Skip to main content

Why don't publishers tell us what we want to know?

Just occasionally I do a post that is moaning about publishers. Now don't get me wrong, I love 'em. They're great people, and they pay the bills. But as a business, publishing is positively stone age. I've mentioned before how incredibly slow their accounting systems are. But there's another problem. The reports you receive from a publisher on your books are absolutely rubbish. They don't tell you what you want to know.

Take the absolute core piece of information. How many copies of your book have sold. Guess what? They don't tell you this. All they tell you is the net outgoing of books in the last six months. First it's not the number of books that have gone out in that period, it's the number minus any returns. Second there's no running total. The only way to figure out how many you have sold is to add up the numbers off all the separate royalty statements. If you have had a book out several years, this is a real chore.

The first thing a new publisher tends to ask is 'how many copies did your last book sell?' Honest answer: I haven't a clue, because publishers don't tell you. Now if you speak to your editor (s)he can push a couple of buttons and tell you how many have sold in total, or in the last week instantly. They just don't bother to pass this on to the author, which I think once more reflects the rather Victorian attitude they have to records and book-keeping from the author-facing viewpoint.

Those total numbers will probably come to a shock to many people. According to Bubblecow, seven of the 20 titles on the long list for the Orange prize for Fiction sold less than 1,000 copies in the year (and most fiction sales plummet after the first year). We're talking literally a few hundred copies of many books. It's painful, but still something authors should have a clearer picture of.

There's the upside too. If you have a book that's sold tens of thousands, it's worth celebrating. More than that, quite a lot of contracts have escalator clauses. This says that when you sell more than a certain number of copies, your percentage royalty goes up. But without a total, the author can't check this. And it's necessary because I know from experience, with the best will in the world, publishers can get this wrong.

So how about it, publishers? Why not provide your authors with some decent sales information (or even better, access to your sales system for their titles)?

Comments

  1. You're mostly right of course Brian but slightly in publishers' defence, although it's Bookscan figures that tell you exactly how many copies a book has sold to readers, authors are paid on the basis of net sales made to bookshops.

    Speaking for Icon, we're very happy to share Bookscan figures with any of our authors interested to know. But those figures will only bear a rough relation to what they are paid for (not least as Bookscan only covers the UK and Ireland).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks to the excellent Icon Publishing for that.

    I accept there is no conspiracy of silence - my editors are always happy to tell me figures, it's just it would be nice to be provided these as a matter of course.

    I don't know if I am talking Bookscan figures. Most of the publishers I deal with seem to have in-house sales systems where they can pull up a title and see just how it's doing over it's lifetime. Would that be based on Bookscan? There must be true total figures somewhere so the publisher can calculate whether an escalator has been triggered, though as I mentioned, in my case, at least once, the publisher has got this wrong - so perhaps it is back-of-a-fag-packet stuff?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Excellent post, I think that writers are starting to demand more transparency from publishers, hopefully it will come.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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