The Digital Age and RWA: A Call for Change
Hi, Kristen Painter, ESPAN president here. After RWA president Diane Pershing’s letter in the June RWR, I had a conversation about RWA’s stance on epublishing with my good friend, talented author, and owner of The Knight Agency, Deidre Knight. She had so much wisdom and industry information to bring to the topic that I asked her to guest blog here at ESPAN. This is what she had to say…
Many of you know me as founder of the Knight Agency, which represents a powerhouse roster of bestselling authors of fiction and nonfiction. Some of you may also be familiar with my romance novels, such as the recently released RED KISS (Signet) or the e-book, BUTTERFLY TATTOO (Samhain, 4/09). Since I come from the perspective of dual publishing careers, I’d like to address some of the recent issues and discussions within RWA concerning digital publishers.
Perhaps it’s the very fact that I’ve spent the past thirteen years championing writers in a wide variety of genres, and especially those of women’s fiction and romance, that RWA’s missteps regarding e-publishing have been so frustrating to witness. That disappointment intensified recently when it became apparent that RWA had not only neglected to plan a single digital workshop for this summer’s annual convention, but had refused to allow one of the industry’s best e-publishers the chance to officially discuss their program. I believe both situations reveal that the organization is not keeping pace with current trends in the industry.
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. Never mind that many digital authors far exceed that amount in royalties, or sell more than 5,000 copies of print editions of their e-published titles. The problem with RWA’s simplistic criteria is that it ignores one crucial fact. Our industry is changing radically, with traditional publishers seeking innovative models for overhauling their distribution and content.
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 HarperCollins.
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.
I say this to counter RWA’s claim that e-publishers do not invest in or take risks on their authors because they don’t pay advances. In short, RWA dismisses e-publishers’ validity, despite the fact that they pay four times as much in royalties, simply based on the timing of their payments. 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.
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 $1,000 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. It’s like comparing royalties earned at St. Martin’s Press to those from a tiny print publisher of romances. All print publishers are not created equally any more than all digital publishers are.
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. As I write this, a new initiative between Scribd.com and Simon and Schuster was just announced, a partnership to bring digital content to members of this emerging community. Considering the priority that print publishers are obviously placing on developing digital content, for RWA to disavow e-publishers is a disservice to all their members.
RWA, protect your membership by becoming innovative and fully educated about the changing face of digital publishing. Start sending a board member to events such as the recent http://www.idpf.org/ Expo. Seek input from agents and publishers (which, to my knowledge, you have not done—at least on the digital front that we are discussing.) Create a specific board position, someone who can serve as digital liaison, much like there is a chapter liaison or PRO liaison.
I’m concerned by the emerging culture of elitism that I and many other RWA members see. RWA has drawn a line in the sand that is clearly hurtful, and serves to alienate and exclude a growing sector of their membership. The organization seems more concerned with being proven correct than in honoring the needs and feelings of an ever-expanding portion of their membership.
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.
Consider, too, that e-publishing can be a tremendous beginning point for many authors, leading to even bigger careers with mainstream publishers. Within my own 
agency, I signed on e-authors such as Rhyannon Byrd, Dakota Cassidy, and Joey Hill, and in each instance, their track record in e-book format caught New York’s attention, as did the reviews they’d earned.
Not only did I sell digitally published authors to houses such as Random House, Penguin Putnam and Harlequin, but their e-readership followed them to print, launching them with a huge built in advantage in such a tough market. In many cases, authors who begin with e-publishers choose to continue writing for those companies, even as they forge ahead with traditional New York houses. Surely, RWA can see the value in these examples, and how e-publishing could potentially benefit their members.
As a third generation entrepreneur, I’ve learned firsthand that you either change with the times by adapting to the market or you are left behind. When the automobile first came along, buggy whip manufacturers saw themselves as being in the whip business, when they should have understood that they were in the transportation business. We are now in the literary content business, and the physically published book is only one of several delivery formats, yet another “device” to hold, much like the Sony Reader, the Kindle, or your iPhone. Like the buggy whip manufacturers, RWA must modify their organizational model or be left behind…their membership along with them.
Let me end on this note: I love New York publishing. I love the people, the editors, the executives and the books these individuals create, sometimes against incredible resistance of many kinds. But to say that traditional publishing is the only legitimate model ignores the fact that even these companies are struggling —from having to drop authors and editors due to economic downturn, to contemplating new distribution models, to grappling with understanding the fast-changing world of digital publishing. If RWA’s very model of “legitimacy” wrestles to understand and adapt to these new times, then certainly RWA should follow that lead.
- Deidre Knight
Recent Comments