The RWA Publishers Scandal
Posted by CM under Romancery on Tue 17 Jul 2007
don’t have a dog in this race. At this point, I am (very optimistically) hoping that when my book is finished and revised and polished, that I will one day be able to sell it–or another book–to a New York publishing house. I’m personally not interested in epublishing at this point for a number of reasons. Maybe that will change once I have a couple hundred rejections under my belt.
That doesn’t mean that I look down on epublishing and epublications; of course I don’t. I’ve read wonderful e-books, and plan to read more of them. And I think that the future of romance–the future of all mass-market publication–is in epublishing. Any publisher who can’t pick up that baton will miss out, eventually.
Which is why I’m so baffled by the recent Board decision. Truth be told, I don’t understand it. The recent Board decision, if you haven’t seen it, contains the following definition:
A Subsidy Publisher or Vanity Publisher means any publisher that publishes books in which the author participates in the cost of production or distribution in any manner, including publisher assessment of a fee or other costs for editing and/or distribution. This definition includes . . . publishers whose primary means of offering books for sale is through a publisher-generated Web site.
Okay. Much of the definition (the parts I’ve excised) I’m perfectly fine with. I don’t understand two things, though. First, I don’t understand why offering books through a publisher-generated website means that the “author participates in the cost of production or distribution in any manner.”
Second, and more importantly, I don’t understand why RWA’s main argument from the AGM (from all reports) is to stand behind a definition given by a lawyer. That just flat doesn’t make sense. Lawyers serve clients; not the reverse. If RWA said to its lawyer, “I’m sorry, we don’t think that Samhain is a subsidy publisher, and we don’t think we’d serve our membership by a definition that included them,” well, I think that the lawyer would be obligated to redefine the term so as to leave out Samhain–or Ellora’s Cave–or any of the other e-publishers that do legitimate business. I mean, let’s face the facts here. This is a legal document we’re talking about. And as in all legal documents, parties are perfectly able to define terms when the “standard” definition ceases to work. That’s why if you pull out your insurance contract, the first words you’ll see will be definitions of “incidents” and “parties” and so forth.
All this makes me wonder: What the heck was RWA thinking? Why would they hide their decision–undoubtedly made by them, since they must have at least voted to adopt the definition, if not helped craft it themselves–behind the attorney that they hired? I’m not much of a conspiracy theorist, and so I’m sure that the Board adopted the definition either with reasons that they haven’t shared, or unthinkingly, rather than as a plot against epublishers. I’m just another person throwing my hat in, but all I can say is that I’m very, very confused.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:02 am
RE: Point 1
I think that “This Definition” refers to “Subsidy Publisher or Vanity Publisher”, not “cost of production”. Other items (such as publishers whose owners write 50% or more of the published works) have nothing to do with costs, either, which is what makes me believe that.
RE: Point 2
I absolutely agree.
The definition is unclear at best, and potentially cancels out e-pubs like Ellora’s Cave who have authors earning comfy livings. (And I know print-pub authors who are not earning comfy livings!)
Not sure how I would’ve drawn the line in the sand, but from the looks of it, either not enough thought went into the definition, or the pro-epub authors failed to vote by proxy and/or attend the AGM etc. (Or both.)
I won’t be surprised to see this issue addressed next year as well!
July 17th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Hm. The way I’m reading the definition is this:
Subsidy/Vanity Publisher = general definition. Since general definition is too gray, we clarify that S/V includes A; B; C.
The implication I’m drawing is that A, B, and C must therefore be encompassed by general definition. Which is why I think this is just a poorly drawn definition.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Given what is going on in the retail booksellers’ industry (they are sucking wind!), I think it may not be long before EVERY publisher falls into the category of offering its books for sale “primarily” through a publisher-generated website. For that reason, I’m really flabbergasted by the inclusion of this clause in the definition of vanity/subsidy publishers, since means of distribution is not in any way related to the author sharing in the cost of publication or distribution and it’s the sharing of costs that, in my mind, make the publisher a vanity or subsidy publisher.
Now, that doesn’t mean there couldn’t be a category of publisher somewhere in the middle (a fly-by-night type of epress that just publishes everything it gets and is in no way selective and spends no time/money on editing/cover art/promotion). But my bet is that this is a model that burns itself out pretty quickly and almost CERTAINLY would never pay out royalties to its authors sufficient to meet the threshhold for being recognized as published authors.
Bottom line: I think this language is a mistake and I hope it will be fixed…soon.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
The language is a *huge* mistake. The advance issue, I’m sure, was to try to make publishers aware of some sort of expected standard, but the use of “primary” when that’s not, by their own arguement, what the Board meant, is just … well. It’s stupid.
And yes, hiding being the lawyer is one of the most infuriating things I’ve heard lately.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Hiding behind, rather.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
This is so confusing. I don’t understand why it’s such a big deal to be honest with you.
What about authors who have (or are) publishing novellas through e-pubs like Julia Quinn? Does this apply to them, too?
July 17th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
The choice of words is baffling to me, but so is the Board’s surprise at the implications. The first rule of a policy change like this is to make sure it has the desired effect. By this rule, Genesis Press — who was de-recognized earlier this year — is not considered a vanity press AND can come to National without paying. EC, LooseID, and Samhain, on the other hand, must pay to get space at the conference and are vanity/subsidy presses until the definition is changed.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
What about authors who have (or are) publishing novellas through e-pubs like Julia Quinn? Does this apply to them, too?
The standard for being a published author requires only that you have contracted a book with a non-vanity/subsidy press publisher for a minimum of $1,000 advance or royalty payouts. An author who meets these requirements does not lose her (or his) status by publishing a different work with a vanity/subsidy press as long as the author has at least one work that qualifies for published status.
That was really goofily written. Hopefully, it makes sense!
July 17th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
These are all good points. I guess what I’m wondering is this: Who thought this was a good idea? I haven’t talked to a SINGLE person who thinks it’s a good idea. Then again, I haven’t talked to a single NY published author, either.
And Jacqueline, I knew exactly what you meant. Trust me, the text started out goofy here; we can only make it better.
July 18th, 2007 at 5:22 am
Substitute “exclusive” or “essential” for “primary” — does that work better?
I suppose I can see why they want to address distribution as a qualifier (since it’s a primary characteristic of actual subsidy presses that they do not distribute widely), but this just doesn’t work.
I’ve also got some concerns about the advance clause. $500 for an anth seems very high. However, I like the general direction here, and they are NOT preventing author recognition with these clauses — only publishers. That’s something I like to see: RWA is here for the writers, not the industry, in the end.
The Samhain editor (it’s the nice mommy-evil editor link off romancingtheblog) has a remarkably well-written post or two about all this, including her discussions with the board. I’m quite hopeful.
July 18th, 2007 at 7:04 am
However, I like the general direction here, and they are NOT preventing author recognition with these clauses — only publishers.
Hmmm, really? I think it does affect authors. As I understand it, you can’t gain PAN status through RWA if your publisher is considered a vanity or subsidy press, even if you meet the income threshhold on a title published through one. Which totally makes sense to me and causes me absolutely no heartburn a’tall–as long as epublishers aren’t considered, by default, vanity/subsidy presses.
The post from Nice Editor, Evil Mommy makes it sound like this is not the case, but that isn’t the way I read the guidelines for PAN eligibility. But I could be totally mistaken!
July 18th, 2007 at 8:28 am
I’m just as confused as everyone else here. I work for the insurance company so I know what you’re talking about. Each insurance policy is a contract with solid definitions at the beginning. Including “You” “Yours” “Insured”, etc. The definition for subsidy/vanity press is way too vague. This lawyer could have come up with a better definition had he had the correct information.
From what I’ve read about PAN eligibility, even if you are published with an e-pub, you can still become PAN if you have royalties of $1000 or higher, not just an advance of $1000. Am I correct?
I definitely agree, this will be an issue next year. For that alone, I will be going to National.
July 18th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Exclusive would be a much better word, Chris, but at the AGM, the Board refused to consider changing it, saying that their legal counsel told them they could not use that word. Which is ridiculous, in my opinion.
The advance issue is of less concern to me, because I think authors should be paid decently, but we now have publishers like St. Martin’s confessing that they do not pay all of their anthology authors $500. That means, according to these new rules, that they’re not RWA eligible. I wonder about Kensington, as well.
As far as PAN eligibility, yes, they’ve separated the publisher and author, but as Jacqueline pointed out, there’s that bit about ‘if you’re not published with a vanity or subsidy press’. If they’re not classifying all of these publishers as vanity or subsidy, then no one qualifies.
It’s completely messed up.
July 18th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
They should be posting a blurb from their lawyer on the language which should be clarifying. The way it reads now, they consider epub subsidy/vanity publishers, which then goes to the point of how on earth can epub writers become PAN members now? What’s the point of showing them profits of $1000 and over if you’re excluded immediately because your publisher falls under that term.
July 18th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Now I’m only more and more confused. I have no idea what they’re talking about! Personally, I thought the definition of Vanity/Subsider publisher itself–even without implications for PAN–didn’t serve authors. Because an author who’s trying to figure out whether to publish with Ellora’s Cave, who looks at RWA’s definition, will think, “Hm, they’re Vanity, and I’ve been told not to publish with a vanity press.” But if they’re an EC-type author, they’re doing themselves no service at all.
If it changes PAN membership, that’s annoying. And what does all this do to Golden Heart eligibility? Because it COULD have an effect on what people publish or don’t publish with various presses. All I can say is, this is some confusing stuff going on here! And I’m only getting MORE confused as time goes on.
July 18th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Wow, if CM can’t understand the legalese, you know it’s trouble!
Though I can respect the apparent attempts at making sure the organization is serving its members rather than the industry, I also can’t quite understand how not providing space/resources to epublishers is benefitting its members. RWA serves a diverse population of romance writers - isn’t having a diverse range of publishers at National an advantage to everyone?
July 18th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
I think y’all are right about the connect-the-dots in place between the vanity definition and author status — the general direction I was referring to was a separation, not a separation + a ridiculous definition of vanity presses. Has the board made any further clarifications or statements beyond what they put in Angela’s blog?
July 18th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
They sent out a copy of the hot sheet yesterday, via enotes, and the stupidity was still there, so no, no clarification.
I’ve written letters to the Region Six reps (though one of their email addresses bounces).
July 18th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Add me to the ranks of the confused. It makes no sense to me that RWA should effectively discourage members from publishing with a press like EC, when an e-publisher might be the best home financially for a manuscript. If you write short-format erotic romance, for example, there aren’t all that many places to sell that in print. But there’s a huge market for it in e-pub.
I can understand maybe tightening the requirements for ‘recognition,’ if they felt it was becoming too easy for new e-publishers of sketchy stability to qualify. It does benefit members to feel some assurance that a publisher is here to stay, pays royalties on time, etc. But why this should mean tarring all epublishers with the ‘vanity press’ brush, I can’t fathom. E-publishing is not going anywhere, and this feels like RWA just sticking its fingers in its ears and saying, “La la la la… e-pub? what’s epub? I can’t hear you! La la la la…”
July 19th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
What you want to bet they revise it at the next meeting?
July 19th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Oh, I’ll raise you one, Alice.
What you want to bet they’re all wishing they weren’t on the board?