Skip to main content

It's PLR time (fa, la, la)

This is the time when authors in the UK have a little spring in their step, even if spring hasn't managed to shift the snow. It's PLR time. PLR stands for Public Lending Right - it's a nifty little idea to reward authors for books they don't get much income from otherwise: borrowings from libraries.

The idea is simple - the PLR people take a sample from a range of libraries and scale this up for the country. Then on this level of borrowings, they award the author 5.98p per borrowing, up to a maximum of £6,600.

The PLR process provides some interesting statistics. Payments were made to 23,773 authors, while another 12,158 were registered but didn't earn enough to get paid. Of those who did get the dosh the majority - 17,819 were in the bottom £1-100 band. A lonely 232 had so many sales that they hit the maximum limit.

I'm always fascinated that the books that did best in the shops aren't always the ones that have the most borrowings. My best-selling book so far, A Brief History of Infinity does do reasonably well with 585 loans last year, and though I would expect it to be beaten by The Global Warming Survival Kit (966 loans), which hasn't had a chance to catch up on sales yet, it is also hammered by Instant Stress Management (808) and even Instant Interviewing (589), which frankly didn't sell well at all.

If you're an author with books published in the UK and aren't registered for PLR, do it now at their website! It doesn't cost anything, it has the potential to be a little bit of unexpected income (even if it's just at a 'buy an ice-cream' level) - and there's something of a rosy glow to be gained at the thought of those real (if statistical) people taking your book off the shelves in the library.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...