book advances

Author John Green, who wrote the seriously excellent YA novels Paper Towns and Looking for Alaska, has argued on his blog that higher royalties win over big advances. He breaks down the myths writers hold on to about big advances and explains why they are a liability for authors in the long run. Compelling.

Currently, publishers pay for all their bad bets with their good bets–blockbusters like Twilight pays for a lot of $300,000 advances on books that don’t sell well. But shifting the incentive away from advances and toward bigger royalty splits would lead to steadier growth across the board instead of surges of growth followed by excessive correction. Better splits would also incentivize authors to do more to get their work to readers, which would help growth.

For some balance, Justine Larbalestier responds with some interesting points, or rather refinements to John’s proposal:

…I agree with John that his model could be better for the industry. I would love to have higher royalties. However, the only agents I’ve known who’ve asked for them have not had much success.

It’s an interesting notion: how serious are publishers really about experimenting to find more sustainable business models? Why, as Justine suggests, would it be hard for agents to convince publishers to swap higher royalties for lower up-front advances? Why not look at shorter term limits on subsidiary rights in exchange for a larger bundle of rights? Why not assume that your author can do more for you to generate profitability on a book, and that a partnership approach to generating income is a less-risky way forward? A handful of publishers, some big some small, have started to experiment with the traditional splits. I haven’t yet seen what the outcomes have been but I hope we get the chance to see what’s working and what’s not. What are your thoughts?

{ 0 comments }