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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.