posted
You're welcome, Matt Lust, but I don't know how accurate my guess is. It's actually based on Sturgeon's Law (named for science fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon) which says (more or less) that 90% of everything is dreck.
So only 10% of every 100 books make money and only 10% of the ones that make money do better than break even.
I have heard that the average annual income of all writers who make any money at all from their writing is less than $10,000. So when you consider how many best-selling writers there are out there, the vast majority of writers who even make money don't make enough to live on.
posted
With the mention of Miss Snark, I might point out that the Snark blog has come to an end. Sad, but true. She is leaving the Snarkives up for people to peruse, but she has retired the blog in favor of her gin pail and taking Killer Yap for walkies to hunt down malicious squirrels. http://misssnark.blogspot.com/Posts: 2026 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the writer or for the publisher? I can't assess how much I've spent on my stuff, much less what it's actually worth. As for publishers...well, I suspect the big publishers eventually make back their costs on nearly everything they publish. (I have no hard data on this, but suspect book accounting resembles Hollywood movie accounting.)
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Say 100 fiction works were released today all basically costing the same. Would, as Kathleen suggests, only 10 books "earn out" with the other 90 simply fading into the nether realms of one and done (printing run) or what not?
I really know nothing about the publishing industry though the aforementioned Miss Snark's blog is an absolutely fascinating artifact of human communication.
posted
I have read in several places that the big problem is that publishers will budget to publish and distribute but assign almost nothing to promote. So either the book sells itself through word of mouth or it quickly dies once its off the front rack. Because of this the author has to step in and help. First he has to pay close attention to realist reviews to tell if the book is well recieved. If generally not, then let it die. No clever actor ever promotes a bad movie because it can ruin a career. (and they all make bad movies once in a while) If the book is well recieved then the author needs to be prepared to travel and promote. Visit the big book stores, offer to do signings, offer to do local radio call-ins, whatever you can think of. Buy advertising space in relevent magazines, buy movie theater advertizing (the slides they show while you wait for the movie to start) etc. MARKETING IS EVERYTHING.... EVERYTHING. Anybody who has ever tried to sell a product will tell this is true. You must get your target audiances attention...or no sale my friend. Once you are well known and trusted then the publisher will do all this for you because its throwing good money after good money and that is good business.
Thats my two cents (the average budget a publisher assigns a new author)
posted
I still wonder whether the publisher loses money on the other ninety percent. Publishing is a screwy industry. How many other industries send their stock-in-trade out to their dealers at a discount, and then give refunds by the mere return of a book cover?
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No other industries do that and some people think that publishers should stop doing it, too. I believe publishers come out ahead because of their best-sellers (which make enough money for them to cover any losses on other books--which they don't invest that much money in in the first place).
What is really "creative" as far as money making goes is how the movie industry deals with losses. From what I understand, they do something they call "joint accounting" where they combine the costs and earnings of their blockbusters with that of their losers in such a way that they come out with zero (or even negative) profit and so don't have to pay anything to anyone who is supposed to get a share of profits on any one film.
So, if you ever get a chance to earn money on a film (because it's based on something you wrote maybe), do not ask for a share in the profits. Either take a lump sum up front, or ask for a share of the box office take (which they will never give you, but you can ask).
posted
I read a book (I forget the title) about the Art Buchwald lawsuit over Eddie Murphy's "Coming to America." In the course of said lawsuit, the arcane accounting procedures of latter-day Hollywood came under scrutiny, maybe for the first time in public. I'm given to understand that (a) movies that make hundreds of millions gross actually show up as a loss on the ledgers, (b) so much "overhead" is chalked up to each picture that the studios themselves never lose any money on each picture, and (c) a number of conglomerates acquired movie studios, and wound up selling off everything except the movie studio---that's how profitable the business actually is.
"Getting it upfront" seems like sound business practice where Hollywood is concerned. I hope the publishing industry doesn't work that way---but I have my doubts about it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
