How WOOL Got A Unique Publishing Deal
From Hugh Howey on The Huffington Post:
As someone who writes apocalyptic fiction, it comes quite naturally for me to announce that tomorrow should never happen. Tomorrow is an impossibility. And yet somehow, I’m going to wake up tomorrow morning and find that a story I wrote while working as a bookseller–a story that blossomed into a novel one serialized piece at a time–is now being released into bookstores far and wide.
How this came about has been a story unto itself. The deal I signed with Simon & Schuster is quite unusual and made some noise when it was announced, but even stranger are the events behind the deal.
. . . .
When Kristin Nelson first contacted me about representing WOOL, I warned her that I didn’t think I’d ever sell the rights to a publisher. My series of stories were doing well enough for me to quit my day job, and I didn’t think it would be advantageous to alter course. Other agents had been in touch already, and I’d passed up their offerings of representation by explaining that a deal was unlikely, but Kristin got my attention by saying, “I’m not sure you should sell the rights.” She went on to explain that it might not be in my best interest to change what I was doing, but wouldn’t it be fun to feel publishers out? To see what they were willing to do?
. . . .
With the help of Jenny Meyer, Kristin’s fantastic co-agent, we began signing what would eventually amount to twenty-four foreign publishing deals. The film rights were shopped around and went to Ridley Scott and Steve Zaillian due to an ambitious push from Kassie Evashevski, our film co-agent.
. . . .
Kristin, acting the role of proud parent and matchmaker, informed me that we now had four major publishers to meet with. I won’t name any except to say that Simon & Schuster wasn’t among them. I point this out because we did end up meeting with Simon & Schuster, but only through a strange confluence of events and coincidences, events that would lead us directly to Jon Karp’s office, the head of Simon & Schuster, where we would discuss a book he’d only sampled that morning. Joining this discussion by speakerphone would be an editor, Marysue, who had discovered WOOL quite on her own.
. . . .
I explained, just as I had to four other publishers that week, that it wasn’t about the money for me. I was making more than I needed to live on already. What I was looking for was something fair in other ways. I wanted a contract that saw this union as a business partnership rather than an acquisition. I was excited about the prospect of getting physical books into bookstores, but I didn’t relish the idea of selling my soul to achieve that. I was always thinking about how this would affect readers. The idea that my ebook prices would shoot up, possibly double, didn’t sit well with me. And would I be limited in what I wrote and how often I published? I had a lot of worries that dollar signs couldn’t salve.
. . . .
The problem was that publishers were willing to pay a lot of money to take all of my rights forever, but nobody wanted to do a print-only deal. Even major publishers (especially major publishers) could see in their balance sheets where the industry was heading. But there will always be a place for bookstores and great print editions, and I wanted to form that partnership without giving up a known living wage for an unknown jackpot. I just don’t have that ability to gamble (I never have).
It made it easy to say no, even though it was life-altering amounts of money being offered. The stability of a monthly income was more important, as was knowing that I would be miserable to sign my life away like that. I floated one final option, which gained zero traction. This was the idea of licensing the rights to the book for a finite period of time. This is how my foreign deals are structured. It seemed to me that this would eventually be the future of US publishing. But it wasn’t to be. A second round of interesting talks came and went.
. . . .
When I first Skyped with Kristin and agreed to partner up with her, we discussed the infinitesimal chances that I would ever go with a major publisher. We both understood from the beginning that it would likely be against my best interests to take the sort of deal that would be offered, but we also dreamed of a future where publishers and authors had a different sort of relationship. We discussed the fact that it would take quite a few of these conversations with various agents and prospective clients before boilerplate contracts began to bend or crack. Kristin was just as eager as I was to have these conversations, as fruitless as we imagined they would be.
And so we pursued an impossible dream hoping that the strangeness of our demands might pave the way for future demands from other authors. Kristin and I constantly rallied ourselves by saying that this was important, what we were doing. It wouldn’t happen for WOOL, but it would get everyone involved used to the fact that large advances couldn’t wash away sour terms now that self-published authors could pay the bills on their own. Yes, it was hopelessly naive and ambitious, but we both believed it. We continue to believe it. And then the third round began.
. . . .
Things kept going up and up. Most people in my situation (rightly, perhaps) had stepped off this ride long before this point. E.L. James did the correct thing by taking the millions and then making tens or hundreds of more millions on top of this. I wasn’t after the millions, though. I wanted a contract that, when read, made me feel like a human being.
. . . .
When they came at us with a 7-figure offer five months after their last major offer, I had to really think about it. We went back with our same demands of no non-compete clauses, no digital rights, terms of license, all the impossible deal breakers that we dreamt about and didn’t expect to ever get.
This time, there was progress on some of these fronts. I was nearly swayed.
. . . .
It was about the partnership. It was about fair contracts for these unusual times in which we now find ourselves. It isn’t always a manuscript that an author brings to the table. More and more often, it can be a bestseller, an established brand, a gaggle of rabid fans, a proven readership, and a mature author platform.
. . . .
In the end, it was Simon & Schuster who crafted a deal specifically to my needs, a deal for the print rights that would augment the success I was having on my own by doing what they do best: bringing out a book and getting it in the hands of booksellers.
Link to much more at HuffPo and thanks to Patrice for the tip.
PG will note that agents are bashed from time to time on TPV, often by using the agents’ own words.
Hugh’s story reminds us that judging each individual in a group by the actions of other members of that group is both irrational and foolish. His essay documents that his agent, Kristin Nelson, provided valuable services for him and avoided the flim-flam that some authors experience when dealing with agents.
PG hopes that Hugh’s situation may be a harbinger of things to come with major publishers realizing that fairer contract terms can be a competitive advantage and poor contracts can be deal-killers.
, Amazon will pay Passive Guy a small affiliate commission on any of your purchases.
I know Hugh is a huge outlier right now in the self-publishing community, but I hope this is a sign of things to come. “Hybridization” (for want of a better term) is going to become more and more common. At least I hope so.
I agree with what you say about agents, PG. But there still isn’t an agent on the planet that I think is worth 15% of my writing income.
I understand that sentiment, but Kristin added more than half a million dollars to my earnings last year with foreign and film deals. Many of these were from auctions in major territories. There’s no way I could coordinate an auction in Germany or Italy or the UK. I’m just not capable. And Kristin only earns 15% on deals she closes. She doesn’t make any money on my self-published titles, which is where the vast majority of my earnings come from.
There are other agents like her. And Colleen Hoover recently got a deal similar to mine. Bella Andre got one from Harlequin a month before I did. This is a trend, not a one-off. Great news for the industry in general, I think!
I agree with you. It is inspirational watching indie authors hold out for partnerships rather than just accepting that “business is done this way”. I’ve been told authors won’t walk away from the money so the bug 6/5 has no reason to change. The 3 of you have proved those people wrong.
Each of the examples you cite, Hugh, were successful indies before they even had agents.
If there’s a high-power agent that wants to try selling an unknown’s YA fantasy on a deal like that–15% only if she closes a deal–I’m willing to give it a shot.
But they tend not to be available to people like me.
I’m thrilled that you’re trying to change the business, and I congratulate you on your success and what you’ve done for writers. But the true test is going to be whether or not an unknown can sell only the print rights to a major publisher.
And we’re all pulling for your changes to stick from the top down.
I congratulate him on his success. I think it will take a while but hopefully deals like this will happen for authors who would like this.
I don’t know if it’s for me or not. I don’t want to give up 15% no matter how great the agent is. It’s just my choice. I write erotic romances and don’t see anything like this happening to me.
But I wish Mr Howey all the best and every other author who has this opportunity.
Congrats to him. This is a great success story. I just don’t see the same thing happening often, or even occasionally. This particular work made too much money to be ignored.
It’s great he did this. Not many people would turn away seven-figures for their principles. However, he came to the table with a pretty good hand, a great-selling ebook, a name Hollywood director picking up the movie rights. That, and the fact he would absolutely walk, gave him the leverage to get a deal that included essentially the only thing publishers bring to the table, access to the print market. Some writer walking in that door holding a draft of a first novel will never get a fair deal. The lesson here seems to be build something first then come at publishers from a position of strength to tap into the print market.
That’s precisely what I recommended over a year ago before I’d had any success. As writers, we should concentrate on building a brand BEFORE we sell that brand. Selling ourselves first and then developing an audience seems irrational. Especially when it’s going to be up to us to develop that brand and readership no matter how we publish.
I was laughed at and called nasty names when I espoused this view. I was nearly convinced that my vision for the future was wrong. Nearly.
Glad you stuck with it, makes a lot of sense. Old ways die hard sometimes.
To those folks who say they’ll still never ever get an agent. Really? Even if (as is Hugh Howry’s case)
1. The agent takes none of your self pubbed income
2. The agent gets you foreign deals that you wouldn’t have had without the agent.
3. The agent gets you a print only distribution deal (that you didn’t have as a self publisher)
I mean, doing the math here, I’m honestly perplexed. Is this a numbers based business decision you’re making, or is it an emotional one?
In a way I agree with you, Livia, but just how many agents out there would negotiate a contract with exactly those terms?
Although I suspect there are a few, right now I can give you the name of only one.
Very few, Geoff. You have to be careful. I do know that Jane Dystel has negotiated some ground-breaking deals for John Locke and Joe Konrath as well.
I’m just arguing against knee-jerk “I will never get an agent” responses, and trying to encourage people to think through the nuances of things. Indie writers pride themselves so much for being business savvy, but sometimes I think they’ve just traded one set of simplistic thinking for another.
Speaking of knee-jerk responses and nuances, why not negotiate with the agent the same way you negotiated with the publisher?
If the agent had been offered 14% would they have balked?
13%?
5%?
Who says the percentage has to be so high?
Where is that written in stone?
And why does it have to be for the life of the copyright?
Why not 10% for ten or twenty years?
The traditional publishing mindset should be constantly questioned, and authors need to become less willing to empty their pockets for life plus 70 years.
Donald, I totally agree that people should think critically about everything, on both sides of the fence.
Why not, indeed, Donald. Again, one just has to have the leverage.
You mean like believing that you know the thoughts of every “indie writer”?
But maybee I jest cant undastand yo sophisteecated figurin.
Guilty as charged, IndeeWriter. That was sloppy and unfair of me to refer to all indie writers in one bunch, especially when I’m trying to get people to stop thinking of agents as one monolithic evil bunch. My bad, and apologies.
Jane is awesome. There are a few agents embracing the hybrid model. And there will be many more.
You don’t need an agent. A IP Lawyer will do the same thing. They can do the same thing this agent did for a one time fee and not give up 15% of the book forever.
Can you please refer me to an IP lawyer who will shop your book around for foreign rights, introduce your book to hollywood scouts, and drum up interest in print only deals from publishers?
I’m not aware of agents who will do all this. My response from my agent was, “what do I know about Hollywood?”
Another reason to choose your agents carefully, Larry.
An IP lawyer never could have done for me what Kristin has. Never. Not even close.
Besides, looking at all the money she has made me, she deserves 15%. I feel happier about that contribution than I do the 41% the government takes. I love Kristin. We enrich one another’s lives. I hope she makes a lot more money off of me.
Hugh — That was a fantastic article. It was great to see behind the scenes to see how things happened, and lots of insights into how the publishing industry is changing. Best wishes for your future endeavors.
Say there’s a company that makes parachutes — and as it stands, they’re the *only* company that makes them. Say that one out of every one million parachutes they manufacture will not only bear you safely to Earth, but, while you gently drift downwards, will also massage your shoulders, play soothing music, feed you the most expensive chocolate truffles via a series of robotic appendages, plus utilize a state-of-the-art targeting system that steers you onto the nearest memory foam mattress for an extra-comfortable landing.
Unfortunately, the other 999,999 parachutes they make fail instantly when used, causing their wearers to plummet to their deaths.
Now, you can characterize a desire not to place oneself in a situation where one needs a parachute one of two ways: you can faux-sophisticatedly call it ‘numbers,’ and base it off a wish not to play a rigged game where the odds are so remotely in one’s favor as to be non-existent; or you can derisively call it ‘emotional’ when people look at the situation and shout, “I don’t want to plummet to my death!”
But either way, a sucker bet is a sucker bet.
And needless to say, indie publishing is as though someone put a sewing pattern online that enabled anyone to make their own parachutes — you could use whatever fabric and thread you want, add as many or as few accoutrements as you want, and make the whole endeavor as high-class or chintzy as you want.
But it has the positive end result of making you, and you alone, responsible for the quality of your landing.
Well I’m going by what I have read on this blog and I’m sure PG here can confirm if I’m wrong or not but I’m sure they can. I’ve also read Dean’s blog and his wife’s blog about this as well and they say they can.
I think there are not too many agents out there that would not be up on the ever-changing contracts. And why wouldn’t a publishing house or even Hollywood deal with a Lawyer?
Okay, this is publishing 101, and it’s really important to understand if you’re a writer, no matter what side of the fence you’re on. When people say that lawyers can do the same thing as agents, what they mean is that they negotiate contracts for you like an agent does.
What is the difference between a lawyer and an agent? A lawyer negotiates contracts that you bring to them. So if you have a deal already, they will negotiate it for you. A lawyer will not go out and find deals for you, will not submit for you, and will not contact foreign publishers or to Hollywood for you. In other words, a lawyer would not have done the majority of what Kristin Nelson did for Hugh Howry in this article. Though once the offers were made, a lawyer could certainly come in and negotiate them.
Not knocking lawyers here. It’s just a different business model, and it’s really important to know the difference.
Let me flip the question back on you, Livia. Why is an agent worth 15% of my writing income rather than a flat fee for services?
Why shouldn’t Hugh Howey negotiate a fair price with his agent for those rights negotiations?
Is the agent doing 15% of the work?
What other profession pays a percentage of your income–potentially for LIFE–for services rendered? I can’t think of a single one. Why are agents so special that the service they perform can’t be compensated with a flat fee?
I’m glad you asked Meryl, though I hope you will still answer my question as well. A few thoughts:
1. I have no strong preference for percentage model versus a flat fee model. However, in certain circumstances, the percentage payment model has its benefits. Take Hugh’s case, for example. It looks like he went through three rounds of negotiations, extensive ones each time, with print publishers, with no clear guarantee that a deal would go through (and actually, Howey and Nelson went into these dealings with the expectation that they probably wouldn’t get a deal). Now, this is hundreds of hours that his agent put in, if not more. If you have been working with a lawyer, he would’ve paid for those hours up front (these are not peanuts, with a lawyer’s hourly fee). And if he had gone through all those negotiations and turned the deals down, he would have still had to pay the lawyer out of pocket. Might another author still choose to negotiate a flat fee for these services? Sure. But I would argue that it’s not an obvious thing that flat fee would have been better in this case.
2. You seem pretty caught up on the 15% for life thing. According to the article,none of Howey’s foreign deals are for life. They are limited term contracts, the agent gets 15% of that deal, and the rights revert back to the author after that. As I mentioned before, Howey’s self published earnings are 100% his, his agent doesn’t take a cut, so no 15% for life there either. I’m not privy to the terms of his print or Hollywood deal, so I can’t comment on that.
I don’t see a question in your last post to me.
I do see many assumptions made about having a lawyer instead of an agent negotiate for you. I wasn’t thinking in terms of having a lawyer sit in on a meeting with me. I was thinking in terms of reading the contract and explaining the legalese to me. I’m a regular reader of Kris Rusch’s blog and see that there are MANY ways to change the phrase “takes all rights” so that the layman can’t understand it’s being done.
I’m not accusing publishers of being evil. I would very much love to have a traditional publishing deal IF it were a fair contract. But I don’t see the need to hire an agent for anything other than a flat fee. 15% of a book’s profits for ten years is still more than I am willing to pay for a one-time negotiation of foreign rights.
When you use a real estate agent to buy your house, you don’t sign a contract forcing you to use the same agent or agency when you sell your house. There is no other profession in the world where an adviser gets to keep a percentage of what was negotiated.
Literary agents started up in the nineteenth century because it was assumed that writers were unable to handle the business aspects of writing. We’re not in the Victorian era anymore. I can do my own taxes (and note when I hire a tax prepare, I pay him a flat fee rather than a percentage of my tax refund). I can balance my own budget.
I should be able to hire an agent to negotiate foreign rights for me without giving that agent a ten- or twenty- or thirty-year paycheck.
Using PG’s math below, I’d say that an agent like the one Hugh used would be worth 15% of that big advance. And then the agent gets nothing until she gets another deal for the writer.
That’s how the rest of the world works. You get paid for the work you do, and then you’re done.
Lastly: I guarantee you that if a publisher decides he wants to publish my novel, my withholding erights will be a dealbreaker. I’m not Hugh Howey. I don’t have a zillion sales. It wasn’t the agent that got him that deal. It was Hugh’s insistence on those being his terms.
My tax refunds are very low (and occasionally negative), so if I had the chance to pay a percentage to my tax preparer, I’d jump at that chance. I don’t see anything sacred about percentage or flat fee — figure it makes much more sense to run the numbers.
But hey, different strokes for different folks…
Livia – really? You’d pay your tax attorney 15% for your lifetime of all returns on your income?
Nope. I’d pay 15% for what he earns me on one tax return.
Just as, if I were calculating the worth of an agent for a deal, I’d run the numbers on the costs and estimated profit on one book. If I want to be conservative and assume the longest term possible, I’d assume 35 years for reversion of copyright, because that’s the earliest you can request it back. Otherwise, I’d base my calculations on the term of the contract, or my best guess as to when the out of print clause will kick in.
(Though I should add that this bare-bones comparison between agent commission and lawyer fee is not the decision process I personally used when deciding whether to get an agent. My agent does a lot more for me than negotiate the contract, and I signed with an agent because I think the entire suite of services he provides is valuable. If you’re only looking for someone to negotiate contracts for you, then you might have good reason to get a literary lawyer.)
Livia – e-books never go out of print, so you’re most likely paying that percentage forever.
I really don’t understand your comparision to an accountant. You’re saying that you would rather pay him a 15% commission for the life of that income – I assume on a yearly basis – than a one time fee for completing that years’ taxes.
Really? I don’t think your comparision quite fits, actually.
” e-books never go out of print, so you’re most likely paying that percentage forever.”
That’s another common misconception. A well-written contract will have a velocity clause that defines out-of-print provisions for the e-book. Usually if you sell under a certain number of books, or a certain number of dollars. PG has blogged about this several times. There is also a law that allows you to take back your copyright after 35 years, no matter what contract you signed (correct me if I’m wrong on this one, PG).
I don’t think it’s worth it to go back and forth more times on the tax accountant thing. My basic point (and has been for this entire conversation) is this: do the math. Will I make more money with an agent than I would make without one? And of course, this depends on many factors. Does the agent want to shop your book for traditional print deal? Or will the agent simply shop subsidiary rights and stay away from your self pubbed income? If you sign with the agent, can you end the relationship at any time, or are you tied for a fixed term? Does the agent want to represent all of your books, or just the ones you want to shop for foreign rights?
A major portion of an agent’s job is to get you book deals that you would not get otherwise. Do your research. Look over the agency agreement. Talk to other clients of the agent. Talk to the agent herself and ask what she expects from the relationship, what her philosophy on specific contract clauses are. Several times, I’ve seen people here referring to getting an agent as a giant unknown, but there are ways to do your due diligence. It’s not like you’re throwing a dart at a dartboard and ending up with whoever lands on. If you decide, after your research, that the agent is not worth your time and/or money, then by all means don’t get the agent. Hugh turned down several agents before he signed with Kristin. I’m sure there are many indie authors who have turned down multiple offers and still remain agentless. That’s a totally valid business decision.
If on the other hand, you think the extra deals that the agent gets for you will bring you value (either from extra money from foreign or Hollywood deals, or from extra market reach) then sign with the agent. Is it a guarantee of untold riches and success? Of course not. You make your best guesses and see what happens. Perhaps things will work out well for both of you. Or perhaps it won’t, but as long as you made sure that the agency agreement had a termination clause you’re comfortable with, you’ll be fine.
At least that’s how I see it.
So there seems to be a lot of gnashing of teeth over the fact that agents 15% for the lifetime of the book. Can I get a feel for what people think that amount is, for the average author, and how that compares to a lawyer’s one time fee?
“Can I get a feel for what people think that amount is.”
Livia, I think you hit the nail on the head. Of course the lawyer’s one time fee involves no risk other than whatever time he takes in advance discussing his services and fees whereas the agent might come away empty handed and often will, so he or she is sharing in the risk and logically should end up with more than the lawyer *if* they are providing the same service/expertise, which obviously they aren’t.
So, the average advance for a first time author is what in today’s world? Maybe 5-20K for most with the chance that it will be on the lower end of that range being more likely, if I’m remembering the things I’ve read. Most books don’t earn out. So for the majority of people that’s $750-$3,000 for the agent. What are the odds that the IP lawyer who only reviews the contract is going to be somewhere in the same range?
Have you ever even contacted an IP attorney?
I interviewed several last summer, one of whom was also working on the rights to a deceased relative’s books. (Got an earful from her about publishers stealing rights, and this was DECADES ago that the publishers grabbed them.) Each of their hourly fees was in the $300-375 range. One wanted a retainer of $2,500 from which he would deduct the hourly work, and you would replenish it when necessary. A standard contract would take 2-3 hours to review.
Even doubling the contract review time puts the cost for a one-time lawyer fee ahead of an agent for a midlist book.
You are also not taking into account the changes in publishing. Because of ebooks, a midlist writer’s books will no longer disappear from the shelves, and they will earn far more than they currently do. So the agent in your scenario gets more, for a longer time, while the IP attorney still is paid only once.
Agents don’t submit detailed invoices for time spent on selling a writer’s work. There’s no way to count the time they spend making deals because nobody has to justify it in order to get paid.
As for sharing the risk–really? You’re comparing a fee-based model with a percentage-based model and then saying that the one who works for a percentage is risking something? Who set up the percentage-based model in the first place? I’m thinking it wasn’t an author. But let’s compare this to a lawyer who takes your case on a contingency basis. His percentage of the settlement? It’s a one-time fee.
I know a successful tech book author who has never used an agent. There are successful fiction writers on this blog who stopped using agents years ago. A new author should think very, very carefully before getting an agent. That’s a lot of income to give up for an uncertain return on investment.
@ Livia and Big Al -
When you sign the contract, you have no idea how much your book will sell. You could base your decision on the statistics, but that is risky.
In other words, you could decide that statistically (using Al’s figures) your book will sell out at that rate, so you would pay the agent $3,000 and save the $2,000 you might have paid the lawyer. But that is a very risky financial decision.
By saving that $2,000, you could potentially be forfeiting thousands of dollars, if your book hits it big.
I’d also like to mention that the old concept of ‘earning out’ was based on books in a bookstore with a limited shelf life of about 2 months. After that, the book was pretty much defunct. As Meryl points out, with e-books, shelf-life lasts forever. So, the concept of ‘earning out’ is out-dated here. We don’t have statistics for e-book earning over time.
In addition, any indie author considering an agent probably has a hot property, so they are most likely looking at a much larger advance.
My last point – unlike some other folks here, I’m not against agents at all. I think many authors would like to have a guide and advocate, and that’s cool. But I am against a percentage rate that is just too high for the lifetime of the book. (I am also against agents who are ineffective in negotiating fair and decent deals, but that’s a different issue).
Publishers usually offer writers from 5-8% royalties on print. I consider it exploitive that writers were then required to pay their agents about 3xs what they were paid. And it’s exploitive because writers did not have a choice.
They still don’t. That 15% is an industry standard, take it or leave it.
I’m not sure I have a problem paying them 15% and I’d also be paying an attorney to go over the contract.
Authors do have a choice they can pitch their own work, they can go with small presses, they can self publish.
Livia is correct.
Unless a lawyer is also acting as a literary agent (there are a few), the lawyer is not going to be calling publishers to pitch your book. Kris and Dean say you should do the pitching yourself, but if you don’t want to, you’ll need to hire an agent.
The financial arrangements between an author and an agent and an author and a lawyer are also different. The agent is paid only if a deal is made. The lawyer will expect to be paid regardless.
The lawyer may charge a flat fee, but most will review the proposed contract and/or negotiate the contract on an hourly fee basis. 10 hours at $500 per hour is a legal fee of $5,000. The agent takes a percentage of the deal, almost always 15%. A $200,000 advance means an initial agency fee of $30,000 and the agent continues to receive 15% of all other money that comes in for the book, typically forever.
PG personally I’d rather pay the lawyer who knows contract law and the rest of it then an agent to look over the deal, the contract and the negotiations.
$5,000( or 5000+ etc) gets you far more value per $1 than an agent, I’m thinking. Unless the agent is very, very experienced with contracts to the level of a good lawyer, I’d rather either pitch myself or hire somebody to pitch ONLY (if that option is out there) and have the expert lawyer negotiate. The way I hear some writers talk about I hear many agents are too quick to accept boilerplate contracts or don’t know the fine details of the law for each line of the contract (in general). I’m sure there are exceptions, maybe even many exceptions) but the average agent won’t be as good with the contract as an expert IP lawyer surely?!
Plus I’ve read too much of Dean Wesley Smith’s words to ever feel comfortable with anybody ever getting a % of the deal (and future deals since agent-author contracts are structured like that normally). In my opinion it’s better to pay an expert in contract law to negotiate and if it falls through –and you have to pay the lawyer regardless –so be it–I prefer that to having to pay a percentage. Besides your legal costs are tax deductible, for such business expenses if you have incorporated your writing life (as a small publisher for example). At least there are in my jurisdiction.
last sentence correction: +”At least they are (deductible) in my jurisdiction (and I believe in many if not most) …”
PS “the agent continues to receive 15% of all other money that comes in for the book, typically forever”
forever…
*shudder*
Lawyers are so expensive that it has made more sense to give my Hollywood lawyer 5% of my film earnings rather than pay him hourly. The percentage model is very fair. If they help you negotiate a contract that earns you such an incredible amount that you can’t believe you’re paying them that much — then they helped you negotiate a contract that paid you a ton of money!
I can’t imagine not having the joy of providing jobs and sharing wealth with people who helped me earn a small fortune. They assume a lot of the risk by investing their time, not knowing if a deal is going to come through.
Hugh – I appreciate your generosity. It sounds like you have alot of money now, so it sort of doesn’t matter to you.
But this is a larger issue than you and the idea of sharing wealth.
The history of the writer and the agent, is the writer was paid peanuts, and agents took 15% of the peanuts for the life of the book. They took this 15% no matter how much work they did or did not put into it. This was not negotiable. It was required. If a writer wanted to be published, they were required to give up 15% of their income to someone.
I know this is an Industry Standard, but it is wrong and unfair. And the fact that you are making enough money to not care about it, doesn’t make it right, or mean that those with less money aren’t hurt by an unfair practice.
Thank you for clearing that up PG. I do understand that the lawyer would need to get paid regardless for his services.
I was talking if ever I was approached with a contract I would take it to a lawyer and have him look at it and maybe negotiate on my behalf depending on how badly I wanted a print deal but it would depend on the circumstances.
The old “conventional wisdom” used to be:
1. Write your book
2. Shop book to agent
3. Hook agent
4. Agent shops book to publisher
5. Agent hooks publisher
6. Success!
Now, think about the last two years. What new authors have hit the bestseller lists following that strategy? None of them have outsold E. L. James. Have any of them outsold Howey? (Real question, I have no idea).
Time for new conventional wisdom. Publishers and agents have more value to the successful writers than the newbies.
Just a couple thoughts. We don’t know if Hugh Howey agreed to 15% for Kristin Nelson. I assume she got the Hollywood option deal for him as well as the foreign deals (24, right?) which probably meant she made enough on those to make it worth her while to sit in on a few NYC meetings with US trad publishers, even if they never panned out. He’s a savvy guy–he might have asked for a lower percentage.
I also, as a lawyer/writer, think you could probably work out rep deals with lawyers where they take the risk with you and then get some sort of percentage instead of an upfront fee. But then these lawyers are pretty much acting like agents. And there are some agent/lawyers.
One thing that I hope would be true in that case is that you’d know who the attorney is representing–the writer. She would not have one foot in each camp, with long-term interests in pleasing the publisher.
She gets 15% of contracts she negotiates. Foreign and film rights are 10% with another 10% to the co-agent. All of this is standard and worth every penny.
Interestingly, it occurs to me that, for the right agent, I might be willing to offer a higher percentage (of a smaller pie). Someone who actually went kicking on doors and going, “Yo, physical book rights only”… Especially if the cut were only for the negotiated contract’s length of time, requiring action (not inaction) to renew.
Why higher? Limited duration, not lifetime; smaller pie (no e-rights); doing things that I’d like to see done and don’t have the spoons to do myself, which means any cash I see from that side is gravy.
Quick, I gotta write a Wool-numbers bestseller!
(Though, true, if I had a bestseller, I might be less inclined to “bribe” someone to go kickin’ down doors for me.)
You know, I’m sorry to be the voice of negativity, but I continue to take wonder about Hugh’s deal. I’m happy and impressed that he held out for what he wanted – good for him – but taking a step back, I’m not convinced that I would do the same. Sorry, Hugh, if this is throwing cold water – I don’t mean to, but the issue is larger than you.
Let’s pretend that digital didn’t exist, and just look at the deal he made for his books to come out in print. I take it he negotiated a good deal for his books in terms of advance and contract clauses.
But what are the royalties? Without knowing the royalty amount I have no idea if this is a good deal or not.
I know people are excited about keeping digital rights, and rightly so, but honestly, that doesn’t mean there is value in having a print only deal if the Publishers are still taking the lion’s share of the profits in print.
And frankly, there is a risk that you could be bastardizing your own e-book sales.
Of course, I see print as time-limited anyway. In a few years, no one will want a print only deal, because print won’t be around much anymore.
So, I’m not sure that I would take any type of a print only deal – I’m not sure it’s worth it. Sorry!
I’m willing to bet that there will still be print books on sale in 20 years time. Some people just like print more than ebooks.
Same way there are still vinyl records on sale today, even though that seems rediculous in an era of instant downloads.
Ebook sales have flattened out at their current percentage. Print isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.
People tend to forget that in order to read an ebook, you need a device to read it on THAT YOU LIKE READING IT ON. Sure, we can read them on our phones now. But how many kids do you see reading books on their phones? They’re too busy playing Angry Birds.
The reports of the death of print are greatly exaggerated. The sales figures don’t bear them out.
@ Thomas –
Yes, Thomas, I absolutely agree that print will always be around as a specialty item.
@ Meryl -
When Barnes and Noble goes south, and it will, what do you think will happen to print?
I’m not saying I WANT print to go. I just think it will. Like the Horse and Buggy, it’s just not as fast, convenient and assessible as the replacement technology.
I could be wrong, of course, and you might very well be right. But I will say that there has never been a time when the older technology remained the standard – that I’m aware of, anyway.
And it’s not always the consumer who makes the decision. I would still prefer a VCR to a DVR. But I can’t buy a VCR. I don’t think they make them anymore.
If B&N goes bankrupt, other bookstores will step in to fill the gap. Not in the same way, but retail is constantly evolving. There is no longer a chain called Two Guys in New Jersey. B. Dalton’s bookstores no longer exist. Neither does the bookstore chain that took them over, Border’s. Hostess cakes went bankrupt, but Twinkies are coming back after having been bought by another bakery. I don’t doubt that someone will pick up the pieces of B&N if it goes under. And there are also independent booksellers, who also handle print. And there is Amazon, which also sells print. So if B&N goes under, well, gee, people won’t be able to shop at B&N for books. And yet, print books will still be available to everyone.
Ebooks have plateaued at about http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/retailing/article/54609-e-books-market-share-at-22-amazon-has-27.html 25% of market share. Sales of ebooks are no longer running up exponentially. The data do not support your contention that print will disappear. Neither do people who are much more versed in publishing than you or I.
Your analogy is not sound. The DVD is not to VCR as print is to ebook.
Sorry Meryl, I just don’t agree.
I think someone would have a very difficult time replacing B&N. I’m not sure anyone would even want to. But even if someone tried, in the intervening time, folks who wanted to read would migrate to e-books.
And a quarter of the market already? Wow. The Kindle has been in existence for less than 5 years, and it’s already captured 25% of the marketplace?
That’s quite impressive.
But I tell you what. Let’s see what happens. We can go back and forth and argue, but the future will tell.
Mira, I think your mistake is not in thinking that ebooks will replace print almost exclusively, but in WHEN you think this will happen. Your comments indicate that you think it will happen very soon, within a few years. I think that it will happen too, but I think it will take far, far longer than that.
CDs and DVDs aren’t a good comparison to books. Neither of those technologies were around very long by the standards of history. They were far easier to discard than the printed book, which has been a staple of culture for hundreds of years, is. The printed book has had far longer to burrow into the cultural consciousness of society and make a place there. Whereas with CDs and DVDs and the technologies that they replaced many, many people barely had time to get used to them before they were already being replaced for the next thing. Audio visual technology is simply not a part of our cultural consciousness the way the printed books is. Very few people would place any sentimental value on cassettes or CDs whereas many, many people place sentimental value on books.
This makes the conversion of print to ebook an entirely different game. Yes, it will happen. But it’s going to take a LONG time. In the meantime, authors should not neglect the needs of print readers just because digital is easier or because you might personally think it’s better. Authors should be looking for ways to get their work to all their potential readers whether it’s through a publisher for print books or through createspace or something else. Because I doubt print books will be dislodged within the current generation and we need to be authors who serve readers now.
The VCR vs. DVD doesn’t work for print books and ebooks for one primary reason: A printed book is not a technology. It is the product. An ereader is needed to read an ebook. You do not need a tool to read a print book. It is not an apt analogy. The lenghth of life of the technology is irrelevant.
Without ebooks, an ereader is useless. (Talking for reading books only here, not websurfing.)
Mira, you can disagree all you want. You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not, however, entitled to your own facts. The facts do not bear out your contention that print publishing will be gone in a few years.
@ Sarah – Yeah, I do think e-books will dominate within a few years. You make some good arguments, but I think digital technology is so much more powerful than print that it will replace it quickly. But I could be wrong.
@ Meryl – printed books are a technology. You use the ink and paper to be able to read the story. Just like chisel and stone and ink on papyrus were earlier versions of this technology.
Minor quibble here. The question at hand isn’t whether e-books will overtake print. It is whether online retailers will overtake brick-and-mortar distribution. If people are still buying print books, but buying it all from Amazon, then a print distribution deal would not offer much extra value even if print books still retain a large percentage of the market..
That said, I personally still think a print deal will have value in the near future. I will stay clear of attempting any other prognosticating beyond that.
In the last few days I’ve seen Wool in the Wall Street Journal, HuffPost, Washinton Post, USA Today, Magazine Ads… that would have never happened without S&S. And sure, most of these MK efforts are destined for people to buy the paperback/hardcover, but it benefits the e-book too. Wool was 250ish last week. After the WSJ piece it climbed to #10 and right now is #30.
Also, I’m pretty sure Mr. Howey made more money from the advance S&S gave him than what he would have made in the next 20 years via Createspace.
So basically you get your book in Bookstores, Airports, Libraries… and your e-book benefits from a lot of publicity that doesn’t cost you a dime.
If that kind of deal is not worth it, what is?
Pablo –
You have a good point in that Hugh is getting a HUGE amount of publicity from this deal. But I think that is because it is ground-breaking. I’m not sure these deals in the future will get that kind of publicity. So, I suspect this is a one-time benefit.
I know this is weird to think about, but an author can actually lose money by taking a huge advance, and signing low royalty rates. The amount the author could have made on the book through higher royalties could have been way beyond the amount of the advance.
So, there is a possiblity that Hugh’s deal is a great one, but without knowing the royalty rate for print, it’s not really possible to know at this point.
In addition, if the author is making up to a 70% royalty rate for his e-book, then it may be in his best interest to make it only available in e-book format. People who buy the hardcover or paperbook, with low royalty rates, may have instead bought the e-book. So, in that exchange, the author may have lost money.
Look, I know Hugh couldn’t be happier. He held out and should be commended for refusing to bow under pressure. I applaud that, and I’m really happy for him. And, it may well be a great deal – I just don’t know the details.
I think authors need to consider the print-only deal carefully, and not just assume that it is always the best choice. Royalty percentage matters. Alot.
Many people say a fee they pay is worth it. I’m not going to dispute that. They determine their own standards. But after looking at what they do, I will always ask if there are alternative ways to do the same thing that are even better.
This is so inspiring and so cool. It really is. It’s affirming. Even if all indies won’t have Hugh’s success, it does shine the headlights down the road so we can see where things are going. Hybrid is the new indie (and since Bob Mayer coined the term a few years ago as far as I know, also not-so-new).
I’ve heard good things about Kirstin from other authors as well.
It’s great that Hugh got a good deal and finds that his agent is worth her fee. But as far as I can tell, the amount of agents out there who actually know their business and who are actually willing to do the work is small to the point of being negligible. Most agents seem to actively serve the needs of their agency first, then the publishers and then their authors.
Tell me how to distinguish between an agent who says they will help you and then actually does help you and an agent who says they will help you and then proceeds to recommend you sign bad contracts or ties up your career with nonsense and I’ll think twice about getting an agent when my time comes. Until then, as a business model, I don’t see how literary agents are good for authors.
I’m still rather a newbie at this and am earning pennies, so most of what I have to go on is just what I remember reading/hearing.
Isn’t it only recently, like the last 10-15 years that it was a pretty certain thing that you needed an agent? And until that didn’t agents earn 10% instead of 15%? Maybe there’s a good reason it changed. Maybe it was just supply/demand.
Thanks to everyone who participated in this conversation! The most information comes out when there’s a debate on both sides! And special thanks to Livia for holding up one side for quite a while from what I saw in the comments.
E.S. —
Yeah, I was like, “today I could sit down and be super productive on my writing, or… Or I could spend all day in endless online debate.” The choice was quite clear.
Livia – I agree with E.S. – I think you were brave and had integrity taking on so many of us on this thread.
In the thread above, you said:
“Do your research”.
I agree. I think you made valid points about not just believing without examination that anything related to agents is wrong, but instead thinking about what is best.
I wish I’d been alittle more diplomatic on this thread with you – sorry – and with Hugh. I can get so caught up in debate and wanting to win. And I get really nervous that writers will give up their newfound power at the flick of a tailfeather. So used to taking crumbs, we may leap at a half a slice and not hold out for the whole loaf. (Although I do think that Hugh held out for what he perceived as the whole loaf, and deserves much credit for doing so!)
But that doesn’t mean writers shouldn’t think things over carefully, and examine them thoroughly, including what a very good agent could offer them (even if it is for a high price). Thinking things over is good.
I also predict agents will soon relax the 15% and start offering piecemeal services anyway, so then this discussion about pricing would be moot – but the idea of careful selection would not be.
Trust me, Mira. When I make a mental list of people who need to be more diplomatic in online debates, you are not one of them. It’s always a pleasure to discuss things with you.
Definitely mutual, Livia.
Well the “endless online debate” was certainly worthwhile from my perspectiveLivia.
And Mira, I certainly wouldn’t have learned as much if there hadn’t been two sides!
I agree that the agent and publisher weren’t necessary. The book did the work. There was no “risk” because it’d already sold lots of copies. Hollywood finds you if they’re interested, desperate people find them, so, again, the book did the work. Emailing publishers worldwide isn’t worth 15% to me. I can do it myself. Why would they turn down a big seller?
But, of course, authors don’t take credit for their success because of modesty. In my opinion, the book and author deserve full credit. Everyone else just jumped onboard while the train was speeding down the tracks.