Robert Miller is one of the most successful publishers in recent history. Willing to take big risks, he made hits out of a wide range of titles while the head of Hyperion. But in recent years, he's led HarperStudio, the conglomerate's new imprint that offers authors joint-venture deals in which advances are low and profits, after costs, are split evenly between publisher and author.
As admirable as this new venture is, the 50/50 split isn't actually that much better for most authors. And Miller has shown a willingness (or an old habit) to throw money around, despite his mission statement for low- or no-advance deals. Nonetheless, HarperStudio is a step in the right direction.
As part of that journey, Miller posts occasionally on HarperStudio's blog.
In the waning hours of last year, Miller posted his 10 predictions about the future of publishing. Most were astute and sensible, starting with: 1) overhead reductions at the big houses will lead to mergers with three of the big six left in the end; 2) publishers will drastically reduce title count; and 3) new writers will suffer most from that reduction; 4) meanwhile, advances will go up for name authors and down for everyone else.
But there was one that seemed ... well, optimistic. The trend strikes me as wishful thinking but the counter-trend is where the mischief lies:
Trend: Fewer and fewer books will be sold to publishers at "auction," and that practice will disappear completely within five years, as more and more publishers realize that the "winner" in such auctions"”the publisher willing to pay more to acquire a book than any of their competitors"”is often actually the loser in the end. Sales will be made either by brand-name authors to their previous publishing company or by new authors to carefully chosen editors with strong reputations. Counter trend: Instead of auctions for the highest advance, there will be auctions in which a basic advance is established by the agent, with the auction winner being the publisher who bids the most in marketing committed to the book.
Want to reply to a comment? Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
Aw, c'mon, Bob. You made a $1m commitment to publish 10 books with Vaynerchuk. Here's the announcement from Publishersmarketplace.com to refresh your recollection:
Wine Library creator Gary Vaynerchuk's CRUSH IT! Turn Your Passion into Profits in a Digital World, the first in a ten-book deal, to Bob Miller at Harper Studio, in a major deal, for approximately $1 million.
I'm happy to give you a choice:
1) You paid $1m for the series and you're a brilliant publisher. I'm guessing you sold enough copies of the first book to cover the $1m if the 10 advances are jointly accounted. That means you'll publish any future books for no advance and generate higher profits.
2) You remain on the hook for the other 9 advances totaling $900,000 and have issued Vaynerchuk a substantial check for his 50% share of the profits in excess of the cost of publishing and the $100,000 advance. That would mean you're at risk of paying Vaynerchuk far more than $1 million and you're still at risk as you try to maintain momentum through the rest of series.
Either one is fine with me.
I'm glad to hear that I'm one of the "most successful publishers in recent history," but surprised to hear that I have "shown a willingness (or an old habit) to throw money around." What is this based on, exactly? HarperStudio has acquired more than sixty books so far, but we have yet to spend more than $100,000 for any one of them, and we've spent less than that on most.
I was also surprised to hear that "Miller is saying that authors should pay for their own marketing by taking lower advances." Really? Where did I say that? I was predicting that some authors--the ones who might not command big advances--might decide to force publishers to compete on the basis of marketing commitments. This could be a way to address the frustration many authors feel when they make the sale, but are then disappointed by the publication itself. Why not make the publication an element of the deal, and not focus only on the advance?
The self-publishing hybrid suggested by Marion Maneker here is intriguing, but doesn't that model assume a much larger expenditure by the author? How many authors can afford to pay for their publication? Those who can do so certainly deserve more than 50% of the profits. May the Gods of Publishing smile upon them...
Read Full Article »