ChoralNet

The professional networking site for the global online choral community.

American Choral Directors Association - ChoralNet

ACDA's Choral Community

ChoralNet is the professional networking site for the global online choral community.

You are here: Home / Others / The Publishers vs. The Creators – lessons from the book industry

The Publishers vs. The Creators – lessons from the book industry

by Leave a Comment


My wife got me a Kindle for Christmas.  I love it.  I can’t tell if it is because I love the technology or because I love reading – I think it is because this particular type of technology is invisible most of the time – I am just reconnecting with my love of reading.
 
Because I am a new owner of a Kindle, I found some Kindle blogs to follow – it is what I do!
 
This Kindle blog features a *fascinating* post that I think relates to what will eventually hit the music publishing industry.  It develops a theme I’ve also blogged about here.  Here is a portion of the article – let me know what you think:

Publishers are trying to get a disproportionate share of profits.

Publishers are showing their lack of long-term thinking –

  1. Instead of cutting prices for readers and encouraging reading they are setting unrealistic ebook prices.
  2. They want to spend less on ebooks than they used to on books and still make more.
  3. Instead of giving authors more of a share they want to have the same royalty rate.

Basically, Publishers are saying –

Costs are lower and our role is diminished (and perhaps no longer necessary).  So we guess we should get an even larger piece of the pie.

It makes zero sense.

Authors don’t owe Publishers anything

Has a Publisher ever gone to an author and said –

Your book was a huge hit. So we’ve bumped up your royalty from 15% to 25%.

Not to the best of my knowledge.

Why then should authors let Publishers take an even larger piece of the pie?

  1. As long as Publishers had the power they took the lion’s share of profits.
  2. Now they don’t have the power and they will have to get used to not getting the lions’ share.
 
 
 

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. It seems it is already time to outline more specifically what Tim Sharp’s meeting with the publishers was all about!
     
    As for me, I have a ton of publishable stuff that I (1) have procrastinated for years in placing with a publisher, and (2) am now afraid to do too much too soon, lest I get a totally raw deal on the royalty.  Dan Gawthrop’s recent responses are from a person who was essentially self-publishing, with a distribution agreement with EC Schirmer.  I myself began the process of a publishing house a few years back, with some of my own pieces matched with a good number of other well-performed composers.  It was a massive undertaking, and I soon realized that the days when a single person (like Don Hinshaw, many years ago now) can barely expect to break in with the standard print-publish model.
     
    So the new electronic model, it seems to me, will foster new companies.  Some will likely morph from older, standard publishing houses; others will come up as purely e-commerce companies.   Since every choral publishing house now works on the basis of PDFs, this is likely the basis for electronic choral commerce, in my humble opinion.
     
    This conversation needs to go widely public …   All the best to all my coleagues!   Tim Banks
     
     
    http://www.timbanks.org          (Timothy Paul Banks,  Samford University, B’ham AL)
     

  2. Well, Tim would know for sure, so you might ask him. Since I received word from Barbara Harlow of SBMP, it’s clearly not supposed to be a secret. I imagine we’ll hear soon, either from Tim or the individual publishers as the ideas they introduced at that meeting take flight….
     
    Cheers!
     
    Tom

  3. I’d love to know what was discussed and what new ideas they have. I wonder if they could share this information with everyone or at the very least, with the composers they work with?
    Does anyone know whcih publishers were present for this meeting?
     
    I agree, Tim Sharp is a sharp guy!
     
    Paul Carey

  4. Hey Paul,
     
    Good to read your post!
     
    RE your comments about choral publishers, did you know that many of them recently met with Tim Sharp to discuss a more progressive future? I got an email from my publisher about it after the event, and she sounded pretty excited. 
     
    I have high hopes, since Tim is a fabulous visionary … and the publishers I know have big hearts and sharp minds.
     
    Warmest regards,
     
    Tom

  5. I like Tom’s idea! I’m already sick of the 10% deal.
     
    Also, in my opinion, I think presently  that our various traditional “name brand” choral publishers are WAY behind in looking into the future (even the very near future). I see none of them trying to reinvent themselves or their delivery systems (because, actually a publisher is just a delivery system) for the current and future environments.
     
    Paul Carey
     
     
    .

  6. Thanks again, Philip, for all these interesting blogs.
     
    My take on the publishing issue is that publishers do have great value — without them, authors would have to go the self-publishing route, which would usually result in much reduced visibility and readership. So, publishers deserve a fair take, but so do authors.
     
    Authors generally receive 10% of the book’s gross. Whether that is fair is debatable, but regardless, I would propose a new standard: The 10% figure should be kept until the publisher’s costs (for that book’s printing, publicity, storage…) have been met. But once that occurs, they should split the net profit 50/50 with the author. That seems absolutely fair to me. (In fact, it might be more than fair….)
     
    As far as Kindle goes, I would propose something similar: The Kindle price should reflect the production cost (I can’t imagine it being anything but lower than print). And once the publisher’s Kindle costs have been met, they should split the remaining net proceeds 50/50 with the author.
     
    Cheers!
     
    Tom

Leave a Reply