RWA President Pershing Responds
Thank you, Deidre, for your thoughts on how RWA might improve. And thank you, Kristen, for inviting me to answer some of Deidre’s points on this chapter’s web site.
- RWA President, Diane Pershing
Here is the actual story: Out of 400 workshop proposals this year, only two focused on digital publishing; one was deemed by the Workshop Committee to not be of the caliber needed, the other was by Deidre’s publisher, Samhain, which is not on the list of RWA Eligible Publishers (From RWA’s Policy and Procedure Manual, section 1.17. “Eligible Publisher” means a romance publisher that has verified to RWA in a form acceptable to RWA, that it: …..(3) provides advances of at least $1,000 for all books; and (4) pays all authors participating in an anthology an advance of at least $500). RWA policy prohibits a non-Eligible publisher from offering a workshop.
There is, however, a history of RWA attempting to present digital publishing information at conference: Last year, RWA brought in a highly qualified speaker, Michael Smith, Executive Director of the International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) to speak at the PRO Retreat. The attendance at this session was extremely low. It is impossible to justify the expense of providing qualified speakers if members aren’t interested in attending the sessions. This year, RWA has asked a literary attorney to hold a session on “What Authors Should Know About Their Digital Rights.” The staff has not yet received a response. They are, however, still trying to put together a panel on digital publishing, but only if it can offer in-depth and unbiased information.
Deidre writes: << I would also like to note that in Diane Pershing’s recent RWR letter she stated that RWA must consider the needs of all its members. I find that logic flawed because by insisting that e-published authors aren’t legitimate, haven’t achieved a recognizable benchmark—and that their publishers aren’t legitimate either—RWA is by default only representing the needs of a portion of the membership. No wonder valuable, talented members are leaving the organization or discussing doing so.>>
This is upside-down logic. E-published authors are only one segment of RWA’s 10,000-member population. What of the huge majority that constitutes the rest of the membership? I stand by my original assertion that by governing in the interest of all its members and not the few, RWA is doing its fiduciary duty. As for members leaving and/or threatening to leave, I have been in RWA for 19 years and on the board for five. Each year members threaten to leave because they are displeased with something. Some do; most don’t. No organization can make everyone happy, but RWA goes on, no matter what.
About my June column: I wrote it in the spirit of offering information on how the board makes decisions, not ammunition in a war of words. I have received quite a lot of support for it, from members both unpublished, print-published and even digitally published, and from the industry itself. Obviously that was not the opinion of some, who felt attacked. It’s always amazing how two, three, or four people can see the same words strung together and come away with totally different reactions. As I wrote, all of us look at any situation through our own, subjective pair of glasses. There are several pairs of glasses through which to view RWA and its attitude toward digital publishing.
Deidre wears two pair of glasses. The first point of view is that of an author whose publisher is unhappy, an author who thinks RWA is preventing her from entering the RITA contest. RWA is doing no such thing. Of 1,112 entries in this year’s RITA contest, 64 entries were published by small (non-NY) publishers. 34 of the entries were from publishers whose primary format is print. The remaining 30 entries were from publishers whose format is primarily electronic, Deidre’s publisher being one of these.
Deidre is also speaking as an agent, a successful agent who has taken on some digitally-published authors and negotiated nice contracts with print publishers for them, precisely because of the following and name recognition they achieved through digital publishing. I went to the Knight Agency Web site where recent sales and great deals for their clients are rightly trumpeted. These deals were with a number of publishers, but I didn’t see one primarily digital publisher on that list. Does she represent any authors who are remaining in the digital format and not moving over to print?
There are a number of other points of view among digitally published authors. They fall into several groups, from those who have signed with a publisher who basically runs an author mill (lots of authors signed, publisher cleans up because of quantity, authors earn out very little if anything) to the top two or three digital publishers. This group has expressed quite a variety of demands: (1) Some feel that because they have signed a book contract, they should be eligible to enter the RITA and join PAN, and they want their publisher to have a spotlight at conference. (2) Others believe everyone who has signed with a publisher should be eligible to enter the RITA, but do understand the restrictions of PAN. (3) Others want their own contest, something between the RITA and the Golden Heart. (4) Another group wants to be able to enter the Golden Heart because they are not yet eligible for PAN. (5) And still others totally support the point of view that they see themselves as having achieved a certain rung up on a ladder, with more rungs to climb. They see their careers in digital publishing as a stepping stone, a way to gather experience and readership while they wait for the rewards at the top of the ladder.
Many voices, many views. The board will be discussing all of this at the board table in July, by the way, and members are, as always, invited to drop in and observe the meeting.
Here’s another pair of glasses: The newer members, not yet PRO, but working on their craft and trying to learn all they can about the industry. And how about the unpublished-but-working-on-it PRO members who have chosen not to go the digital route and keep submitting to print publishers, as they feel that is their best chance of earning good money? Lastly, there are PAN members who have been print-published recently or for years, who like their “advance-paying/lower royalty rate” choice, who look at the business model of “no advance/high royalty rate,” and have trouble understanding why anyone would gamble that way with a book that took so much time and effort.
10,000 members, all with different, subjective points of view. RWA represents them all.
Deidre writes: <<Incidentally, remember that an advance is against royalties, a prepayment of income that will flow to the author. It’s not a flat payment that implies the promise of promotion or publicity. It is money the publisher is largely confident they will recoup from sales, therefore it represents very little risk.>>
Actually, it implies that the publisher believes enough in the book that it is sure it will recoup its investment. When there is no investment, that phrase, “a prepayment of income that will flow to the author,” is invalidated. Will any income flow to the author? Ever? An advance is a guarantee that, no matter what happens with the book, there will be payment to the author for her work.
Deidre writes: << RWA’s current stance on e-books is that a publisher must offer at least a $1,000 advance in order to qualify for legitimacy.>>
What is meant by “legitimacy?” Members in PAN? Since July 1, 2007 RWA has added 316 new members to PAN. 75 authors’ qualifying titles were published by small, non-NY publishing companies. 19 of the 75 qualified with books by publishers whose primary form of publication is print. Of the remaining 56, 37 qualified with books published by either Samhain, Loose ID, or Ellora’s Cave, which leaves a total of 19 authors who qualified for PAN with other electronic presses. Does legitimacy mean number of entries in the RITA contest? See above for stats on that.
Is Deidre again talking about that comped workshop space at conference? I am curious as to why digitally published authors fight so hard for their publishers’ rights, but fight so little for their own. But let’s go back to that conference again.
There are hundreds of publishers whose business model is to make money by signing many authors and selling small quantities of each book. This model does not produce significant income for any author. There are other publishers who do a much better job with regard to acquiring and editing the books, but publish almost exclusively in electronic format. For every author who does well under the “no advance/higher royalty rate” business plan, there are many more who earn very little money because of the limited distribution channels and lack of impulse buys.
All digital publishers are not created equal. As recently as 2007, one start-up digital publisher filed for bankruptcy after acquiring the works of an estimated 154 RWA members, and in 2006, two individuals completely unknown to RWA set up a table near registration and started pitching their publishing company to RWA conference attendees. Authors were harmed by the actions of both companies. In response, RWA consulted with its attorneys, and RWA’s Executive Director spent hours corresponding with authors and publishers in hopes of having rights reverted to authors.
Whether intended or not, publishers receive tacit endorsement by being featured at RWA’s conference. Most conference attendees expect RWA to help them navigate the path to publication. RWA has limited workshop space available and therefore must limit free workshop space and access to RWA members at appointments to those publishers that offer a minimum advance for every author. It is the only means of assuring every single one of the authors will realize income from signing with that publisher. RWA’s mission and tax-exempt purpose relate to the business of writing, i.e. the commercial exploitation of an author’s intellectual property. Why would an organization that advocates for authors’ careers encourage its members to relinquish rights without minimum compensation? I must also wonder why an agent would support the practice.
No publisher is banned from conference. Those who cannot offer the basic minimum to meet RWA standards to all authors may still attend. However, they must pay the registration fee and make their own arrangements for space to meet with authors.
Deidre writes: << For instance, HarperStudio has created an initiative whereby authors will forego advances and traditional royalties in favor of a fifty-fifty profit share. No advance, no returns, and a larger share of royalties… perhaps RWA will soon feel the need to denounce Harper Collins.>>
Nope, not denouncing Harper Collins at all, but consider the authors they will be asking to join this initiative—established print authors with reputation and readership. A no-advance model, even a 50-50 model will always benefit those at the top. Brad Pitt can work for no upfront money and accept a nice piece of the net profits of his next film, but what about the actor in the same film with three lines? He’s still considered a pro, has his SAG card. Is he to work for no money? How will he live? After all the percentages have been counted, he has a really good chance of getting nothing at all.
What does RWA do with all of the authors not at the top of the ladder, who are not published by the top two or three digital publishers? For authors who have slaved away for years on their books and then sold them to digital publishers and who get nearly no recognition, sales or financial return, who else will speak for them if RWA does not?
Deidre writes: <<RWA’s position makes me wonder if they’re unaware that New York publishers are now paying 1/3 of the “advance” upon publication? Or sometimes even later than that, since with some hard cover contracts, that last 1/3 or ¼ isn’t paid until a year after publication? And sometimes it’s not even until the paperback version is published? To translate, the traditional definition of an “advance” has changed so drastically that it amazes me that RWA would continue to use it as the only measure of validity.>>
Actually, the RWA board’s published members have not experienced receiving any part of their advance a year *after* publication, but thank you, Deidre, for bringing it to the board’s attention. The office will follow up on this. Even so, most career-focused authors have books in various stages of completion and publication, so there is a steady flow of money to them. And whenever the money does get there, there will be money, in the thousands of dollars. It is guaranteed. Can the same be said for the digital model?
She writes: <<Meanwhile, let’s talk about RWA’s position that e-published authors who make more than $1,000 in royalties are a rare exception. As an agent, I have seen a fair number of statements for clients writing for Ellora’s Cave and Samhain. The majority of these writers have passed that $1000 benchmark within the first few months. I’m sure some of the smaller e-publishers sell fewer copies of titles, but lumping all e-publishers together and stating that most of their authors don’t earn $1,000 a title is misleading>>
Deidre wants Ellora’s Cave and Samhain to be treated differently, their authors treated differently, because many may actually be earning money with this business model (although, from the new PAN applications, it doesn’t seem that the “majority” of authors at either publisher is doing as well as Deidre claims). She is arguing for an exception to be made for these two publishers, one of which happens to be hers. And you know what? If I wrote for either house I would most likely feel the same way. But if many are already eligible for PAN and many can enter the RITA, what are we talking about? That “legitimacy” again? That comped workshop space at conference?
Here’s where I don the pair of glasses of president of RWA, which offers a different point of view. RWA issues a challenge to Ellora’s Cave and Samhain: Pay your authors a minimum $1000 advance against royalties. If they’re already doing so well, you will lose nothing. You will be showing good faith in the authors you sign that you believe in them and their potential. And Romance Writers of America will be thrilled to accept Samhain’s digital workshop proposal for next year and offer comped workshop space and editor appointments for both publishers—and any others who accept this challenge—at next year’s conference in Nashville.
Deidre writes: <<If RWA truly wants to protect authors, then it’s time to join the 21st century, where the rules of the digital market are changing daily>> and <<RWA, protect your membership by becoming innovative and fully educated about the changing face of digital publishing.>>
Actually, RWA is quite happily ensconced in the 21st century. Everyone on the board of directors studies the market, reads online and print journals. RWA’s staff keeps the board apprised of everything in the industry that’s happening on a regular basis, including in the digital market. Decisions are based not on a market that’s “changing daily,” but on the most reliable information, supported by facts, rather than anecdote.
Up until a few years ago, print publishing was pretty much the only game in town. RWA has adapted to the rise of digital publishing in a steady and, yes, careful manner (broadening PAN and RITA entry requirements, all First Sales reported in the RWR, etc.); it is not adapting quickly enough for some, but RWA does not and should not ever move more quickly than is prudent. With any proposed change, it is the responsibility of the board and staff to gather input and data from a variety of sources, after which there are task forces and/or committees formed to study the results and make suggestions. These suggestions are discussed and debated at the board table for hours, passed on to RWA’s lawyer if necessary, checked against Bylaws and the Policy and Procedure Manual, all before any final decision can be made. A board of directors has a fiduciary duty to act in what it believes is the best interest of the organization.
The Association of American Publishers estimates total Net Sales for all books in 2008 at $24.3 billion. That study also indicates that e-book sales increased by 68.4%. There is no doubt that the growth is impressive. However, the study also shows that, even though the segment is growing rapidly, it still represents less than 2% ($113 million) of total book sales, in all categories. http://www.publishers.org/main/IndustryStats/documents/S12008Final.pdf.
RWA is aware that technology will make the future of publishing more and more dependent on the digital model; not only does it conserve paper and is more portable, but younger readers, used to cell phone and lap tops and every new gadget, will, as they age, bring those preferences with them. There is no doubt that we are currently and for the future in the age of electronic delivery of product. RWA is not trying to stem the tide; it is advocating for fair treatment for its members.
Calling RWA out of step with the times because it does not think the “no advance/high royalty rate” business model is fair to all its authors is a rather narrow way to define the organization. Just because something is currently popular with those who have chosen to embrace it doesn’t make it necessarily right. Or wrong, either. Time alone will tell, and, in time, RWA will make any changes necessary to further the professional interests of its members. That’s what RWA is all about.
The publishing industry is in a constant struggle to survive, authors’ numbers dip and rise and dip again; they are dropped, they are signed, and nothing is ever certain. This is why RWA must be a strong and loyal advocate for them. RWA believes it is crucial to stand firm in our conviction that an author has a right to guaranteed payment for her work.
Thank you for this chance to respond.
Diane Pershing
| President, RWA |
Date: June 19th, 2009 @ 02:51
Categories: News
but I’ve heard that the advances on the Briefs are $ 750-1000. Frankly I’d be more interested in knowing the royalty rate since I seem to remember a brouhaha over harlequin paying abysmal e-royalties a while back (and I”m talking years) 
Melissa Schroeder
I guess I would believe all of this, if RWA has not done everything they could to keep digital publishers out. From the first, the argument was money. When they realized that some pubs, EC in particular, were elgilble under their old rules, they came up with a new system, one that allows a NY publisher who gives the lowest of advances to their authors(and apparently is getting a rep for not paying on time), but keeps a different business model out. What is funny, RWA never hesitates to count EC, Samhain, Loose Id, and others in their annual sales of romance–I am sure.
I spoke last year at RWA on digital publishing(guess that slipped your mind to mention). Shelley Bradley, a long time RWA member and published author, was another of the speakers. And, OH! Angie spoke with us. So you had no problem with it last year, but this year you did. I do not work for nothing. I make five figures. There are many, many authors who don’t make that, but they did get their measley 1K advance. The Trisk episode would be forgettable, other than the fact that I stood next to a chapter president as she told Allison Kelley(and she formalized this with a letter) that Trisk had not been paying their authors. She was ignored, and I have my theories why.
I have to renew by the end of July, your comments in the last few weeks makes it very hard to renew. It isn’t that I can’t enter the Ritas(which they kept my money but apparently didn’t judge my book from what I have found out) but the attitude. Because I choose a different career path, one that has garnered an agent and a five figure income, I am treated as if I don’t belong…as if I am not wanted.
And at this point, I am thinking that paying to be part of a CLUB, because that is what you all have made it –not a serious writers’ org, where I am not wanted, is a little hard to swallow. In these bad economic times, I tend to make smarter choices, and at the moment I have to say paying to stay a member isn’t a really smart choice.