Comments on: Random House Royalty Switcheroo 06/2011/random-house-royalty-switcheroo/ A Lawyer's Thoughts on Authors, Self-Publishing and Traditional Publishing Mon, 14 Jul 2014 00:56:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.1 By: Passive Guy 06/2011/random-house-royalty-switcheroo/#comment-5476 Wed, 06 Jul 2011 18:13:24 +0000 ?p=5102#comment-5476 Courtney – That’s a new provision for me and I agree it’s crazy. I guess nice authors don’t complain.

I don’t see the agent included in the confidentiality clause, however. The CPA can reveal info to the Author’s “representative,” who may be her agent, but could just as well be Passive Guy if the author was foolish enough to designate him as a representative after the audit was finished. In fact, the author could designate someone at Publishers Weekly as her representative, then someone at the Authors Guild, etc., etc.

PG could see a big fight over the language of the “agreement” as well. One interpretation is that the only thing the CPA has to sign is something that says “to the effect that any information obtained as a result of such examination shall be held strictly confidential and shall not be revealed to any third party other than Author or her representative, without written permission by Publisher” with no additional language thrown in.

But PG is always a troublemaker.

Thanks for sharing.

]]>
By: Courtney Milan 06/2011/random-house-royalty-switcheroo/#comment-5469 Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:14:07 +0000 ?p=5102#comment-5469 Uh, I have three friends with contracts at Random who got 25% of cover, not of net, with deals signed in the 2006-2008 range. That used to be the standard royalty rate at Random. They dialed down on new contracts when everyone else in the industry settled on 25% of net.

Also, PG, my contract with Harlequin says this about the audit clause:

As a condition precedent to the exercise by Author of her right to examine the books and records of Publisher, Author’s duly authorized certified and independent public accountant shall execute an agreement to the effect that any information obtained as a result of such examination shall be held strictly confidential and shall not be revealed to any third party other than Author or her representative, without written permission by Publisher. Author also hereby agrees to hold all information and statements provided to Author or her accountant in strictest confidence.

I don’t know if anyone else has a similar clause, but that’s crazy stuff.

]]>
By: Passive Guy 06/2011/random-house-royalty-switcheroo/#comment-5336 Mon, 04 Jul 2011 18:37:22 +0000 ?p=5102#comment-5336 Jim – I’m not clear on your premise.

Are you saying Kristin is lying when she says RH changed royalty terms without contract amendments?

]]>
By: Jim 06/2011/random-house-royalty-switcheroo/#comment-5334 Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:14:27 +0000 ?p=5102#comment-5334 Excuse me please. How do I politely point out that this entire thread, based on a nonsensical Pub Rants, is utter nonsense?

A show of hands if you have a RH deal that pays 25% of list or better for mass market. Any one? You in the back? So comparing a 25% of net ebook rate to a nonexistent rate for mass market doesn’t make any sense, does it? Does any more really need to be said?

Without knowing details here is what common sense tells us:
1) the 25% of net is an increase for authors who typically earn what, 6 to 10% of list.

2) RH would not open them selves to the abuse of reducing royalties below contract, too many lawyers out there.

Does bring up the interesting question, “Can a party unilaterally change terms to benefit the other party?”

It would be helpful if people did disclose their royalty rates on epubs and print and based on what (list, net, other) so people can do a real comparison.

Looks to me as if RH is handing you more money than your contract entitles you and you don’t even know it.

]]>
By: Passive Guy 06/2011/random-house-royalty-switcheroo/#comment-5166 Fri, 01 Jul 2011 22:29:12 +0000 ?p=5102#comment-5166 J.K. – Here, here.

]]>
By: J. K. Swift 06/2011/random-house-royalty-switcheroo/#comment-5162 Fri, 01 Jul 2011 20:29:03 +0000 ?p=5102#comment-5162 Interesting…Having worked as an auditor myself, I am not surprised to see something like this. One thing I have learned from auditing accounts of large corporations, is that most often the mistakes are due to carelessness, stupidity, or the “hey, it’s not my department” syndrome.
Outright fraud is usually the domain of small business. Either way it’s not right.

If you are unfortunate enough to be a victim of this, I suggest you dig out your contract, read it, and decide what you think your royalty statement should look like. Then talk to a lawyer and see if he agrees before you hire any accountants to look at your publisher’s books.

]]>
By: Michael A. Stackpole 06/2011/random-house-royalty-switcheroo/#comment-5115 Fri, 01 Jul 2011 00:31:00 +0000 ?p=5102#comment-5115 Prior to 2009, Random House used to offer 50% of money paid to the authors. (Back in the days before there was an ebook market.)

I’ll be looking very closely at my statements when next they arrive.

]]>
By: Passive Guy 06/2011/random-house-royalty-switcheroo/#comment-5087 Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:15:26 +0000 ?p=5102#comment-5087 Claude – It isn’t clear if this is stupidity or something calculated.

However, if the established corporate culture at RH was, “Everybody treats our authors very well. We don’t want to alienate these people,” even stupidity of this kind would be reduced.

I think the RH move resonates with a lot of authors because it’s typical of the way their publishers treat them.

]]>
By: Claude Nougat 06/2011/random-house-royalty-switcheroo/#comment-5064 Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:30:14 +0000 ?p=5102#comment-5064 As always, a fascinating post – I especially like your comments. Very illuminating. It is surprising how legacy publishers don’t appear to realize the damage they are doing to their reputation. Is Random House really reduced to playing such despicable games to defend its bottom line? Or is it the result of somebody stupid inside of the organization?
Because these are big corporations with lots of employees who might try something out just to show their boss how clever they are at ripping off their authors…That’s always the trouble with a big institution: very hard to manage and keep wayward employees under control…

]]>
By: Anthea Lawson 06/2011/random-house-royalty-switcheroo/#comment-5049 Thu, 30 Jun 2011 01:12:19 +0000 ?p=5102#comment-5049 Nice analogy. I know some authors who feel that way.

]]>