there are easy and inexpensive ways to do this, certainly not at the exhorbitant prices offered by Westbow and HQN. Westbow pays 20% of net on print and 50% on ebooks. HQN is 50% net for both. So, an author might see a buck or two off of each book. Last time I saw stats, the average number of sales on self/vanity pubbed books was in the range of about 150 copies.
There are lots of reasons for this of course, but one of the main ones is that most writers don’t have the time, money, or know-how to make it work well. Are the services offered by Westbow and HQN going to change these odds? Given these services are available already and have been used by many a self-pubbed author, I’d say no, though of course they want you to think differently about that. Given most writers coming into this aren’t aware of the realities of the industry and marketplace, how are they going to know different? Trust the experts, right? Uhm, no.
Thing is, there is no risk at all to these companies, other than getting folks to pay for the service, and that’s being covered by the handy referral system off the slush piles from these companies. I find this part of the whole thing pretty distasteful. Important thing here is that they make money whether the author does or not, and simple fact of the matter is, they won’t with few exceptions. But they are at least giving them the chance to make it, right? Uhm, not really.
I readily admit, a few writers have made a success going it on their own. They have the time, money, knowhow and where-with-all to do it. Right place, right time, right audience, and so on. That said, the other 99.9% will not. The market won’t support them. There aren’t enough readers for the books coming from the traditional houses, much less doubling that up with self-pubbed works. They all know this. They know the system can’t support that number of authors who have the dream of publishing, and I mean more than seeing a bound and printed copy. It’s not really a choice if the chance of success is next to nothing. And for 1-10k, it’s littlemore than a scam. But these companies will continue to harp on that next to nothing chance, and make writers believe that their services will make it better. They won’t, the author loses out, but hey, the company made money off of them so why would they care?
Hi Jim:
I think it’s important that we not generalize or imply that claims made by another subsidy publisher are claims made by HQ’s Horizons or TN’s WestBow.
As stated previously, I stand by the belief that an author should have the option to pursue subsidy publishing if that’s something they want to do. I further continue to contend that an author choosing the subsidy publishing route is better off going with services provided by companies with the clout of HQN or Thomas Nelson, rather than an unknown entity.
Thanks for the comments (and for reading)
best,
~ Kat
Kat, I apologize for my tone. But this sort of thing:
“For these organizations to argue that they are looking out for the best interests of their constituency by denouncing a publisher who is exploring new publishing models is ridiculous. Are their members really so naive and lacking in business savvy that they can not be trusted to navigate and weigh all their publishing options? And, if they truly believe that their member authors really are incapable of understanding various publishing options, shouldn’t the RWA, SFWA, and MWA be offering more information and education about the options — wouldn’t that be of more service to their constituency than across-the-board condemnation of new models?”
is just a head-banger. In fact, yes, new writers are extremely naive, just like new homebuyers and people who just lost their roof after a hurricane and anyone who confronts an unknown, complex and emotionally charged decision process with money involved. (In fact maybe if more homebuyers had belonged to some Homebuyers of America org, and been warned about the kind of loans they were getting into, the whole country would be in better shape! I’m sure these loans did “work” for some ppl, but in the long run everybody’s screwed except the Big Boys.)
There are some things, like paying to be published, that have been identified for DECADES as not advantageous to authors. This pre-dates the organizations you know now, by a long time. As I said above, vanity is not a new publishing model, this is an old way to make money off of writers.
RWA, MWA and SFWA have done precisely their jobs as you have described them, they have pointed out in detail why this Harlequin thing stinks for professional writers, and said that they will not recommend it, or give it any support. This is author advocacy, period.
They’ve been greatly helped by some savvy bloggers, too, who have elucidated the points with great clarity. Any writer that has heard this, and still chooses to go with HH, under whatever name, made their own decision. But it’s a fully informed decision. Unlike the one you seem to want them to make, which would not be fully informed but naively identified as following a “new publishing alternative.”
People outside the professional writers organizations seem to have a very odd idea of what happens there. No, they can’t and don’t actually stop someone from pursuing whatever they want to pursue. But none of us have to just stand there with our mouths hanging open when we have some important information to impart. And they don’t have to endorse something that isn’t in the best interests of their members.
If certain people who feel they have good “new models” for publishing can make a serious case in detail for those models, for why they work, for how they will create real income for a professional writer without unbearable risk, for how they will “lift all boats” instead of setting the income bar lower and lower for the average writer, then their model WILL be welcomed.
But this sort of thing just makes those who argue for it appear…well, I can’t find a nice word, but to argue that a vanity press is one of the legitimate new models detracts from your credibility in a very big way, from a professional writer’s and even a real honest publisher’s point of view.
There are things that are “broken” about the current publishing model. Insane advances and returns to mention a couple that have been around a long time. A workable digital distribution system is still in the process of being formed.
But vanity ain’t the answer for anybody but people who want to print cookbooks and personal memoirs, and they don’t join RWA, MWA or SFWA. Harlequin is getting the denunciation they deserve for offering a lousy, two-faced, product to writers and trying to make money off the ones they reject.
Thanks for elucidating, Laura. I guess I don’t see it the same way that you do.
Rather than continue to argue details (mostly because it’s almost 4pm, I’m tired, and I’m pretty sure you’ll win if purely based on the ability to string coherent sentences together since my brain is just not up to the task), I’ll just reiterate my overall point: Harlequin is adding branded subsidy publishing as a service offering. Whether an author chooses to pursue these services or not, should be entirely up to the author and any author considering any publishing model or combination of publishing models should do so based on their goals and career aspirations. Offering such services, in my humblest of opinions, does not make Harlequin (or Thomas Nelson, or any other publisher who is offering such services) a bad guy, nor should it diminish or nullify the quality of the other books they have published, are publishing, or will publish under their other imprints.
It’s an option. It is likely an option that many authors, albeit definitely not you, might find valuable. It’s an option that might add to HQN’s bottom line, but why shouldn’t it?
And I do very much appreciate you sharing your thoughts (some of which I do find valid), and having this discussion, but for the time being can we agree to disagree?
All the best,
Kat
As both an author and a bookstore manager, I’ve decided to take a new position on all these changes- stop freaking out every time some new announcement is made, some new digital product is released, some publisher changes the business model, etc. Now, I sit back and watch, make adjustments that seem reasonable and provide the best return on my investment.
Change is happening in book industry and NO ONE knows where it is ultimately going to take us. If we constantly resist or fight change, wanting to stay only in our comfort zones, we will ultimately fail. In turn, if we freak out about the changes that seem to be coming nearly everyday, we will ultimately fail. Why? We are going to expend so much energy on resistance or overreaction, that we won’t be able to focus on the most important thing- being an author, a publisher, a bookseller.
In five, ten or fifteen years, writing, publishing and bookselling will be unrecognizable as the ventures they are today. The best thing to do is simply ask ourselves- How does this change affect me, should I incorporate this change into my model, and how can I make a profit using this new model? If ultimately, the change is something that you feel locks you out, or is a change in the wrong direction, you have another option- become a “change maker.” Find a better solution, build a better mousetrap.
Hey Drew:
You voice of reason, you. I’m putting you in charge – is that okay? Really – I think I meant to say what you said, but I said it clumsily but with conviction – not a good combination. Yours is a much more sensible and well-worded take on the topic at hand. So, here’s what I *meant* to say everybody:
“If ultimately, the change is something that you feel locks you out, or is a change in the wrong direction, you have another option- become a ‘change maker.’ Find a better solution, build a better mousetrap.”
If it sounds like something Drew Goodman said somewhere once, it’s entirely coincidental (and also I stole it from him).
~ Kat
The problem I have with it is that all the information Harlequin has released about it—taken all together—has been, depending on how cynical you are, either confusing or misleading.
Author Jackie Kessler has a great blog post where she deconstructs Harlequin’s PR and promotion for Harlequin Horizons blow-by-blow, and it’s very clear that what’s being said by Harlequin in one paragraph is contradicted by Harlequin in another.
For example, on the Harlequin Horizons website it says “Feel secure when you publish through Harlequin Horizons. Our experience and skill will help you get the product you want and deserve.” Yet right in Harlequin’s press release about the new venture it says that, “Through this strategic alliance; all sales, marketing, publishing, distribution, and book-selling services will be fulfilled by ASI; but Harlequin Horizons will exist as a division of Harlequin Enterprises Limited.”
So how is Harlequin bringing its “experience and skill” to bear if ASI is actually running the publishing show here?
In another example, in a press release FAQ you’ll find this in response to the question, “What is Harlequin Horizons”:
“It is a partnership with Author Solutions – they provide the self-publishing services, we provide our brand name and we make authors we have rejected aware of this service.”
Yep, the Harlequin Horizons pitch will be included in all boilerplate/standard/template rejection letters, as confirmed in another Harlequin response. Yet in a follow-up letter sent to existing Harlequin authors, Harlequin says, “Horizons books will not have Harlequin branding. Horizons is a separate brand and will carry the double-H Horizons logo on the spine only, NOT the Harlequin brand.”
So is Harlequin lending its brand, which is bad for its regular authors, or not, which is bad for Harlequin Horizons authors? They can’t have it both ways, yet seem to be trying to do just that.
I could go on and on, but since Jackie Kessler has already done such a beautiful job of examining the double-talk, I’ll just refer you to her post:
http://www.jackiekessler.com/blog/2009/11/19/harlequin-horizons-versus-rwa/
The other problem I have with it is the outrageous pricing. In just one example, they’re intending to charge their author-customers over $200 for copyright registration—something an author can do for him- or herself on the U.S. Copyright Office website for $35. That’s a markup of over 500%, and I don’t doubt a similar level of markup is being charged for *all* of Horizons’ services, yet after charging these exorbitant service fees, Horizon also intends to keep 50% of net royalties at the back end. It’s just outrageous.
While I agree with you that aspiring authors should be shown some respect, that we should assume they’re capable of sifting through the various options themselves and drawing their own conclusions, this is a special case because it’s an established, respected, and *trusted* brand coming forth to offer the service. If someone you feel you know and trust recommends a service to you, you’re not generally going to vet that service as thoroughly as you would sans the personal recommendation.
Were I an aspiring romance author, I’d tend to assume that a known and trusted brand like Harlequin wouldn’t be offering me these services if they weren’t top-quality, competitively priced, and being entirely run (or at least, closely overseen) by Harlequin staff. And clearly, Harlequin isn’t doing much to dispel such assumptions. They’re trying to reap the benefits of aspiring authors’ goodwill associated with the Harlequin name while distancing the Harlequin name from the whole enterprise for the sake of their existing authors, the RWA, the MWA and so on.
Overpriced? Check. Misleading promotional copy? Check. As so many have said before me here, this is not a New Model in trade publishing. This is the same old ripoff that’s been perpetrated on hopeful authors for decades, only now, it’s being done under the aegis of Harlequin. *That’s* why all the outrage.
Hi April:
You make a good point – it’s really important that Harlequin be crystal clear about what is being offered through the Horizons subsidy publishing service. It important not only to the authors who choose to use the service, but also to Harlequin as any customer whose expectations are not met will be very vocal in sharing their disappointment.
Though others disagree, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with making Horizon’s services known to authors who have been rejected, as long as it is very clear exactly what authors who go the Horizon route will be getting. I think it’s a competitive advantage, and again – as long as Harlequin is being forthright, I have no problem with it, but I understand that others might.
That said, and as mentioned previously in other replies I’ve offered here – to me the value add offered to the author that chooses Horizon’s over directly working with ASI, or going with other services is the clout that Harlequin brings to the table. If you, as an individual author find yourself unhappy with what Author Solutions produces for you, you’re probably not going to get the same sort of response from them as if Harlequin calls them to complain. Harlequin doesn’t want unhappy author customers and they’re not likely to put up with Author Solutions providing substandard quality.
So, yes – an author seeking subsidy publishing services can find cheaper arrangements, but all things equal, it’s not just about the money — and it *is* about the Harlequin brand. Again – Harlequin stands to lose quite a bit if subsidy publishing authors aren’t happy, so they’ll be putting pressure on Author Solutions to deliver a positive experience (and quality production) to those customers.
Kat, Harlequin has sent letters to their published authors to reassure them these are not real Harlequin books. Harlequin will not be associated with them, nor have their name anywhere on them. You are not getting Harlequin backing with the Horizons deal.
But you will have the name and let’s face it, that’s the only reason ASI wanted to partner with them. It’s like, look there is a massive amount of potential new customers in Harlequin’s slush pile.
Harlequin currently has a link from THEIR submission page to Harlequin Horizon. This is just NOT RIGHT.
[...] Publishers: As Harlequin is Finding Out – Sometimes You Can’t Win For LosingA different perspective on the issue. [...]
If I wanted to sell books to my friends and family and had a bunch of money to burn, yeah, I would definitely go the self-publishing route. That’s the vanity press publishing model. Unfortunately, I want to sell to more than people I know intimately, so I decided I would go the traditional route. So far, it’s working for me.
Bev
Wading in here with some thoughts, most of which Kat has already heard (or rather, read):
First off, the monkeybutt comment (which rates on the creativity scale and made me laugh). Publishers reject books for many reasons. They reject well-written, well-plotted, well-constructed books. Not every rejection is because a book is poorly written (this was a serious issue I had with Jackie Kessler’s post, though I realize she was being over-the-top on purpose). In fact, one of Harlequin’s current authors, MJ Rose, started her career by self-publishing her first novel, after she couldn’t sell it in the traditional way. This book was eventually published via a traditional house, if I recall correctly (and it’s been a decade, so some details may have slipped).
One of the reasons Harlequin started Carina (other publishers are looking at starting digital first/print maybe divisions as well) is because their business model necessarily precludes acquiring stories that fall too far outside the lines. I personally think it’s the better choice for authors, but I also get that many feel uncomfortable publishing direct to digital.
So, I am not convinced that subsidy publishing works for romance novels or most fiction (the successes *are* rare), mostly due to the financial aspects. I’ve seen smarter execution and different success in non-fiction. Thus, I am very frustrated by the idea that this type of publishing is inherently bad. The lines between self-publishing, “vanity” publishing, subsidy publishing are blurry, and I think it’s great if an author wants to truly self-publish; likewise, I’m fine with authors who make informed choices about services they realize would be too expensive in terms of time and/or money to do themselves.
As such, I believe writer organizations do their members a disservice by not providing solid information about all publishing options — pro and con. I don’t disagree with RWA’s actions because their requirements are stated very clearly (and certainly have been debated in public often enough). However, the application of the rules does feel a bit selective, though I understand that is in part due to the work being done by a task force on topics such as this.
I cannot do anything about people who do not do homework, cannot see past glossy marketing copy, or are unable to clearly assess the quality of their work before they enter into expensive propositions. It frustrates me, but bad decisions seem to be part of our DNA — I think this is where writer organizations offer the greatest possible service because they do educate their members. Even this does not stop every bad decision, but I know RWA works hard to make sure its members are informed.
Commercial print publishing has been the “new” model for a good century or so, but it evolved from what can only be described as vanity publishing, over time, of course. As Kat noted, traditional publishing is broken, and publishers great and small are trying to find new ways to connect books and readers. They’re looking at new ways of doing business, while simultaneously running their existing businesses. Carina isn’t a new business, but it’s evolving the digital publishing business model (which is an ebook version of the small press model).
Likewise, PoetrySpeaks from Sourcebooks, though built on existing models, is a different approach for buying, selling, and engaging community in poetry. I hope it’s wildly successful! Safari from O’Reilly…well, subscription services certainly aren’t new, but the way O’Reilly is building and expanding this service creates infrastructure and best practices for publishers who see rentals, short term access, tiered access, and even chunked content as possibilities. Other publishers can take what works for their business and leave the rest behind.
I think new business models will also be a iterative process. Doing publishing differently requires buy-in from authors, which is scary because there will be catastrophic failures. There will also be amazing successes. Most likely, however, there will be things that do okay and fade away, only to be picked up, dusted off, and revisited at a later time and place — to greater success. Given the state of the market (and I am not one who believe print books and bookstores will disappear, at least not for a long time), the more experimentation that happens, the better.
In the meantime, my reaction to Horizons is much like Kat’s. Then again, I expected far more author outrage at Macmillan’s decision to lower the ebook royalty rate, so what do I know? Horizons doesn’t have a direct dollars-and-cents impact for most published authors, but given the steady rise of ebook sales, the steadily decreasing ebook royalties should be a cause for alarm.
Kassia -
What about all the double-speak about this coming from Harlequin? Isn’t that problematic?
I’m afraid that if Harlequin were to tell the whole, unvarnished truth about what’s going on here, it would settle all the concerns of their existing authors, and possibly the RWA, MWA etc. too. But that truth would be too ugly for them to attract authors to Harlequin Horizons.
The only value Harlequin is supposedly adding to the equation is the good Harlequin name and reputation, yet they were quick to clarify that point for the sake of their existing authors, and point out that their involvement is limited to lending their promotional support and monitoring sales of Horizons titles. They’ve been adamant that Harlequin Horizons titles, despite the imprint name, will not be “Harlequin-branded”, will not appear in stores next to Harlequin books, will not be distributed along Harlequin’s channels and will not carry the Harlequin name anywhere on the books themselves nor even in catalog listings. In other words, Harlequin has relegated istelf to the position of a broker for ASI. And as we all know, brokers are little more than paid middlemen: people who find paying customers for other people.
I’m pretty sure that’s the ugly truth, but it’s sure not going to sell many publishing packages.
I honestly don’t know why Harlequin put their name on this venture, but they are, for all their flaws, a smart company. I can only imagine the internal debates, and I find it beyond strange that this roll-out was handled so poorly. Malle answered questions to the best of her ability, but, in her defense (I should note I’ve known her for years personally and professionally, and she is a staunch advocate of authors and readers), while she didn’t always give the best answers, there was a fair amount of not listening on the other side as well.
This was evident in the apparent hair-splitting and tongue-tripping over branding. What was meant — if I have followed all the threads correctly — was that, unlike the books that are traditionally published by Harlequin, the actual name and logo would not appear on the books (fwiw, I am not sure if MIRA titles have these identifiers). If you’re familiar with their books, these two elements are distinctive, even if you, as a reader, haven’t already made the visual identification of both the publisher and line. They kept pointing to the Horizons logo as case in point. To them, whether right or not (and I’m going with not based on how the message was received), this was a clear distinction.
I viewed this initially (and still do) as an affiliate-type arrangement, and Harlequin certainly wasn’t the first to test this arrangement as a revenue stream (nor will they be the last). Consistent with what Michael Hyatt says above — and I’ve always found him to be a straight shooter — Harlequin says they checked out the business, did their due diligence, and entered into this arrangement. So, yes, they are a middleman, and I liked Michael’s answer about why his company chose this route. This is a pure business relationship with them, one, as Kat noted, will reflect very badly on Harlequin if Author Solutions does not satisfy customers. They are putting their reputation on the line.
However, in the case of RWA, in particular, this won’t change things. The organization has very specific guidelines about this issue, and while it is very obvious that Harlequin is not primarily or even heavily in the business of self/subsidy publishing — their main source of revenue remains and will remain traditional publishing — RWA sees it differently, and they know their bylaws and policies and procedures far better than I do (my eyes glaze over at this). I don’t know how this can be resolved with the writers organizations because there is a fundamental disagreement on both sides. Harlequin (and every other publisher) has a right to conduct business in the manner they deem best.
Likewise, writers organizations have an obligation to make decisions based on what is deemed best for their membership. They do this very well, and I get the anger and fear.
As noted, I believe Carina is a better venue for romance (and some other) novelists. I could be wrong in thinking this author base and marketplace don’t mix, of course, but my reaction then, now, and likely tomorrow is that it’s not going to be a major (or even much above minor) money-maker for them.
Kassia,
I agree with much of what you say. However, I do think Horizons will be a money maker for Harlequin if — and maybe only if — it carries the Harlequin branding in some fashion. Think about it this way — the author fronts all the costs, so even a basic package is money in Harlequin’s pockets. A deluxe package may net the same money they make from one author in the traditional model who they had to pay an advance to, print, ship, and take returns for. And that doesn’t count the 50% of *net* royalties should the author actually manage to sell a copy of her Harlequin Horizon’s book.
I’m going to go off into the world of fuzzy numbers here, as I don’t have any firm ones and have to make best guesses: HQ publishes, say, 20 books a month, expecting a net profit of 10,000 per book within a year. That’s a projected 200,000 profit for that month’s books — at the end of the year. HQ has already laid out advances, editorial fees, printing, shipping, etc., but it has a good model going, so it will get close to its projected profit.
How many Horizons authors are needed (no initial outlay of money) to make the same net profit of 200,000? Well, for the $600 package, let’s say HQ takes 20% (leaving AS 80%) that would be 1666 at $120. For the $1600 package that would be 625 sales of $320. Pure profit, with no initial outlay except the Harlequin good name, and potential royalties from the hard work of the author herself.
Doable? I don’t know. But even if they only took in a quarter of that amount per month, it comes in quickly and steadily — and a marketing push could always be instigated to increase it (say, a contest among all the books contracted in such and so month with a promise of distribution to the winner).
There is a huge incentive here to mine the slush pile, dangling Harlequin Horizons like a trip to Foxwoods where you might spend a quarter and win a million. If the terms were negotiable (so the paying author could demand a higher royalty rate, or at least royalty based on cover price), you might make an argument that this is not predatory behavior because the author has choices. But the author has very limited choices of the upfront payment, and no choice at all about the *net* royalty rate on book the author paid to have edited, produced, and marketed).
I had not paid a lot of attention to how these subsidy presses made money after the initial fees until this discussion began. I don’t know if this is standard subsidy press practice, but if so, I seriously question how badly subsidy press authors are being fleeced without even realizing it (the upfront costs are something everyone has to be savvy about, because you have to write the check, swipe the card, etc.; royalties can even bring a traditionally published author to tears when trying to determine different rates for different formats and net vs cover).
Where is the line between fair price and exorbitant overcharge in this business?
Kelly — Your final sentence is the key issue, and I don’t know the answer, but given the clear demand for these services and the ability of authors to get a lot of information quickly (once upon a time, this process was completely opaque to authors), there is opportunity for both quality and good pricing. It’s a service, there’s a balance. For example, Greenleaf charges a huge amount just to get in the door and they’re very selective. This latter part contributes to their success, and they market toward a specific type of author and product. You (generic you) might say their service is overpriced, not worth it, but the Greenleaf customer has decided it is.
Your analysis of potential profitability is interesting. One thing you didn’t include in your equation is the split between Harlequin and Author Solutions. I imagine, as April noted above, this is more of a pass-through type situation. And, yes, that payment to Harlequin would be factored into the various fees Author Solutions charges.
(By the way, I’m the cranky one who, despite the challenges of figuring out royalties, believes it’s in every author’s best interest to wholly understand their statements; mistakes do happen and it’s your career! I know it’s no fun.)
I did consider the split (I figured HQ taking 20% and AS taking 80%…no idea how close to reality that is, but it seemed like AS is doing the lion’s share of the work).
I had many years of arguments with my daughter when she was a teen — I thought generic jeans were just fine and she had to have The Gap. So she paid the difference. And now she pays $100 for a pair of jeans on a grad stipend and just eats a little less for a month…so I get the “paying for quality” bit. I still think Harlequin is taking advantage (or Author Solutions is taking advantage of both HQ and the subsidy publishing authors) with its terms because it is selling the “Published by Harlequin” dream that it already has a captive audience for on its e-forums. And yet it doesn’t really plan to deliver that dream, because that would interfere with the branding of its edited and carefully selected lines.
In other words, it would be like me telling my daughter I was going to buy her Gap jeans, and instead slapping a Glap label on Walmart jeans and calling it good. Oh. and charging her for the price of the Gap jeans.
Not that my daughter would have fallen for that one. Or I might have tried it.
You know, it’s not so much that there’s never a good reason for vanity/subsidy publishing. My SIL wants to write a children’s book to gift to the hospital that did her many surgeries pro-bono as a child. It’s really not something any traditional publisher would be interested in, and she’s not looking to earn money from its publication. So in this case, vanity/subsidy probably makes the most sense, provided she can swing the capital to pull it off. And she doesn’t NEED (nor would she want) Harlequin Horizons to create this book.
Harlequin isn’t offering anything NEW with this service, except the tantalizing prospect that it will be monitoring sales of Horizons books and might bring some of those authors into the “real” house. And that, IMO, is exactly what’s wrong with it (and, incidentally, with Westbow and Authonomy, which are being pitched from their sites as “ins” to Thomas Nelson and HarperCollins respectively–and the writers’ orgs need to call them on this for consistency).
Let’s look at this from a different angle, shall we? Suppose Harlequin decided, in this economy, to monetize its resume pile as well as its slush pile.
From now on, when Harlequin rejects a candidate for an editorial position, for example, they can include a referral the new Harlequin Heavens program, where, for the low-low price of just $995, you can prove your mettle by editing a vanity-published book. And hey, if that books sells well (although we won’t tell you HOW well) despite not being in Harlequin’s regular distribution chain, Harlequin might offer you a real job! Or, maybe we’ll let you pay us to edit a few actual Harlequin books, too. Of course, there’s GUARANTEE we’ll hire you, but by doing so, you’ll bypass our normal hiring process and we’ll be monitoring your progress, so it’s really an awesome deal for you, because you COULD get the brass ring.
Given the trouble that publishing is in right now and all these wonderful new models that are going to save it from itself, I personally think this is a great model. After all, what’s good for publishers is good for editors, isn’t it? And you gotta admit, getting PAID by editors for their services is a darn site better for the publisher’s bottom line that paying them for it.
Grrr, that should have said there’s NO guarantee we’ll hire you.
Point still stands.
Jackie. You know they already have that, right? It’s called an internship. Although, technically you don’t pay for the privilege, I guess. You just don’t get paid…except in experience.
But an internship is actually experience that a paying firm will consider as “valid” when they’re evaluating your resume. It’s also usually tied to an educational degree if it’s unpaid.
No such thing can be said about publishers and vanity or self-published book. Your vanity/self-pubbed credit just makes editors at traditional presses laugh about your gullibility. They don’t consider you more experienced or knowledgeable but less so.
Wow Jackie, snap-zing! I hadn’t thought of it like that, but you raise an excellent counterpoint.
Kassia – I’m very puzzled by this too, and wish it hadn’t come so hard on the heels of the Carina announcement—which I think is a very positive development which is now being (wrongly) connected to the Horizons rollout in many authors’ minds.
P.S. I think Malle Vallik deserves a medal and a nice holiday bonus for dealing so gracefully and positively with all the fallout, BTW. She’s got the patience of a saint.
Agreed! Talking and listening is a new skill for many publishers, and the fact that she was out there is something I respect. It’s especially hard when you’re responding to very direct criticism. I doubt I could have done it.
Based on what was said today, Carina has *already* received over 300 queries. I suspect the trust in the brand remains high, despite it all, and if there was any residual confusion on the part of readers, they have plenty of time to recover.
I’m glad. I was excited to see Carina announced. I wish Harlequin had given it a shot at basking in the limelight a little longer before it threw Horizons into the mix. I think this is a much better model for writers than the pay to play model, which is almost useless for a novel that isn’t something really different.
You know, vanity/subsidy publishing wouldn’t be so bad if authors actually got or had a respectable chance at return on their investment. We can debate all of the ins and outs of HQN’s setup, poor judgment in startup, etc. but the point is, authors won’t make money doing this. Or rather, the chances of making money through a vanity/subsidy pub is so close to zero that to say they can help realize an authors dreams of publication is laughable.
How many businesses work with such lopsided arrangements where the risk is so utterly one way? Kassia mentioned something about how we can’t do much about writers who don’t understand the industry, don’t do the research, or are just plain to pig-headed to give a damn one way or the other. Then there are those who are just so blinded by the hope and desperation for the shot at publication that they will ignore all of the signs that say, “don’t do this!” Sure, it’s still their choice, but I’m still going to get incensed at any business that seeks to take advantage of this, and that is what ASI is doing with the vast majority of their clientele.
I mean seriously. A full edit on an average length novel runs about 7k. That’s like 70 cents a word. Wtf is that? You can find very good freelancers for 10-15 cents a word. 20k for a movie-style trailer? Indie movies have been made for less. A marketing catelog sent to booksellers who we all know look at it long enough to move it from the mail box to the shredder. None of these services come even close to raising the odds in anyway close to giving return on the investment required. Putting it in a pretty package under one roof certainly doesn’t provide an adequate rationale for the kind of markup we see with these companies.
If they were going to be upfront, they would tell authors seeking their services, that while they can provide for a professional, quality product, the odds of success are still next to zero. Even doing everything one’s self, finding the cheapest, quality services through freelancers, 99 plus percent of writers will not make their money back. Perhaps this isn’t the dream of most seeking this avenue of publication, but I’ll bet money they aren’t going into it with the idea of losing thousands of dollars just to see their story in print. Lets be honest here. There are too many books out there for readers to read. It’s extremely difficult to find success through traditional channels, much less where writers who don’t understand just how difficult this industry really is, and these vanity pubs know all of this. They know their services aren’t going to provide what the majority of writers want, which is a chance at success, and odds are, given their lack of understanding (not due to any lack of intelligence mind you), it’s going to do more harm than good (for most; a very rare few will manage to find it).
If a vanity/subsidy press could find a way to help authors with services that actually had a reasonable chance at upping their chances without draining their life savings in the process, I might actually give them the nod. This won’t happen the way the industry is currently. As it stands now, they are little more than scam artists preying on the dreams and lack of understanding of writers who wish for success in an industry that can only provide it for very few.
“You know, vanity/subsidy publishing wouldn’t be so bad if authors actually got or had a respectable chance at return on their investment.”
Yes!
And you know, I think I’d actually be less worked up over Horizons if the books that would be published through it were actually going to BE in Harlequin’s distribution chain. If buying the Horizons marketing package got your book into Harlequin’s catalogs and got their sales staff to push your books to bookstores, all the talk about getting your books on the shelves in the marketing materials for Horizons would be a darned site less offensive.
If publishers decided the ONLY way to get books into the real chain of distribution was for authors to share more of the risk by paying for publication (because they were really so broke they could simply no longer outlay the cash for advances, editing, marketing and print before the book earned any money),that would be a truly bad day for authors and publishers alike. However, it might be worth it for an author to “buy in” to major publishing house if the money actually bought them the same chance at being in bookstores, WalMart, Target, etc. because their books WOULD BE equivalent to the publishers other books. They WOULD have the publisher’s branding and marketing and distribution and hence be indistinguishable to the reader from a book for which the publisher paid an advance and all the costs of production. And, one would assume that such a model would pay the author who fronted money for her book not some measly percentage of the royalties, but 100% of them. So if her book became a national bestseller, she’d be the one making all of the millions, with the publisher getting NOTHING beyond what it was paid for coordinating the book’s production and distribution. Think how much richer than the queen JK Rowling would be if she had paid a few grand upfront to get the Harry Potter books published and then got 100% of the profits!
I also think the above model would be a terrible thing for most authors. It also wouldn’t serve readers very well, because many good books wouldn’t get published for lack of deep pockets on the part of authors. But it WOULD BE a truly new and different model for getting published.
Vanity/subsidy publishing, by contrast, is a model as old as the hills and slapping Harlequin’s imprimatur on it doesn’t it better for authors, especially for those who are hoping to make writing their careers. And RWA/MWA/SFWA are absolutely justified in their actions, not because their members aren’t smart enough to figure out that this model is bad for them, but because they are organizations whose authors want to have careers, not hobbies.
None of this is to say that I or most authors who are vehemently opposed to Horizons would necessarily turn down a contract offer from Harlequin’s non-vanity press. I still think Harlequin is a fantastic publisher that can do great things for an author’s career. But I also think it would be inappropriate for RWA to continue offering Harlequin conference space and the opportunity to take pitches from authors because, by doing so, it would be tacitly supporting Horizons, to which it KNOWS Harlequin will be referring rejected authors. The fact that Harlequin has so closely associated itself with a publishing model that is contrary to the interests of career-minded authors is the reason its ticket was pulled.
Hi Jackie:
I hear you. I guess my feeling is, Harlequin is adding this service as an option for those authors who want it. I see it as an addition to the many services and products they already have. They are adding subsidy publishing services, I don’t see it as an attempt to bamboozle unsuspecting authors.
I’m also assuming that Harlequin is being completely upfront about what this service provides and what it costs. If that’s not the case, and if Harlequin is being vague or deceptive in marketing this new service, then I agree that they are making a big mistake.
Well, you said what I was thinking much better than I just did. Kudos for clarity.
“there’s even a blossoming mini-industry of conferences devoted to the topic”
The problem is these conferences tend to be dominated by the same circle of “consultants.” Consultants who have never actually been in the industry, understand nothing of the business, and in most cases have never actually sold a book.
Harlequin’s problem might be that they have been paying too much attention to them.
The problem is you assume the traditional publishing model is broken. I guess if this is said enough times, people believe it. But profits are up at Harlequin
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6705281.html?rssid=192
Harlequin’s parent company Torstar might be falling like lead, but traditional publishing is still going strong and still profitable.
As someone who worked hard and went through many rejections to see myself into print and adequately compensated for it, this is a slap in the face. There are no easy routes to success as a writer. To encourage writers to buy in to what I worked hard to achieve will short circuit their growth as writers. For Harlequin to risk diluting their brand name is just stupid.
Trust me, Katy – the traditional publishing model (big advances, lots of titles being published and only blockbusters making back their investment, huge returns) that model is broken. It doesn’t work, and overall it’s not profitable (if you pay attention to the publishing trade news, you should be aware of the fact that many, many people in publishing have lost their jobs, many houses have closed, many bookstores have closed, and this pattern is continuing).
The subsidy publishing partnership with ASI that Harlequin and others have entered into is not a panacea – nor is anyone suggesting that it would or should take the place of traditional publishing. What it can possibly do is provide an additional source of potential revenue to publishers who are, for the most part, facing dire financial situations, and provide those authors who wish to utilize those services (for whatever reason) the option of going with a company that has a good business reputation and will provide the services it has agreed to provide to the author.
In what I consider to be a huge irony, I absolutely do not believe that most authors should pursue the subsidy publishing model. Having briefly worked at a subsidy publishing company, I can also say that I would not wish that experience on my worst enemy. However, I do believe that Harlequin and any other publisher should be able to explore new revenue streams by offering services to authors who wish to go that route, as long as they are very clear and upfront about what those paying authors are getting for their money.
My biggest problem continues to be that while the van/sub publishing model may work for a very select few, those in niche markets with built in platform and readership, the fact remains that for the other 99.5% will never sell enough copies to recoup their investment. The market can’t support the number of books out there now. Readers will continue to use channels that maximize their opportunity to find quality stories they want to read. Do these van/sub companies inform their potential clients that the odds of getting their money back will be next to none? Not on your life. They are milking the “changes in the industry” to generate a false sense of greater hope in writers that they could achieve success. Perhaps down the road, things will change such that paying to publish is actually a worthwhile risk. Currently that isn’t the case, and aspiring authors need to be fully aware and informed about the current realities of things.
The trouble with publishing trade news is that Bad news is always more important and receives more notice than good news. All companies go through good and bad periods. When they turn around and start putting back on those extra positions the “news” will slip right buy.
I worked at a newspaper for enough years to know that if I based my view of the world based on the news articles I’d really think the world was going to hell in a hand basket.
But come on, Harlequin’s venture is exploitive and misleading. $20,000 for a Hollywood book trailer???
I bet Dan Brown would never pay that much for a book trailer–Oh wait! Hollywood is paying him to produce a 90 minute trailer.
I’m heading out for the day, but wanted to respond to Katy. Kat is correct. Big publishing is in trouble, despite some bright spots. Harlequin, for example, is doing pretty good, though their parent company isn’t. It isn’t doom and gloom, it’s reality. Smart publishers are not sitting in a room trying to figure out how to rip off authors — they’re trying to figure out how to save their businesses.
Though, by Hollywood standards (and my misspent career forced me to look deep and long at every cost and revenue line item associated with motion pictures), $20,000 for a trailer is dirt cheap . Would I pay that for a *book* trailer? Since I’m not convinced they do anything to sell books, no. Others have different opinions.
As Jim (and everyone) keeps saying, aspiring authors need to be educated about all risks and opportunities. It’s your career, your goals are personal to you.
As an author who has spent years in the industry, mostly in the middle, I can say that yes, indeed, publishing is changing. But I have to disagree with Kat in too many areas to count. I’ll focus on one; the concept that vanity press has anything to do with changing the current publishing model for anybody but the people who run those vanity houses. If we are about to change, it needs to be in the area of getting more people to read, putting the works out into new media and marketing them to an audience that isn’t as familiar with the product. It isn’t feeding on the very people who produce the product.
I agree with Laura Kinsale. There isn’t anything new about what Harlequin is doing. I’ve been around, and I’ve seen vanity presses galore. I’ve seen how easily desperate writers are to have someone say their work is good enough to publish no matter what it takes. I’ve seen them drop thousands on editing services that in the end do no good except to line the pockets of the vanity press. I also saw that until they were called to task, Harlequin failed to differentiate the vanity side of its practice from the mass market side with the imprint that has worldwide recognition as a leader in the industry. I am seeing that the editors of the worldwide imprint are now required to include in their rejection letters an offer for for-money editorial services that, no matter how Harlequin wants to claim is separate, badly blurs the line between a paying house and a pay-for house.
Yes, authors organizations have to catch up. But authors’ organizations also have to keep the best interest of the authors at heart, and that includes calling out deceptive practices. These organizations have at their core the protection of the artist, without whom there would be no product.
Yes, publishing is changing. But please don’t try and convince me that the only way to survive is to eat its young. There are no new paradigms of sales produced by vanity press. In the twenty-plus years I’ve been in the industry I can’t remember one person making a serious contribution to the best-seller lists by being edited by or published by a vanity press. All I’ve these authors achieve is a few books for friends or to sell at the back of book fairs, and a sizable donation to the vanity press who encourages them.
After reading more of the comments, I am going to jump back in here and make an observation from a different point of view than my last comment.
I will probably get some hate mail from this one, but let’s look at the self pub industry a little differently here:
As a bookstore manager, I can’t tell you how many people have brought me books, people I know and people I’ve never met before the day they hand me their book. These people bring me their self-pubbed books and want me to sell them in the store- and 99.9% of the time, I refuse to do so. Why?
In a recent survey of Americans (sorry I don’t have the study right in front of me), about 80% of Americans say that one day, they would like to write a book. That’s roughly 240 million people who want to write a book. Only an extremely small percentage actually do (about 200,000 to 240,000 books are published each year in the United States, quite a number by repeat authors).
There are a variety of reasons that so “few” books (a relative term) are published each year. From my experience having self-pubbed books being brought to me for placement in my store, many, many of these authors shouldn’t have wasted their money in the first place. The books are BAD. They are poorly written, they are self edited, the covers are self-designed, the subjects have already had their 15 minutes and the sun has already set on that issue, etc.
Out of every 100 books brought to me for placement in my store, I MIGHT actually select ONE to put on the shelves. Even then, they sell poorly.
The secondary problem is, many of these self-pubbed authors, once they place a book in my store, or other stores, then expect the bookstore and booksellers to promote the book for them, or, now that it is in a store, it will sell itself with its own brilliant premise, or story, or characters, etc. Unless I REALLY like your book, it is not my job to promote it to potential buyers. I have other books I like to share with my customers.
Publishers, in this case I’m talking about traditional model publishing houses, act as gatekeepers (along with agents) of the written word. Are they always right? By no means. I do know several self-pubbed authors who went on to have successful writing careers, eventually being picked up by traditional publishing houses. But, there is a reason that these traditional publishers and agents pass on so many manuscripts- the publisher or agent needs to make money by selling books that people will buy, enjoy, and then come back for more from that author. If they published every piece of garbage that came their way, they would be out of business very quickly.
Enter the vanity presses. They know there are people out there that really, really want to be published, that want to get their voice out there, but have been turned down by the traditional model. They make money by charging for every service they provide. The more they do for an author, the more they charge. But, remember, it is a business, they are trying to cover their costs, just in a different way (this is assuming the vanity press is acting honestly, there are those that don’t).
Today, if a person wants to be published, there is almost no reason they can’t be, but beware. If traditional publishing model won’t pick up your book, edit it, fact check it, do the layout, design the covers, in other words, if they won’t put up their own money to publish your book, it may be for a reason. If that’s the case, don’t give up the dream, but just think long and hard about the next step. Is the book really that good, or is that just the voice in your head and your friends and family speaking? Can it be professionally edited to give it a better reception? Or, is it time to put that book aside for awhile and try a new one? Or, is it time to say, “I gave it the old college try, now it’s time to get back to what I’m really good at?”
“Trust me, Katy – the traditional publishing model (big advances, lots of titles being published and only blockbusters making back their investment, huge returns) that model is broken.”
It is certainly true that publishers have relied on blockbusters to make the biggest chunk of their profits. This doesn’t, however, mean that a book must be a bestseller to break even or even make a profit. That said, it’s certainly true that not all books earn back their investment. Still, this notion that authors are routinely paid huge sums of money as advances on books that by and large lose money, and are therefore whistling their way down easy street to deposit their checks while publishing houses circle the drain is just silly. The percentage of authors who are published by major New York houses who can actually make a living at it is tiny. I’d hazard a guess that the majority of writers aren’t getting more than $15k per book, and a sizable proportion of those are getting LESS than $10k. (Mine was.)
Yes, there are authors who are getting six- and seven-figure advances on one book. But generally, they are also authors who’ve proven their books are worth that much. Dan Brown’s publishing house didn’t blindly pay him seven figures for his latest book; not only that, but they knew if they didn’t pay that much, another house would. And while it does appear Audrey Niffenegger was vastly overpaid for her lastest book, the publisher didn’t stake that kind of money on it without reason. They took an educated risk and it looks like it’s not going to pay off. But no one FORCED the publisher to overpay; they could have passed on the book.
(Seems a little ironic, doesn’t it, that folks are defending vanity/subsidy publishing on the grounds that no one’s forced into it, then turn around and say publishers have no choice BUT to do it because they’re being forced to by all those bad authors demanding fistfuls of cash upfront? If publishers weren’t willing to pay those exorbitant sums, they wouldn’t. Period.)
More to the point, the writers’ organizations aren’t all over this because Harlequin decided to stop paying huge advances. Those organizations have very modest standards for upfront payment to authors–RWA’s is a mere $1,000 per book. If the major NY publishers are indeed in so much fiscal trouble that they cannot afford to meet that very modest minimum to retain their good standing with RWA…well, yeah, we’re in for a paradigm shift like the one I suggested earlier where the ONLY books that get published are those for which the writer pays the freight. And if that happens, the major publishers are going to be out of business anyway, because savvy authors won’t take that kind of risk without being sure they’re the ones who get the lion’s share of the profits, and there won’t be very many authors who’ll be able to afford to do it anyway. (Authors who want to make a career of writing generally aren’t known for having a lot of money to throw around as it is.)
So, the thing is, Harlequin isn’t adopting this model as a REPLACEMENT for the advance/blockbuster sales paradigm of earning a profit. Realistically, the number of people who will pay for their book to be published throught Horizons isn’t going to be anywhere near big enough to offset even the modest advances paid to authors in their category programs. But just because very few people are going to be suckered into it doesn’t make it something that professional writer’s organizations should put themselves into the position of appearing to endorse.
I find it really telling that in order to defend this strategy, people have to pull out all kind of strawman arguments, like “Publishers can’t pay big advances and rely on blockbusters anymore.” That may be true, but that doesn’t make subsidy publishing “the answer.” The answer is more likely to be any combination of: 1) Offering advances more commensurate with a book’s likely performance; 2) Publishing fewer books overall, so each book has a better chance to perform well (again, being done); 3) Improving the quality of the books they are publishing (kind of goes with #2); 4) Getting out ahead of the digital market instead of playing catch-up and/or hoping it will just go away. There may be other options as well, but those seem like the biggies to me. And, I think publishers are already doing most of them (#4 being the major houses’ biggest failing, IMO).
I want to add that I still haven’t seen anyone–even those who are most stringent in defending this–explain for WHOM Horizons would be a good value. Is there ANYONE for whom Horizons would represent the best value, quality, and service in subsidy publishing over any number of other options, including going directly to ASI? If this model really is the future of publishing, I doubt many publishing houses will last long. Especially since within a generation, the whole “Oooh, shiny, my book is real because it’s in print!” thing will be gone, and everyone will be able to publish digitally at a fraction of the prices even the cheapest vanity presses are charging.
[...] Publishers: As Harlequin is Finding Out – Sometimes You Can’t Win For Losing A different perspective on the issue. [...]
I’m a bit late to the game in commenting, but I’ll start simply: Great post.
The issue I see with much of this is that an author should be an author – not a jack-of-all-trades. By putting the burden on the writer to be a publicist, marketer, and technologist you’re vastly slimming down your market of good authors.
I’m sure there are some amazing authors that barely know how to deal with the squiggly lines in word (or turn them off), but are amazing writers. Traditional publishing routes are necessary and good for those authors.
It is a positive that people are trying new things and that options are available.
-Nick
[...] Grayson and Jennifer Jackson offered their opinion, as did editors like one from Juno Books. Business analysts weighed in, one of them stating that publishing houses need to adopt models like this or risk going [...]
[...] a self-publishing partnership with Author Solutions, has raised the ire of authors, agents, book bloggers, and industry [...]
[...] as well as this post and conversation at Follow The Reader about self-publishing and subsidy publishing. Aspiring writers in particular [...]
[...] calls her an Independent Publishing voice. In her post from last Friday, she points out that Harlequin may not have been as wrong as it first appears. In essence, it’s not just romance publishers who are hearing the drums of extinction [...]
[...] Publishers: As Harlequin is Finding Out [...]