Mike Shatzkin writes about how writers shouldn't oppose agency pricing.
First, I have a hard time agreeing with Shatzkin's "union" metaphor. Writers aren't paying "union dues". That 15% is compensation earned by the agent for brokering the deal. The writer doesn't pay a dime--the agent works for the writer.
"It will be easier for authors (through agents) in the future to improve the split than it would be for the publishers to raise prices in the future to get authors more money."
I agree--if the split for eBook royalties were fair for the authors, then yes, the author would make more money. But why wait for the future? Why aren't agents working NOW for their writers to get a fair return?
"But writers will also make less money when there is less to divide, not more. All writers, whether they’re among the fortunate ones that have a publisher pushing them or whether they’re trying to do it themselves, should be grateful that publishers are doing their damnedest to maintain prices and the perception of value for writers’ work."
Sorry, the writers should be thanking the general public for taking the risk the publishers won't. The whole perception that the publisher is establishing the value just points back to the Myth of the Gatekeeper.
The only time I think about the publisher's price is when the eBook costs more than the paperback. That really burns me up. The costs of a printed book are acceptable knowing that the physical item incurs costs--paper, manufacturing, shipping, warehousing, distributing, overhead. The digital format costs labor and overhead. And that's all. To protest that there are more costs is delusional.
The only time I think about the value a publisher brings to a book I'm considering purchasing is where I can buy it; can I get it at my local store? Oh, wait. They're closing. They never have stock. They don't have the backlist titles I want. They're selling eReaders now instead of paper books. Huh.
No wonder Amazon is growing.
Once upon a time, the "brand" of the publishers was clear. Editorial direction was cleaner. But not any more. I don't know one reader who complains about a "brand". They buy the author they like regardless of the publisher. I don't think Stephen King lost fans just because he went from Penguin/Viking to Simon & Schuster. I bet most of them didn't even know it happened.
Echo chamber. We talk a lot about the industry, and Shatzkin is a smart guy, but the majority of readers don't even know or care that there's a change happening. If we stepped outside and talked to people who just read books (don't write, don't publish, don't edit), all they care about is whether they can find what they like at a price they can live with. At the end of the day, it still boils down to writers reaching readers who will pay. If the publishers and bookstores continue to drag their feet, the writers and their audience will go around them.
Comments