Bitchin' Blog Posts
Post Mortem
by SB Sarah | by SB Sarah | November 23, 2009 | Monday at 11:26 pm | 94 CommentsNow that the majority of the flames seem to have mellowed out, I’ve been thinking about what exactly went wrong with Harlequin’s launch of Harlequin Horizons.
Apart from the questions of self publishing vs. vanity publishing and profit and loss, I have been pondering why this was such a huge splashing fail.
My answer: brand inconsistency.
Note: I know there are some folks who think of branding as a negative thing. A false front or artificial construct designed purely to sell you things. Not necessarily. Branding is how you communicate who or what you are.
I think the biggest flaw of the entire launch was the increasingly close linking of the publishing wing and the vanity arm of Harlequin, especially the ads all over the eHarlequin site and the Harlequin community pages that read “Be an author!” With the addition of rejection letters directing writers to the Horizons line, the Horizons launch came across as predatory, greedy, and heartlessly tuned solely to profit and bottom line.
That said, corporations have one responsibility and one responsibility alone—namely: to make money for shareholders. So Harlequin’s effort to increase profits is not out of order at all. However, everything about the Horizons launch contrasted severely with the branding of Harlequin up to that point, and the volume of the outcry reflected that disconnect. In effect, that inconsistency created a major loss of goodwill.
Harlequin has gone beyond the reach of any other publisher in romance in the past few years to reveal the process behind the book production. They have entire blogs run by Harlequin staff which are devoted to their individual fiction lines, and employees serve as community managers that revealed the people behind the books to an unheard-of degree. Their digital efforts to reach a new generation of romance readers is part of their evolving success. Harlequin isn’t a “what.” It’s a “who,” and you knew a lot about the various whos who were running the show than you did about any other romance publisher. Harlequin was the first to openly emphasize the reader, the aspiring writer, and the author as a priority, and their efforts to create communities reflect that. I don’t agree with the idea that any romance reader is an aspiring romance writer, but I do see how Harlequin successfully formed communities based on that concept.
They’ve cultivated writers through contests and offer pages upon pages of instruction and tips for those who aspire to be Harlequin authors - for free! There’s no charge to access those instructional pages, nor to join the Harlequin community discussions, nor to post on the bulletin boards or hang out at the blogs. All that cultivation and generosity of time and effort creates… authors. New ones. Who write new books to sell. Whose books may be successful because the writer-turned-author has already invested herself in that community, and that community may have a more attentive interest in that writer’s career.
Of course Harlequin is all about profits. They should be without question. But until Horizons, they’d successfully emphasized the community of readers, writers, and authors to such a degree that their reputation was more than merely corporate.
Harlequin until now has been amazingly attuned to the readers and writers of romance - one of the earliest of the massive publishing corporations that listened and solicited opinions from readers. But Horizons and the ads and the links and the redirection in rejection letters demonstrated such a huge degree of tone deafness, it was jarring. It was wrenching and inconsistent with the brand they’ve established. Add to that the revulsion directed at self publication, the confusion as to what constitutes vanity and self-publication, and the miasma of contradiction found in the path to publishing, then contrast that with the value and meaning of the brand Harlequin cultivated on the part of its readers and authors, and it was a big ol’ mess.
If another publisher did something like this, one who wasn’t so reportedly in touch with readers, one, perchance, who wasn’t as profitable as Harlequin, I don’t think the outcry and fury would have been so enormous.
Harlequin has been more transparent about the publishing process and the types of books they are looking for within their lines, and actively engaging readers and aspiring writers for far longer than any other romance publisher. Thus the avaricious tone of the Horizon’s launch, coupled with the manner in which the Horizons line was connected with the established Harlequin publications, undermined their previous efforts at branding.
But as I said, Harlequin does listen to readers, writers, and authors. I don’t think this is finished, and I think there are lessons inherent in the last few days that apply to everyone who is invested in the romance community. Therefore, I’m listening, too.
Filed: General Bitching, Random Musings
Courtney Milan said on 11.23.09 at 11:50 PM • [link]
That said, corporations have one responsibility and one responsibility alone—namely: to make money for shareholders.
I just want to point out that shareholder primacy is a relatively US-centric corporate concept, and is not endorsed worldwide. I am by no means an expert (or even mildly well-read) in corporate international law, but I seem to recall reading that the Canadian Supreme Court had very recently rejected full-on shareholder primacy.
Someone who knows more about this can and should chime in, but I keep hearing this assertion, and I keep thinking that the matter may be a little more nuanced when you’re dealing with companies incorporated in other countries. This is not to say you’re wrong, but I think it may well depend on the country of incorporation, and we should be wary of assuming our national understanding of the nature of a corporation’s duties holds sway without further comment.
Laura Kinsale said on 11.23.09 at 11:54 PM • [link]
Just want to thank you, Sarah, for providing this discussion arena. I’ve certainly learned an enormous amount myself, about a lot of angles that I hadn’t taken the time to really think through or research.
mulberry said on 11.23.09 at 11:55 PM • [link]
Sarah, that’s an insightful analysis.
My feeling over this was betrayal.
Like I’d walked into my bedroom and found my husband in bed with another woman.
First came disbelief. Then WTF? Then deep pervasive sadness.
Maybe I’m naive.
But Harlequin has built their brand loyalty on keeping their promises to readers.
I don’t like seeing a company I trust make promises they won’t be able to keep.
Darlene Marshall said on 11.24.09 at 12:02 AM • [link]
Excellent analysis.
Laurel said on 11.24.09 at 12:16 AM • [link]
Other publishers have done this, most notably Random House. The distinction is that they did not link it to rejections and did not bill it as a way to “make your dream of becoming an author” come true.
Harlequin is very unique as a publisher who accepts submissions directly from an author. It happens other places, but it is routine at Harlequin. This puts them in close contact with the aspiring author, much like the online communities cited in your analysis. It also puts them in the unusual position of marketing their vanity press through rejections. No agent would make money by rejecting a submission.
I absolutely agree that a company’s first responbility is to remain financially viable. I also think they do owe it to their investors to turn a profit. What Harlequin did should not necessarily be illegal but it was certainly unsavory and even predatory. They sold their name. In a nutshell, they said, “If you pay us we will print your book with the added validation of the Harlequin name on the spine.”
It wasn’t just that it violated their branding, they specifically used their branding to sell a service and a promise to “make your dream come true.” The only people who can get away with that work for Walt Disney.
MicheleKS said on 11.24.09 at 12:19 AM • [link]
I called this a ‘brand fart’ similiar to what Coke did back in the 80’s with New Coke. Remember that one?
Also, consumers are much more aware of branding and have certain expectations for a particular brand. Mess with those expectations and feel the fury.
Consumers now have a considerable measure of control on the market. If consumers don’t like something, the reaction is instant and powerful and that’s mainly due to the advent of social media (blogs, message boards, Facebook, Twitter, etc). And I think another reason the reaction to the Horizons venture has been so strong is that Harlequin didn’t communicate this beforehand and/or solicit opinion from their community.
Laura K Curtis said on 11.24.09 at 12:27 AM • [link]
Thomas Nelson did it and there was hardly even a blip. (Random House’s deal was completely different—they invested in an existing self-publishing company, they didn’t start a line of their own publishing company that was vanity.) In fact, until the hue and cry over Harlequin, Thomas Nelson remained on RWA’s acceptable publishers list. Now, they’re both gone.
I doubt this is over, either, and I’ll be very interested in watching how the rest of it plays out.
Liz said on 11.24.09 at 12:39 AM • [link]
I think you’re right about brand inconsistency, but only to a point. It goes deeper than that for some people, myself included, even though I’m not a Harlequin author, nor do I aspire to be.
Part of Harlequin’s brand that feeling of closeness with the reader and, I imagine, with the author. They paint the picture of Harlequin being different from all the other publishing houses; those other publishers are cold and sterile, all work and no play; but Harlequin cares about its readers, its authors, and the romance genre. They promote themselves of advocates of romance writers, of romance readers, of the romance genre. “We are the gold standard of romance,” Harlequin says. “You can trust us; we know what we’re doing.” Of course it’s all an illusion, but that illusion was part of the brand, and an important one, at that. Horizons pulled back the curtain of that illusion, and allowed people to see the wizard for what he was, and it wasn’t pretty.
I feel as though the mask has slipped and I’ve finally seen Harlequin’s dark passenger, and while the disguise itself hasn’t changed, that brief glimpse of its true form—as unethical and unrepentant, cold and sterile as every other business in the industry—has permanently altered my perception of it. I only slightly bought into the illusion of loyalty Harlequin portrayed before, but now I can’t even fathom it, not even if I try. Above my desk in my office, I have a Harlequin wall calendar. I got it in the mail after signing up for Harlequin’s “Tell Harlequin” campaign. I’ve always really liked it, because the images are vintage covers, and some of them are freaking hilarious. But it means less to me now than it did two weeks ago, because the meaning behind it has changed. I don’t look at it and think “valued customer” anymore; I look at it and think “time wasted taking stupid Harlequin survey.” It’s a small thing, but it’s only one of many. It will be a long time before I invest in anything Harlequin without looking over my shoulder.
Kathy said on 11.24.09 at 12:57 AM • [link]
Picasso had an affair with a girl named Germaine. She led a very interesting life before and after him. Maybe this is her story? Germaine was married to a man named Florentin, and was persued by another painter who killed himself when she rejected him. Just a thought.
Ros said on 11.24.09 at 01:05 AM • [link]
Yes, this exactly. They foster that close relationship with authors through all the blogs and forums and their submission process. I think that’s why authors feel so betrayed by this - especially on behalf of their fellow-authors about to embark on a process which used to lead to either straightforward publication or rejection, but which might now lead some unsuspecting authors into vanity publishing under another name.
Vanessa Kelly said on 11.24.09 at 01:09 AM • [link]
In addition to everything you mention, Sarah, I think people were also really disturbed by the cost of the packages. The prices were much, much higher than fees offered by other self-publishing companies. It seemed like a crass money grab.
Linda Rader said on 11.24.09 at 01:10 AM • [link]
It was the marketing to the slush pile that raised the hackles of the professional writing community.
joanneL said on 11.24.09 at 01:50 AM • [link]
As ‘just’ a reader I’m sorry I know anything about Harlequin Horizons.
I’ve always known, in a peripheral way, that Harlequin is a business but for me it was first and foremost the source for the books that introduced authors and pushed new boundaries without being ‘pushy’.
I truly wish I was among those many happy customers of Harlequin who aren’t aware, and will never know, that Harlequin put it’s name on such a cheesy endeavor.
Of course they want to make money, I get that. Of course they want to keep their employees working, that’s admirable. Cutting dead weight and implementing new concepts is a given in business and I hope they find ways and means to keep themselves in the black.
It’s just when I reach in the refridgerator for Hellman’s I don’t want to have to check and see if it’s Hellman’s Lite and when I grab a Harlequin or Silhouette off the bookstand I don’t want to wonder if it was printed on some silly author-want-to-be’s dime.
Marie Brennan said on 11.24.09 at 01:55 AM • [link]
So Harlequin’s effort to increase profits is not out of order at all.
Doing it in a fashion that involves misleading their public, though, is out of order. The marketing of this doesn’t just violate the brand; it dangles a chimera of happiness and success that the uninformed can easily mistake for reality. Vanity presses thrive on misleading their customer base (which is writers, not readers), and they don’t give good value for the money sunk into them.
Theresa Meyers said on 11.24.09 at 02:20 AM • [link]
Excellent analysis. There’s only one thing, and it’s a big thing.
Unfortunately most people who aren’t in the communications field aren’t aware of it because publicists are trained to keep this below the level of your awareness.
Branding is more than just an image or a gimmick. It has become an unspoken agreement between consumer and product. Everything at a corporate level should be done with that branding in mind. The reason you have a growing customer base is because they come to rely upon that agreement. When you break that agreement, you tick off your consumer and you risk financial losses.
It would be no different than if Nora Roberts started writing dark bondage paranormal fantasy and nothing else. That’s not her brand and her readers would likely be loud and beligerant about it. Would she lose readers, even being the icon of romance that she is? Shockingly, yes. Because branding does matter. Your consumers matter. Business bottom line about the customer.
All those shareholders need to remember that without the customer your shares are worthless.
Not About the Lies said on 11.24.09 at 02:27 AM • [link]
Nevermind the branding. How about the Lies? Corporations have a responsibility to their shareholders, but they also have a responsibility not to commit fraud.
Inducing customers to believe that they would have an advantage in the marketplace by publishing under the HQN brand, when no such thing was going to happen was a lie.
Telling customers that using up their first rights and having a bound copy of their book would help them find an agent was a lie.
Telling customers on the phone that J.K. Rowling had started as a self-published author was a lie.
Melissa Blue said on 11.24.09 at 02:33 AM • [link]
Theresa, I’m sure other reasons were involved, but the best current example would be J.D. Robb vs. Nora Roberts. I came to the series long after it became popular and they’d put the Nora Roberts brand on the book too.
I did have a moment of “what is this?!!!” It didn’t make me stop reading her, but I did come to that book with the mind set this is going to be a Nora Roberts.
It really depends on how married to the brand a person is and how far apart the brand and the new brand are. In this instance it was a complete departure. So it felt like the previous brand—we nurture authors, we respect our readers—was a lie.
Ana said on 11.24.09 at 02:46 AM • [link]
I might be missing something, but I really don’t understand why everyone is so angry at Harlequin. I mean, I think “self-publishing” speaks for itself. My grand-father used to write poems for family events: weddings, birthdays and such. And because he wanted to keep them, he went to a self-publishing house, had about 30 copies “published”, and then gave a copy to each member of the family. He obviously is no Pablo Neruda, so his possibilities of being published by a real company were small. This self-publishing company gave him (and us) the possibility to see and keep his poems in much better (and fancier) shape for years and years. Just like him, I imagine there is plenty of people who would like to see their writings “published” as a book even if the quality of the work will normally prevent it, and Harlequin is providing a way to do so. Even better, because Harlequin is very well know, so people who would not know of this possibility any other way have heard of it by now. So, why is everyone so mad about it?
Theresa Meyers said on 11.24.09 at 02:54 AM • [link]
Ana:
Check out the 800+ comments on this on page three or four, of this site and you’ll get a thorough understanding of why people are so angry.
Theresa Meyers said on 11.24.09 at 03:05 AM • [link]
Melissa:
Actually, the J.D. Robb / Nora Roberts branding was a prime example of how to do it correctly. You don’t bait and switch. You introduce the new brand completely separate, let it grow on it’s own, then integrate with the other successful brand if you choose to in order to broaden both customer bases.
From the outset the publisher did not connect the two. J.D. Robb was J.D. Robb. Only those in the romance community were even aware it was Nora Roberts. It was a brand in and of itself.
It wasn’t until readers had developed a taste for just J.D. Robb and made it a NYT bestelling name on its own that they did a book that featured both J.D. Robb and Nora Roberts with a black/white cover theme that showed two distinctly different pictures of her back to back one in black leather the other in crisp white suit- which was a perfect way to visually showcase her different brands.
Had Harlequin not affiliated, but introduced New Horizons without any link to the company, then let it build its own success, then likely no one would have been as concerned about them being affiliated. But that’s not what they’ve been doing. From the outset, just like Sara said in her analysis, what they are doing isn’t matching with what they’ve always said so it is jarring and pisses people off.
I’ve actually told clients who want to write under more than one name these simple guidelines:
1. if you write something that’s in direct opposition, you’re two brands can never blend. (ie. christain young adult books and erotica).
2. Direct oppositions usually invovle matters of sex, politics, money and religion. In these cases your different readers are never going to see eye to eye so don’t ask them to.
Harleqin was taking on a brand in direct opposition (in regards to money) to the corporate image they’ve had for 60 years (vanity publisher in it for the money vs. traditional print publisher supportive of its authors and readers). That was bound to rock the boat. I just don’t think they anticipated the tidal wave.
A romance reader said on 11.24.09 at 03:19 AM • [link]
I am simply a reader but I am disgusted by this predatory money grab. I feel sorry for the authors who have been published by Harlequin as well because what now distnguishes them now from the slush pile—-not the publisher’s ame. Harlequin plays up their image of being women’s fiction and being women friendly but now it blatantly obvious that it is all smoke and mirrors. They play on the home and family image. Well, a name means something. People sign honor pledges with their names in those exam booklets. People sign their names to legal documents. Branding is important as many have said before. I no longer trust the name.
I love the comment about drawing back the curtain. Yes, Harlequin should make money but not by preying upon prospective authors or potentially their loyal customer base. For me as a customer, Harlequin just went one step too far. Some corporate bozo made a bad decision and it has consequences. Not just the RWA but people like me who are just readers, not an aspiring author, who no longer wants to be part of this cynical infomercial-type scheme. One good thing—-there are lots of great romances out there and lots of publishers and as a reader, I have lots of choices. I will not be choosing the Harlequin brand now.
JenTurner said on 11.24.09 at 03:25 AM • [link]
I totally agree with your comments, Sarah. It wasn’t Harlequin’s attempt to enter into an alternative publishing market that bothered me…it was the manner in which they did so. Partnering with a vanity press that doesn’t have the greatest reputation to begin with, and then marketing that service as a way to make your publishing dreams come true, was a huge mistake. But I have a question for everyone who’s been following this story…and please bear with me because it takes a moment to explain:
Let’s say Harlequin had opened a new subsidiary last week called Harlequin Horizons. And let’s say this division, staffed by Harlequin editors and other employees or even outsourced to a company they were comfortable partnering with, had opened their doors by asking for submissions from self-published authors and already established small presses or e-publishers. They might’ve said something like, send us the cover of your romance novel along with the inside book block, both of which have already been created for the trade paperback or e-book version, along with your sales figures for said book (at least 1,000 copies sold through major online print & e-book retailers), and a list of all the marketing/promo you’ve done for this title. Once we receive your submission, we’re going to take a few weeks and evaluate your materials. We’re going to look at the quality of the writing/editing and the overall story, the professionalism of the cover design and marketing efforts, as well as your sales data…and when we’re finished, we’ll either send you a polite e-mail saying thanks but no thanks, or we’ll invite you to the next step in our process.
The next step of the process is where we offer you a small mass market paperback run of 5,000 copies, at no upfront cost to you – because we think putting your novel in bookstores is a RISK worth taking. So instead of paying you an advance or purchasing rights as we would with a traditional author, we’re going to work with you to do mild editing in the form of only fixing any existing typos or grammatical errors if there are any (so our reputation for high quality stands strong because we already think your book has merit), and then we’re going to enter into a contract where after you assign this mass market paperback version a new ISBN number (because it must have a different ISBN than the trade paperback or e-book version), we’re going to print the book, distribute it to 5-10 test markets, and offer you a royalty of $0.50 per copy sold. Yes, we understand that we’re going to give this book a cover price of $5.99 per copy and keep $5.49 to cover printing, our profit and the wholesale discount we have to offer to put your book on the shelves, but you see – we’re taking a risk. We’re using our extensive knowledge and expertise in regards to the romance industry, along with our own distribution channels to place your novel into select romance markets that we know perform well…which we happen to know is something you couldn’t do on your own. Oh, and we’re also not going to do any marketing or promotional work for your title. Since we’re taking a financial risk on the print run, we expect you’ll put some extra money into marketing your now cheaper, more accessible title. If all 5,000 copies sell in the timeframe we set, then we’ll go back to the table and negotiate a larger print run and a different royalty structure. If they don’t, we’ll send you a royalty check for the copies that did sell and our contract will terminate.
So here’s my question: If Harlequin had come out with that strategy last week, do you think authors, other publishing industry pros, the RWA, or romance readers would have reacted the same? If Harlequin’s name had been attached to a stylized self-publishing venture that they actually invested in, would you have felt differently? Or does the thought of any major publisher getting involved with authors who didn’t get picked up by NY, for whatever reason, leave a bad taste in your mouth?
For the most part, the model I described above is somewhat similar to what Lightning Source, Inc. already does. LSI prints a book and distributes it via routes they’ve already established with major bookstores, online and brick and mortar, and independents. However, LSI doesn’t offer any kind of author services such as editing, cover design or anything like that, and they also don’t offer mass market printing. LSI will print a bad book riddled with grammar errors just as happily as they’ll print a great book. But before you can even apply with LSI, you have to put out $275 to purchase ISBN numbers that are either registered to your name or the company you’ve created. And, personally, I think LSI uses that rule as a “gatekeeper”, because only someone who’s really serious and has done their homework would put out $275 just for 10 numbers.
But Harlequin has the resources and the technology to offer everything LSI does and more, which means they could easily make a substantial profit by becoming a step between self-publishing/small presses and traditional publishing. I’m sure the numbers I used above for royalties and whatnot might have to be tweaked a bit, but I think the concept is viable, and it opens Harlequin’s doors to self-published authors, small presses and digital publishers seeking a wider audience for their titles. And, more than anything, not only would the above process allow Harlequin to make sure the end product meets or exceeds its own quality standards, but it would give Harlequin an avenue to find the new talent they’ve said they’re searching for and put that talent in front of a lot more readers.
Amelia "Fuckheady Bitchipants" Elias said on 11.24.09 at 03:56 AM • [link]
That set up wouldn’t personally have offended me at all, JenTurner. Basically what you’re describing doesn’t strike me as being in the same league as the underhanded crap they did try to pull. Allowing a previously self-published or e-published author a way to prove their mass-market print appeal would strike me as a very good idea.
It was the hearts and rainbows, it’s Harlequin but oh wait, no it’s not, suckering in their rejects and fleecing them of hundreds or thousands of bucks crap that got my personal panties in a bunch.
Melissa Blue said on 11.24.09 at 04:16 AM • [link]
You made my point. I didn’t come to J.D. Robb blind. I came with it when it had NORA ROBERTS right beneath it. At the time I wasn’t the savvy reader I am now. This didn’t automatically cue to me this is NOT a Nora Roberts—Boy meets girl. Boy and girl fall in love. Also good wins over evil. I expected a different genre from the cover. I didn’t expect a marriage i.e. missing out completely on the boy meets girl thing. (I should say I don’t read blurbs, because it takes out the surprise of what the story is going to be about. Yeah, I should change my policy. But that’s not the point.)
So, now everything you said I agree with. Harlequin wasn’t giving me the boy meets girl set up. They weren’t even giving me the marriage. They were giving me the divorce and still I was kind of hoping there would be an HEA at the end. They didn’t deliver this. It became the book I threw at the wall.
And, really how many times before now have we readers, viewers have said the corporation doesn’t understand at all what keeps us coming back for more? No it’s not surprising, but it’s damn sure disappointing. Even infuriating because we are not mindless sheep.
Spam word: Should, yeah, a whole lot of shoulds in this situation.
Laurel said on 11.24.09 at 04:16 AM • [link]
Hi, Ana!
You’re right, vanity presses have a definite place and what you describe is perfect. It’s like publishing a photo album through Snapfish or iPhoto. I used a vanity press (Blurb…love love love them!) to publish a family cookbook as a gift. It was marketed as a way to put my memories into a professional looking hardback book with a beautiful jacket. That was exactly what I got.
Blurb did not ever imply that this might be my first step breaking into the publishing industry as a professional author. It was a glorified family album/cookbook. I got what I paid for and I knew what the expectations were.
This is absolutely not what the sales pitch for Harlequin Horizons was. They implied that your vanity press book might actually be a contender in the fiction marketplace. Sure, it could happen. I read once about the same guy getting struck by lightening seven times. Much like lightening guy, it is highly unlikely that my vanity press book, no matter what imprint is on the spine, is EVER going to make me a successful author. Furthermore, once a writer has taken this step first rights are gone and their book is far less saleable in traditional avenues. And, to add insult to injury, if Harlequin picked up your book your royalties would not have been negotiable. You have to take what they offer.
Harlequin was deliberately misleading aspiring writers who lack the experience to know better. For any who fall for it, it will be a disappointing and expensive lesson.
JenTurner said on 11.24.09 at 04:54 AM • [link]
I absolutely agree with everyone who’s posted that what Harlequin did was wrong in a lot of ways. I guess what I was going for with my scenario above is - what could they have done, or still potentially do, that wouldn’t draw so much negative fire?
For me, the thought of a traditional publisher carving out a new niche in the self-publishing market is welcome. I’m just really interested in hearing (or reading as the case may be) everyone’s ideas on how they could do it sucessfully, without upsetting traditionally published authors or taking advantage of newbie authors.
Who knows, maybe Harlequin or some other major publisher will see this discussion and learn something from it…
Shiloh Walker said on 11.24.09 at 04:57 AM • [link]
Nice post, Sarah, and you make some excellent points.
I don’t see HQN as some evil entity out to bilk unsuspecting writers for all their worth, and if they wanted to dip their toes into the self-publishing **TRUE SELF-PUBLISHING**, I don’t know that I’d have any problem with it.
My problems with this has been the way this was done:
-referring writers from the ‘learn to write’ section of their website. In my opinion, the ‘become an author’ button seemed rather deceptive. I can easily see it conveying the message that getted pay by HQN is a ‘pay to play’ venture.
-referring rejected authors to HHz-see above.
-what strikes me as overpriced services, along with a perceived message that *this* could be the way to a publishing career. Sure it could be. And I could win the lotto tomorrow. From where I’m sitting, the odds of either are probably pretty similar.
-the name itself.
Some of the problems have already been dealt with-the name is changing and the links are gone. That’s a start. If they stop the referral mess, I’d be more pleased.
And if this venture into ‘self-publishing’ was actually done through (IMO) TRUE self publishing…the model where the author fronts the $$ and risk, and keeps all profits? Hey, I’d be downright pleased.
Suze said on 11.24.09 at 05:06 AM • [link]
So, in other words, Harlequin pulled an LKH? Teehee.
I seem to recall that, as well. And this has been preying on my mind this whole week. HQ’s HQs are in Canada, and we loveses our regulationses, we does, oh yes, my precioussss. Shareholders don’t matter as much as the public interest. Corporations come and go, but people matter.
This move was shenanigans, and I admit to half-heartedly searching around for the appropriate body to report such shenanigans to. (Haven’t found it yet, but I’m sure it exists.)
Also, I thought they were going to change the name. It’s still Harlequin Horizons.
Elysa said on 11.24.09 at 05:35 AM • [link]
Joanne,
You mentioned that you don’t want to go to the bookstore and pick up a Harlequin that was self marketed. Why not?
I say if the book was good enough for an indie bookstore owner to buy it or for a traditional distributor (which wouldn’t be Harlequin itself) to get it into the stores, the author damn well deserves the money.
Are we truly not understanding here that self published books have to be *better* than traditionally published books in order to gain any traction in the marketplace?
And to many of you…if *you* can pick up on the overblown sales tactics that Harlequin is engaging in, what makes you think that aspiring romance authors are going to lose their collective minds and shirts? Do you secretly think that all other Romance readers are stupid?
And @ JenTurner,
How would self publishing upset a traditionally published author? And why should any woman tippy-toe around and not pursue her dreams so as not to upset some other woman she hasn’t even met? That’s like refusing to lose weight because other random fat ladies might hate you.
Kimberly Loomis said on 11.24.09 at 05:57 AM • [link]
Great post, Sarah!
I have no qualms with people purchasing services like those offered from Horizons but I do have a big problem with some of the potential fall out. Well, perhaps not so much a problem as the feeling of greeting a tsunami while sitting in a rowboat. A big house doing something like this…well, I think a business should be concerned about money- it’s an appropriate, well-defined goal- but what if this branch winds up being more profitable than the actual Harlequin material? What happens to all those authors? I’ve read on some agent’s blogs that some of them are actually going to begin looking for agents to help get them into a new publishing house, which I think is a sound idea. But what happens, in a market which is already having so many issues with gains (not Harlequin- they’ve been weathering this trend just fine and dandy), when it’s more profitable to not publish new authors? To stick with only the Stephen Kings, the Nora Roberts or John Grishams and the rest get referred to vanity presses?
Ultimately I still look at this as an opportunity for the consumer to have a good, strong voice. You don’t like what Harlequin is doing- don’t buy the books (it just really sucks for those authors if people did this… HATE that! :( ). You don’t want to support vanity publishing or vanity published but want to support/use true self-publishing services? Pay for it accordingly. There are frightfully few areas of industry which seems to be “free-market”- publishing is one of them. It is in that system the consumer really has the most power- they want/need money to operate, don’t like it then don’t give it to ‘em!
Well, just my $.02….. (and for $01 more- what first set me off about this was actually including info about Horizons in their rejection letters then seeing little buttons on the Horizons site like “become an author!”.)
Lou Shumaker said on 11.24.09 at 05:59 AM • [link]
In case you’re interested, Jane Friedman over at Writer’s Digest has an interesting take on the HH episode.
Shiloh Walker said on 11.24.09 at 06:03 AM • [link]
I don’t know about anybody else, but I’m getting a little tired of this… I care about writers/aspiring writers getting fleeced. That does NOT translate to thinking they are stupid.
There were links TO HHz site on the learn how to write section of HQN.
When I first started writing, I checked out HQN’s site. I was 19. I had checked out a book about the different writer’s markets. HQN was/is the biggest in the world…why shouldn’t I trust them?
That is going to occur to others-a number of people have already voiced they see the appeal. And I’ve seen several comments that some of that appeal is somewhat lessened.
I did submit a book to HQN at 19, and it was rejected. I was crushed. If I had seen that link, BECOME AN AUTHOR, then read about how this could be how I get my book in the hands of a HQN author? Would I have been tempted? It’s very likely. Would I have bought? I don’t know.
But there’s the thing… if I HAD tried it, and had failed to make money after shelling out several thousand, I don’t know that I would have tried again.
If that happens to others, those could be voices we would enjoy hearing. If they fail, and don’t try again, those could be stories we never hear.
This ‘option’ looks like an appealing, possibly lucrative alternative. Like I said, I probably would have been tempted. If I had spent the money, it would have been my own fault, but if I had been tempted and then researched and found discussions like these, it’s entirely likely I would have had second thoughts.
Should these discussions offer some insight and understanding to those researching self publication (or vanity publication…), then, I call that a plus. If even one person has been educated, then that’s a good thing.
Caring about other writers, published or unpublished, doesn’t make us wrong. It doesn’t mean we think any other writer or aspiring is an idiot.
it means we care.
There is nothing WRONG with caring about others.
JenTurner said on 11.24.09 at 06:06 AM • [link]
I don’t think any woman should tippy-toe around and not pursue her dreams in order to not upset some other woman she’s never met. I’m self-published, and I certainly didn’t tip-toe around the publishing landscape for fear of other’s reactions, nor would I ever. I’m proud of my choice to self-publish and feel I made the right choice for my series.
My reference to not upsetting traditionally published authors was meant strictly in reference to a major publisher like Harlequin, that has made the bulk of their profit via those traditionally published authors, entering into the fray of self-publishing. I don’t believe for one second that self-publishing upsets any traditionally published authors. However, I do think in an industry where a traditional publisher’s business decisions can lead to potentially unfair consequences for the authors under their umbrella, that finding an alternative those authors don’t feel slighted by is important.
Tabetha said on 11.24.09 at 06:10 AM • [link]
Thanks for the link and it was interesting. I think she missed the boat almost entirely when she was re-stating—what she thinks—peoples objections were, though.
Laurel said on 11.24.09 at 06:10 AM • [link]
[quoteAre we truly not understanding here that self published books have to be *better* than traditionally published books in order to gain any traction in the marketplace?]
and
Elysa:
This is not self pub. This is vanity publishing. There is a huge difference and clearly many people do not recognize it, including you. Authors who chose to go the self-pub route realize they are not being backed by a house with a marketing budget.
Once again, I don’t think this should be illegal because I think we have a constitutional right to be stupid. That doesn’t mean it’s not predatory. Remember the craze of “model searches” whereby someone would “discover” you, charge you upwards of $1000 to build your portfolio and shop it to agents in the business, and they just knew they could break you in to the industry? This is the exact same thing.
joanneL said on 11.24.09 at 06:13 AM • [link]
Elysa said on…
11.23.09 at 06:35 PM
Sorry but you misinterpreted my post. I NEVER said that. Not in the above post, not anywhere online, ever. I buy all kinds of books published by all kinds of publishers including self-publishers.
I applaud any marketing efforts made by authors especially in economic times that are as tough as these.
What I said (maybe not clearly enough) was that now, for me, buying a Harlequin romance book will always bring to mind that they attempted a very cheesy way to make money for their company.
JenTurner said on 11.24.09 at 06:26 AM • [link]
In my posts above, when I reference self-publishing, I mean true self-publishing where the author purchases their own ISBNs and in turn opens their own small press. I’m not talking about Harlequin getting into the vanity publishing racket like they did last week. I think the vanity pub aspects of the conversation have been drilled into the ground, mostly in a good way at this point.
What I’m asking is how can Harlequin break into the self-publishing market in a way that most deem respectable? Or are the stigmas still attached to self-publishing too great for a major publisher to be associated with, in name, in any way?
Amelia "Fuckheady Bitchipants" Elias said on 11.24.09 at 06:29 AM • [link]
Absolutely right, Shiloh. Caring about others doesn’t imply believing they’re stupid little idiots. Many authors saw through this because we know the business. We’ve either been around long enough or have good author friends or listened to an agent or joined RWA or actually read all that fine print on our contracts—however it happened, somewhere, somehow, we learned that we don’t have to pay to play. I remember exactly when I learned it. It was in high school after I paid money to one of those “national award for poetry” bullshit things. Yes, I got taken in (hangs head in shame) and bought the damn book, and then felt like a tool when, after I was already out $75, people told me, “You know that’s a scam, right?” Well, I didn’t. First and last and only time I ever paid to see my name in print.
Point is, if a dedicated H/S reader writes a manuscript and gets online to see what to do with it next, s/he’s likely to check out Harlequin’s website, because it’s reader-friendly and pretty and that’s the brand they read most. On that website, near all the community boards with caring mods and lovely people, are instructions on how to submit that manuscript to an editor. S/he submits and is crushed when she gets a rejection letter, but at the bottom of the letter is this nice little blurb: “Your manuscript isn’t right for us at this time, but you might want to submit it to Harlequin Horizons. It might be the right path for you.” (Or whatever they’re going to say in the R letters—am I the only one who’s noticed the PTB are refusing to be specific?)
S/he sees that note and thinks, “Wow, this editor read my book and must think it’d do well here.” I’ve gotten Rs from H/S suggesting I submit to another line in the same house—dunno if it still happens as it’s been forever since I’ve submitted there, but it’s not unheard of for editors to say such things. And it’s not insane to think this inexperienced writer might trust that. It’s not stupid to think that more than a few people would get bilked. After all, my IQ is over 140 and I still bought that damn poetry book.
Being inexperienced or uninformed doesn’t mean you’re stupid. It means you have a dream of doing something you love—writing books that you love—and someone you perceive to be reputable has directed you to “the next step.” And that, to me, is what was repulsive about this whole H/Ho enterprise.
JenTurner, I do like your suggestion on how things could’ve been done differently. If they did something like that, where you prove sales figures to get into consideration and then have a limited trial print run, etc, I’d be all over that with a few of my out-of-print ebooks that sold well. As you said, there are some very interesting, and much less shady, ways H/S could’ve opened up the market to self-published or epublished authors. I hope they think of them and put them into action.
Edie said on 11.24.09 at 07:24 AM • [link]
Completely off topic aside.. but Amelia FB Elias - are you the Samhain author, if so, where are more recent books? I wants.
Sorry for the interruption to regular comments.
Jesi said on 11.24.09 at 09:29 AM • [link]
For what it’s worth, I’ve been keeping up with the various links and I think it’s good Harlequin wants to stay in business. Seriously, they provide me with a ton of doctor office books. You know, those times when you don’t want to get totally into a book, but you know it’s gonna be a long wait on your mom. They’re perfect for that.
But. I don’t like the fact the brand is tainted for me. It’s smear I just can’t get rid of, no matter how hard I try. I bought one last night because I had just finished my last book and needed a quick one. I felt like crap for doing it. And then I felt guilty because the author I bought I’m sure appreciated whatever royalty she’ll get out of it. I can’t disassociate, though. I didn’t enjoy the book as much as I would have two weeks ago.
For me, it’s not about the vanity press - though that’s skeevier than me thinking Jacob Black in the new Twilight movie was hot and he’s a decade younger…and jailbait - but the fact Harlequin broke a trust. Not just with me as a main house reader, but in a “do I trust the covers” when picking up a book on the fly? Even if I didn’t enjoy a book, I didn’t hold the publisher responsible because more often than not I was happy with the available choices. And bless you Kroger for giving discounts.
On the plus side, the reasonable author in this whole debacle, well I’m willing to give them a chance if I haven’t read them before. Jeaniene Frost brought the subject to my attention and I’m glad she did. It means I’ve got some messy grey thinking to do. Not necessarily brain matter since I’m more deficient than roadkill, but figuring out where I fall in the grey scale since black and white isn’t possible with such a varied publisher.
No, I think the outcry would have been just as enormous once the wider audience found out. It might have taken longer to come out since the circle wouldn’t have been as large, but the romance community seems to be more connected since the advent of the Internet. People would care because predatory behavior under a benevolent skin is something that affects authors, potential, critics, publisher staff, and readers. It’s not just a one group being targeted: it’s everyone. After all, the readers pay for the books the authors have written, sometimes bought based on reviews, and the staff has to put the book out. It’s not a simple machine.
Zealot said on 11.24.09 at 11:07 AM • [link]
I agree that the anger over this has everything to do with branding, and how people respond to it.
Self publishing is a reality and a healthy one…and yes in many cases an increasingly conservative and limited publishing world has caused real and viable authors to turn to self publishing. Many of the firms, such as iUniverse have become very slick, professional operations. They are no longer the sort of endeavors that only produce cheesy “My Bar Mitzvah” memory books. That isn’t to say everything they produce is a literary gem, but often times they do publish hidden treasures that might have been overlooked by commercial presses.
That said, Harlequin stepped outside what it’s loyal readers consider appropriate actions for a “legitimate publisher”. Romance often readers have to deal with a lot of ignorance and arrogance from people who feel that what they read are not “real” books…the equivalent of 300 page copies of the Weekly World News, or worse, just porn in fancy bodices. Harlequin making this sort of move felt to many people like they were further delegitimizeing their own books, opening themselves up to “pay for play” authors.
Harlequin, for their part, made the mistake of trying to make themselves into a “lifestyle” brand. Consider the rash of Online Games based on things like Marvel Comics or Star Trek or Harry Potter…they give devoted fans a chance to “live the experience”. In some ways they must have imagined that this would be a great way to raise money at the same time as allowing faithful readers a chance to “live the experience”. I mean after all, short of sending readers a love starved, darkly brooding vampiric hero named Phillipe Dylan Pendragon in a box with a nice card or a dehydrated Dr. Davenport St. John, passionate about his patients in the Rwanda Bush Hospital yet haunted by a mysterious past, just add water, how else could they try to commoditize the experiences found in their books? Easy…letting their readers try their hand at being “Romance Writers”. How many romances are about just that? Romance writer finding a romance of her own? Live the dream.
Unfortunetly Harlequin forgot that their fans don’t WANT to artificially live the experience of being a Harlequin author, their own imaginations put them in the action just fine…what they need from Harlequin is stability and legitimization….which this plan disputed a bit. Not the end of the world, but troubling.
Marie Brennan said on 11.24.09 at 11:29 AM • [link]
Zealot wrote:
I agree that the anger over this has everything to do with branding, and how people respond to it.
There are a number of people in this thread (myself included) who have clearly explained that our anger has to do with issues other than branding, or how we respond to it. Among other things, it has to do with the distinction between self-publishing and vanity publishing, which (despite many reiterations) continues to be blurred in this discussion. The issue is not the cheesiness of the books produced, nor even whether commercial publishing is overlooking hidden treasures; the issue is exploitative pricing for exploitative results. Paying a minimum of six hundred dollars up front in exchange for fifty percent of net profits and the delusion that this will help you get in the door at Harlequin or elsewhere is a scam. And it’s an even bigger scam when a major publisher actively deploys its reputation as the shiny lure on the hook.
There are honest self-publishing setups out there. This is not one of them.
Zealot said on 11.24.09 at 12:13 PM • [link]
Exactly…and the operative part of why that has pissed everyone off so badly is their view of Harlequin as a BRAND. There are a billion scams run on the internet every day, this one is a fairly benign one. What hurts is that it is wearing a brand name that you hold in esteem. Without branding, this situation goes away in a day.
Marie Brennan said on 11.24.09 at 12:26 PM • [link]
Harlequin’s brand means nothing to me; I don’t read their fiction, and have no emotional investment in the company one way or another. The brand only matters inasmuch as it amplifies the thing I’m actually upset about, which is the scam nature of the whole thing.
And as far as the scam’s concerned, no—this situation doesn’t go away in a day. Preditors & Editors has been around for twelve years, and one of its missions is to publicly identify this kind of operation, so as to warn people away from it. Ditto Writer Beware. The Internet’s volume dial might have been set lower had this enterprise been launched by a publisher with a less powerful brand, but the situation would still be there, and people would still be having more or less the exact same debate.
Nora Roberts said on 11.24.09 at 03:10 PM • [link]
Thanks for the calm, thoughtful analysis, Sarah.
I agree that the Harlequin brand, and the way it was used in this business = huge mistake for all the reasons you listed.
The other vital element in this is trying to put a self-pubishing face on a vanity press body. That’s deceptive, and especially disturbing when it’s done by a company with a respected, trusted brand such as Harlequin.
SarahT said on 11.24.09 at 04:13 PM • [link]
Excellent analysis, Sarah. Thank you.
Amelia "Fuckheady Bitchipants" Elias said on 11.24.09 at 04:27 PM • [link]
Edie—yes, that’s me. I’ve been on a rather unintended writing hiatus, but I’ve just about got Real Life whipped back into shape after a bunch of craptastic drama. Hopefully I’ll have something coming out in 2010. Thanks for asking!
Agreeing with everyone else on why it sucked, and hoping the Harl PTB see JenTurner’s idea and give it a serious think.
Anonymous said on 11.24.09 at 04:28 PM • [link]
> There’s no charge to access those instructional pages, nor
> to join the Harlequin community discussions, nor to post on
> the bulletin boards or hang out at the blogs.
And it sells the hell out of books. A benefit to them.
> All that cultivation and generosity of
> time and effort creates… authors.
No, authors create authors. It’s not Harlequin at my keyboard this morning, it’s me.
> That said, corporations have one responsibility and one
> responsibility alone—namely: to make money for shareholders.
> So Harlequin’s effort to increase profits is not out of order at all.
The tone of your post sounds like you’re excusing them.
I can’t help but recall the whole Cassie Edwards controversy here. When an author does something bad, you’re all over her. But when Harlequin behaves in a predatory way, you defend them?
Anna said on 11.24.09 at 04:38 PM • [link]
If they hadn’t closely associated with the Harlequin brand, they’d have been just another subsidy publisher. The brand is what, I’m sure, was intended to make it attractive. Can’t have it both ways, eh?
rae said on 11.24.09 at 04:44 PM • [link]
@JenTurner
I couldn’t agree more. They could have set up a rival company to Lightening Source - Harlequin Print on Demand. It is a really a shame they were so short sighted in their pursuit of money that they didn’t think about the bigger picture, the long term. You set up a vanity press/assisted self publishing you get very little repeat business, you constantly have to be searching for new customers because everyone gets wise to your little enterprise. A company like Lightening Source is where the real money is, everyone from epublishing houses to self publishers to micro-presses and vanity presses use them.
You can see why Torstar is in financial difficulty.
Nora Roberts said on 11.24.09 at 04:59 PM • [link]
~The tone of your post sounds like you’re excusing them. ~
It didn’t strike me that way, but as an objective analysis, clearly listing the problems with the whole business, and commenting with an opinion on why Harlequin might have started it.
Anon Author said on 11.24.09 at 06:54 PM • [link]
I’m a multi-pubbed, bestselling author who does not, nor ever has, written for HQ. I haven’t read all the comments here today, nor have I commented on this HQ clusterfuck yet, but I want to offer one thing from an insider’s perspective:
Much of what I’m reading on blogs and boards from a “reader-only,” and even a “gosh, someday I might like to try to write a book” point of view is something more like a “troubled feeling” about all this. Lots of people from the “outside” (sorry for all the “quotes”) don’t exactly understand the great big fuss, or they try to see it from HQ’s perspective as a money-bottom-line issue, which is absolutely is, or they’re angry and shocked because this money making venture is attached so blatantly to HQ’s respectable submission arm, but they simply don’t get why authors are so thoroughly, fucking appalled by this move. Here’s my take as someone who has friends who write for HQ, and friends who are desperately working their butts off to become respected, published authors.
Usually, after a writer begins to write seriously with an eye toward publication, it takes years to get published. Just trying to find an agent is a bitch, and that’s only the beginning. Submitting is so, so hard. Getting rejection letter after rejection letter is painful, and there are so many letters you can usually wallpaper the average kitchen with them. I have friends in RWA who have been writing as long as I have, have been finalists in the Golden Heart contest more than once, with very good manuscripts, and are still unpublished. And so the romance writer, after years and years of trying, working, submitting and getting rejected, attending workshops to better her craft, anguishing over each and every scene, each and every five minute interview with an agent or, even better(!), an editor at a national conference, where—I’m not joking—she worries if the color of her lipstick is distracting from her “pitch” or if she’s talking to fast to get it all in—she’s finally told to send her “partial” to HQ for a read. OMG! OMG! OMG!! Jane Doe, Major Editor at HQ asked for a partial!
The truth is, most editors and agents will go ahead and just ask to see the partial, whether they’re interested or not, as long as the manuscript fits their line. And honestly, these romance writers are so astute, because most of them have been working so hard for years trying to get published, they know exactly which editor buys which line. (I have a friend who writes for HQ Blaze, who worked, and worked, and worked with an editor for nine years—got to know her personally, probably would have picked up her dry cleaning if she lived in Toronto—until she finally honed her craft well enough to to be published. She’s a great writer, but she had to work for it.) The editors ask for partials, most are rejected, but some, sometimes, are read, sent back for “work,” read again, maybe sent back for more work, maybe rejected, maybe not. If not, sometimes they might go to a different line with a different editor if it’s a better fit, and the process starts all over again. Then, if the manuscript fits the line, if the editor had room in her schedule, if she asks for and then accepts revisions and more work is done, the editor might then go ahead and decide to gather with the team and discuss an offer. And then, if all goes well, OMG, holy hell, the author, two years later finally gets her dream, and after fifteen years of writing and working her ass off, gets The Call!!
Here’s my point in all this drivel: When HQ came out last week and offered up HQ Horizons, every single writer who has been working her ass off for years and years and years to get an editor to buy her manuscript had to feel not only shocked, but sick to her stomach. Just think: now Sally Smith, romance writer wannabe (and this is not a bad thing, she’s just new!), who is just now deciding, “Gee, I love to read those Silhouette Desire books, I think I’ll write one!” is going to submit, get rejected because it’s awful (trust me, it will be), get an offer on her rejection letter to buy her name in print, and be an HQ author in no time at all! And she, too, can tell everyone in the office she writes for HQ. Just like my friend who worked for nine years (or ten, or fifteen). And to add insult to injury, now that HQ has a vanity press arm attached, it’s no longer a recognized publisher so my friend worked all those years and any future books by her that she writes for HQ no longer qualify for the highest award a romance author can achieve, the RITA.
In essence, HQ fucked the author for the bottom line. That’s rape.
SB Sarah said on 11.24.09 at 07:00 PM • [link]
Anon Author, I was with you and pondering your perspective right up until the last line.
“Rape?” Come on, now. Hyperbole and unfit comparisons do not help your argument. You might as well have thrown Nazis, Wal-Mart, and the Holocaust in there as well. It’s a business decision that many people got upset about. It’s not sexual assault.
Anon Author said on 11.24.09 at 07:31 PM • [link]
Well, this has nothing to do with Wal-Mart, Nazis, the Holocaust, or sexual assault. That’s, um, a little extreme. But this is rape of another kind.
Again, if you’re on the inside like I am, you’ve seen grown women break down before in interview with an editor, just from nerves. Imagine trying for years and years to just get an editor to read your manuscript, and then after competing with hundreds of other women to get one of the few available opportunities to speak with a HQ editor at the National conference for five whole minutes (!) to pitch your Blaze concept you’ve been working on forever, and the editor seems really interested and wants to see a partial and loves your blue suit and you have so much in common!—- you get rejected with a form letter. This goes on year after year to various degrees, but you keep trying. Now HQ offers brand new wannabes the opportunity to buy into this new “business venture” on their rejection letters! You can understand how this might feel like you’ve been violated by the ONE group of people, the one entity who you’ve been working with and trusted to better your skills as a romance author and help you get published for for ages.
My point is: from an insider’s perspective, this is so, so much more than a mere business decision. The trust the romance writers and HQ authors have put in to this company over the years is enormous and what they’ve done has felt like a violation. And the point of my first post is that unless you’ve been on the inside and have seen the hard work, the tears of anguish and joy, you (not you personally, but in general) may not understand why authors are so appalled by this.
Selah March said on 11.24.09 at 08:22 PM • [link]
Anecdote alert!
I threw up ten minutes before my very first editor appointment at my very first conference. Blew serious chunks all over the bathroom of our (Barb Ferrer’s and mine) room at the Westin. Barb had to go to the appointment with Kate Duffy in my place. I took her appointment a few minutes later, undoubtedly reeking of toothpaste and vomit. Kate—may she be forever remembered as a goddess among women—was very kind and understanding.
My point, and I do have one, is that while I was a romance-writing newbie at the time, I was not and never have been a shrinking violet/Nervous Nellie/under-confident babe-in-the-woods. Anon Author tells it true in terms of what’s at stake for the average writer—newbie or no—during the submission process. It’s virtually impossible not to take it all very personally, however much we may know better. Hence, the very personal way so many writers have taken Harlequin’s new venture, which seeks to capitalize on exactly how little the average newbie knows about the publishing business. We empathize. Women—MOST women, I should say—are pretty skilled at that. Some may think it’s to our detriment as a gender. I tend to disagree.
And, Sarah, while I understand and appreciate your dislike of the term “rape” in this context, I imagine that if I were a Harlequin author, I’d be feeling a little bit violated right now, in an “Enthusiastic buttsecks is one thing, dude, but did you have to skip the lube entirely?” sort of way.
Prefer to Remain Anon said on 11.24.09 at 08:38 PM • [link]
Gotta go with Sarah on this. I think they hyperbole detracts from the argument. And as someone who 1) writes for H/S and 2) been sexually assualt—the assualt was a worse. So. Much. Worse.
Otherwise, I agree with what you hvae to say. WHat H/S did left me reeling and wondering WTF!
Prefer to Remain Anon said on 11.24.09 at 08:43 PM • [link]
Yikes! Sorry about the typoes and grammer—am at work and trying to type under the radar (as it were)
Anon Author said on 11.24.09 at 08:50 PM • [link]
I apologize for the term “rape.” I wasn’t trying to be insensitive or dramatic, but rather to express the utter violation this move by HQ has felt like to many authors. This has nothing to do with sexual assault, or anything so abhorrent.
Prefer to Remain Anon said on 11.24.09 at 08:53 PM • [link]
No worries! I just thoght your arguement was SPLENDID with the term. :)
Prefer to Remain Anon said on 11.24.09 at 08:55 PM • [link]
Coorection—Without theterm…okay,...I really got to get back to work since I can’t type today. I am a writer..really…I swear….
Mary Stella said on 11.24.09 at 09:10 PM • [link]
Protect your brand is a mantra in marketing. As a marketing/media professional this is part of every decision and venture I make in my day job. Harlequin not only didn’t protect their brand, they exploited it while trying to give credibility to their foray into vanity press. They sold it out by telling authors that the titles published by Horizon could be chosen to become part of one of the established Harlequin lines and by referring rejected writers to Horizons.
As far as the comment wondering whether we think that aspiring authors are stupid, the answer is no. However, some have less knowledge than others which can make them more vulnerable. This is one of the main reasons that RWA and other writers organizations work so hard to provide information and educate members about the business of publishing.
Years and years ago, my original dream was just to get published. I wanted to write a book one day. It’s a fine dream. I joined RWA and my local chapter, learned more and more about the business of publishing and knew that my dream needed refinement. I wanted to write a book one day, sell it and earn money. That’s an important dividing line for me.
In the 15 years since I joined RWA, I’ve seen many fellow writers with the same dream. Unfortunately, I’ve seen some who wanted their book published so badly that they ended up selling their work in really bad deals, or paying out the nose to have their books published by a vanity press. For some, it didn’t matter as long as they could hold a book in their hands with their name on the cover. Others were crushed when the shiny success marketed to them by the vanity press didn’t come true.
This doesn’t make them stupid. They were motivated by a deep, strong desire to publish and believed the hype. Smart people get conned all of the time.
C said on 11.24.09 at 09:35 PM • [link]
From the harlequinhorizons.com front page just now. I see it on other pages too, mixed with Harlequin Horizons….talk about even more confused branding!
Is DellArte Press the new name?
C said on 11.24.09 at 09:45 PM • [link]
Looks like it’s DellArte everywhere but on the graphics and the forms and web address, presumably those trickier elements will change shortly…. Would love to know if the text around promises / services / costs / benefits has changed too, or if it’s just a name search/replace jobbie. I presume someone saved the original pages days ago?
anon subber said on 11.24.09 at 09:45 PM • [link]
I agree. And maybe this is a silver lining in this very slimey Harl Ho cloud. Harlequin is a business and folks were really slapped hard by that fact because of all this. As someone who’s subbed to Harl for the last four years and followed their forums closely, I’ve been amazed by the pathos and personal sacrifice involved in trying to get pubbed. But you have to be smart about how personal you let it get. Harlequin is not your mother, not your best friend, not your CP, not even the chatty dude at the Dunkin Donuts.
Even before the HarlHo debacle they targeted aspiring writers as a major way to make moola. If you listen to their editor podcasts, read their articles, pitch to an editor, etc. one of the first things they emphasize is: BUY THE BOOKS. At the National RWA conference they give away tons of freebies—a truly excellent way to hook thousands of attendees on their product. They offer contests—constantly claiming they’re looking for that next new voice—and yet these same series for which they’re soliciting entries currently have folks who’ve been waiting for one or two YEARS to hear back on a submission. Contests are a great way to drum up interest in the line and acquire more readership, a great way to draw romance buyers to their site. Aspiring authors are a huge market and Harl/Sil have always known it. Just because someone has gone through a sisyphean subbing process doesn’t mean Harl sees you as anything other than a marketing target and the Harl Ho debacle proves that.
Anon76 said on 11.24.09 at 10:04 PM • [link]
SB Sarah,
Before I read through all the comments, I’d just like to thank you for capturing the reason for some of the angst.
Anon76 said on 11.24.09 at 10:34 PM • [link]
I posted this a few minutes ago on the Huge first loop, and will now post here. Why? Dunno. Perhaps because every new blog topic about the issue leaves a trail for someone trying to make a decision on what publishing path to follow step back and take a breath before jumping right into a deal. (Long sentence, you betcha. LOL)
*****
I doubt anyone can change HQ’s endeavour in this. Though I wish if they’d wanted to try something new, they’d have not only put their name on it, but their personnel.
Because while I will not switch my position and tell new writers this type of model is the way to go, I will have to tell them, if you insist on going with it, don’t use Harlequin Horizons.
Something along the lines of:
In this list of names, which would you consider a self-publishing model versus a vanity- sorry- assisted self-publishing model? Word Clay, Trafford, Author House, Xlibris, IUniverse, Westbow or Harlequin Horizons?
I ask, because they are all the same, except the pricing. Pricing for the EXACT same services. Why do I question the difference in pricing? Because you get the services from the EXACT same parent company, AUTHOR SOLUTIONS. That guy making your cover for IUniverse could be the same guy working on your Harlequin Horizons cover, only for a different price charged to you.
Legal, sure. But don’t expect to get better quality just because of the moniker. Auto mechanics have known this little trick for years. The same replacement part will fit two different models, but one car has a sticker price of 15K while the other a sticker price of 30K. The smart mechanic always names the lower value car when requesting the item. Why? Because it’s half the cost doing it that way. For the SAME darn part.
C said on 11.24.09 at 10:38 PM • [link]
Looks like the page has changed back to the old version ... aaaand of course I didn’t actually save the DellArte version I was seeing. Oops, because it looked like they’d really updated and fleshed out their FAQs. Intriguing, though.
Poison Ivy said on 11.24.09 at 10:39 PM • [link]
Loved Liz’s line about “Harlequin’s dark passenger.” So true. Too many romance writers have built a completely false idea of who and what Harlequin is. This move has shaken them, because it has forced them to see the man behind the curtain. And he is not your jolly uncle.
I disagree that “corporations have one responsibility and one responsibility alone—namely: to make money for shareholders.” No. Corporations are supposed to stay in business, which is a different thing. The corporate hotshots who have made quick cash for some company with outrageous maneuvers that then resulted in savage flows of red ink were not fulfilling their true corporate mandate. Nor is it defensible for Harlequin to decide that making money for their shareholders should include, say, buying into a bordello in Nevada. It would be legal, but it is not consonant with the primary mission of the corporation. As people are pointing out, it would be messing with the corporation’s most valuable asset, its brand.
And by the way, when Thomas Nelson decided to do this very thing (not the chicken ranch, the vanity press), I did raise an eyebrow about it. But then, Nelson is a religious publisher and nothing they do that is hypocritical surprises me or interests me, either. My opinion. Apparently shared by all the other people who made no outcry.
Yes, this is all about the brand.
Kristina Cook said on 11.24.09 at 11:04 PM • [link]
Okay, I know this isn’t an exact analogy because you do have to pay to attend Harvard, but imagine if Harvard decided to start a subsidiary enterprise, called Harvard Horizons. When kids get rejection letters from Harvard, it mentions that they can still achieve their dreams of becoming a Harvard grad—just call this number and sign up for Harvard Horizons! A *new* exciting way of getting a degree, and it’ll only cost you $500,000 upfront (and even better, you won’t have to actually attend classes—they’ll simply mail you the degree right away)! You, too, you can have your very own Harvard degree to hang on your wall!
And even better, they’ll provide your resume to 100,000 hiring employers (who opt-in for their mailing list), and you, too, might get hired by some of the highest paying, most prestigious employers in the world! In fact, if you do really well marketing yourself and end up with a really good position somewhere, Harvard might decide to take you on as a *regular* student!!!
**And then all these poor snookered ‘grads’ will be shaking their heads, completely confused when employers laugh at their supposed ‘Harvard Degree’ and refuse to hire them (much as the Harlequin Horizons authors will be confused when bookstores won’t carry their books).
Strategerie said on 11.24.09 at 11:29 PM • [link]
Thank. You.
Before I entered the high-stakes world of publishing (all homage to the brilliant Jennifer Crusie for the quote,) I held political office. I still can’t go into a meeting with an editor or agent without an almost-terminal case of butterflies, and in most other areas of my life, I’m just fine. It also doesn’t help to know that most people sell as the result of a great query letter, not the face-to-face meeting. I’m wondering if they’re even effective.
I’m entering Year Five now. I have four finished manuscripts. I’m looking for an agent, and I’m still working. Those around me are starting to ask questions—“Don’t you want to give up?” “What if you never get published?” “Isn’t this a waste of time?” If they’re doing it to someone as motivated and serious as I am, they’re working on others who will do just about anything to see their books in print, including paying a vanity press because they just want to see their dream come true.
As others have mentioned, we’ve seen the man behind Harlequin’s curtain, and it’s not pretty. They not only betrayed those currently under contract with them (all the work, the classes, writing, rewriting and submissions, but someone with $1000 can claim they’re a “Harlequin author”,) it’s one more publisher those of us who’d like to have some professional recognition of their work might wonder if we should avoid.
We’ve already seen it, but I have to mention it one more time: The blowback will be legendary, and it’s not just the authors. Will Harlequin pull their sponsorship of RWA National as a result?
-S
stevie said on 11.25.09 at 12:17 AM • [link]
It seems probable that Harlequin were sold the idea as a risk-free way of making money; presumably the people buying the idea have spent the last couple of years on another planet since otherwise it would have occurred to them that there are no risk-free ways of making money.
It looks as if Harlequin are in too deep to get out, which in turn suggests that their need for money now is so great that it overrides the ongoing destruction of their brand. On the positive side, however, Gerald Ratner must be looking forward to having competitors in the “I ruined my business overnight” stakes…
Tsu Dho Nimh said on 11.25.09 at 01:03 AM • [link]
I think the parent company, Torstar or whoever it is, is looking at “monetizing the user base” in order to solve it’s own financial problems.
They see selling a “service” to the hopefuls as just another business ... but haven;t caught on to the problem of degrading the brand name by pimping it on the street corners.
Anon Author said on 11.25.09 at 02:19 AM • [link]
Excellent analogy, Kristina. And the cherry on top is this: The person paying for the degree from “Harvard Horizons” thinks she’s getting the same thing as the person who went to class for four long, torturous years, and she’s no dummy! She just ignorant and only has the Harvard Horizon’s really professional and polished website to tell her she’s a grad now, PLUS the name that backs it up—Harvard.
And… all those real Harvard grads… well, it’s too bad they had to work so hard now that their once distinguished and top-rated school is no longer held in such high prestige any longer. If you can buy your degree… ::shrugs::
Theresa Meyers said on 11.25.09 at 02:33 AM • [link]
Yes, DellArte Press is the name change now up on the website.
While I’m glad to see such a fast response to the many voices, it’s only a start. I think what most authors want to know is that there isn’t going to be an automatic referall to this vanity press (no matter what it’s name) in rejection letters.
Of course neither of those is going to help with the statement put out today by Horror Writers Association which says despite the name change that they want Harlequin to drop the venture altogether or Harlequin authors won’t be eligible for the Bram Stoker Award nor for membership in the association.
Gwynnyd said on 11.25.09 at 02:58 AM • [link]
DellArte? DELLArte. Surely Dell is still in business as a publisher. Do you think they will get their knickers in twist with the association of their name on this venture?
Ah, to be a fly on the wall when the lawyers have lunch. Is this, or is this not, similar enough to cause confusion?
Marie Brennan said on 11.25.09 at 03:02 AM • [link]
Gwynnyd—I don’t know whether this holds legal weight should there be any kind of protest, but the name has a strong justification; the Harlequin is one of the stock figures in commedia dell’arte.
It’s actually not a bad name. Pity it’s being put to this use.
Gwynnyd said on 11.25.09 at 03:42 AM • [link]
Comedy of the Arts… yep, that about sums it up.
Poison Ivy said on 11.25.09 at 03:51 AM • [link]
If I were Dell I’d send a cease-and-desist letter immediately. It causes brand confusion.
Why not Pierrot Press? The fact that you would be acting in a vulgar comedy might not hit you until after your bank account is empty.
P. N. Elrod said on 11.25.09 at 04:04 AM • [link]
This change to DellArte is a wise move to distance Hh from the Harlequin brand. I’m glad HQN is choosing to act on the situation instead of pretending nothing is wrong.
I notice all the pictures of aspiring writers on the site are women. No males are shown, with or without a shirt. Perhaps they’ve not had time to update their stock images.
DellArte calls it “assisted self-publishing” thus avoiding the nasty ol’ “v” word and its negative connotations, but it is very clear they are a vanity operation, which is fine.
However, HQ does have to make sure that no rejection mail to any prospective writer contains any mention of DellArte. That conflict of interest truly cost them tons of cred in the industry. You nailed it, Sarah.
Until they announced this Hh mess, I had no hesitation sending aspiring writers to the HQN website to check out the many helpful articles on writing.
Now I’ll be sending them elsewhere until and unless HQN loses all the vanity links.
And if the unconfirmed story IS true—the rumor about Hh claiming on the phone to a prospective customer that King and Rowling started out self-publishing—then someone there needs a kick in the slats followed by a pink slip.
No so. Writer beware noticed back in October:
http://accrispin.blogspot.com/2009/10/thomas-nelson-adds-self-publishing.html
So did Absolute Write:
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158608
It should be pointed out that he is hardly in the same league as HQN.
Writer James D. Macdonald comments:
“First, there wasn’t even a thread about this publisher until October of this year—and this on a board where one-man-band micro publishers routinely turn up. That means that these guys are well off the mainstream reader/writer radar. Christian Publishing is its own thing; complete with its own bookstores.”
“Second, what brought Thomas Nelson to this board’s attention was their new vanity imprint.”
“Third, from the very beginning the commentary here was negative. Condemning this kind of scheme wasn’t a new thing that started when Harlequin did their thing.”
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4296012&postcount=576
Big fan of Uncle Jim here. His bullsh*t detector is very finely tuned.
Kat Sheridan said on 11.25.09 at 05:08 AM • [link]
I checked out both HQ and the new Dellarte and can’f find a speck of cross-branding remaining. Man, did they move fast (and seriously, I feel bad for the programmers who have likely been working major hours making all the changes!) I’ve never seen a corporation move this quickly on anything before. Ever. Don’t know if they still are planning on that nasty rejection redirect, but wow, what a change. Go to the Harlequin Horizons and you are redirected to the new site: http://www.harlequinhorizons.com/
pollywantacracker? said on 11.25.09 at 06:08 AM • [link]
Shiloh said:
THIS. Yes. Totally.
Edie said on 11.25.09 at 07:01 AM • [link]
OT - Again, Sorry!
Just coming back to thank Amelia Elias for responding to my off topic rudeness!
*happychairdancingallovertheplace*
Dani Atkinson said on 11.25.09 at 09:02 AM • [link]
It’s not simply that there is “brand confusion,” or that they have misled people into thinking that their book could become a bestseller, or that they are not calling a spade a spade and a vanity press a vanity press. They are being SCAM ARTISTS. They are trying to make money off the gullible by tricking aspiring authors into paying for things that no author should ever pay for. Have you read their damn “service details?”
They will “edit” your book. For a price.
They will write you a one-page “press release.” For another price.
They will e-mail…. someone, about the fact your book exists. For yet another price.
And those prices are ASTRONOMICAL.
They will charge you three hundred here, another three hundred here, three-THOUSAND there. For things that a publisher should be doing for free. Editing. Marketing. And not even REALLY doing it. $342 for “editorial review?” Gets you a “sample edit” of a PORTION of the work (“Typically the first chapter.”) This comes after two weeks, and when it does, “you will receive recommendations for additional editorial services.”
Additional editorial services comes with additional costs. $0.035 cents a word to check your fucking grammar and spelling. $0.045 for them to actually read the thing and point out continuity errors. $0.077 cents to actually say anything about the plot.
And after that? After ALL that? THEY KEEP 50% OF THE NET. There is no fucking way that the “profits” on these books, published this way, could ever match up to the costs you’ll pay on the “services” they’re offering. But they are keeping HALF OF THEM.
This isn’t brand confusion. This is MONSTROUS. Think about this. A young author sends her book to Harlequin. Harlequin turns her down but encourages her to buy in to their vanity print scam. She does, and they encourage her to buy in to their “editorial review.” She does, and the “editorial review” encourages her to buy “additional editorial services.” When all this is added up? People can and have gone bankrupt, for the amounts we’re talking about here.
And okay, this is where the brand comes in. This is HARLEQUIN telling her to do this. Powerful, respected Harlequin. Telling her this is right. That this is a good idea.
This would be disgusting and wrong no matter who did it. The fact that Harlequin did it wasn’t what made it disgusting. But it was what made it especially dangerous. Because the power of their name makes it look okay. The brand is BAIT.
You say “the Horizons launch came across as predatory, greedy, and heartlessly tuned solely to profit and bottom line.” Come across, my ass. It IS predatory and greedy. It’s WRONG. It’s a con and a swindle and there is no way anyone should ever throw a single dollar into this sucking black hole.
Vanity publishers making books to give to their circle of friends and relatives don’t pay $4,000 dollars to get their book edited. (Approximate cost of getting a 50,000 word NaNoWriMo submission edited at 7.7 cents a word as recommended by the preliminary $342 “editorial review”)
Self-publishers keep ALL their profits, not half of them.
Horizons is nothing. It’s neither. It’s a scam, pure and simple, and fuck them.
Dani Atkinson said on 11.25.09 at 09:12 AM • [link]
Okay, my math sucks, and I think I misplaced a decimal point. Colour me embarrassed. If I’ve got it right now, it’s $727 for review and editing of a 50,000 word manuscript, assuming you go straight for the deluxe editorial services and don’t start with the cheaper versions then get talked up. That is still a service that is supposed to be free. And it is only one of many should-be-free services they offer, which all add up.
Anon76 said on 11.25.09 at 10:00 AM • [link]
Wow, they’ve added a FAQ page with tons of stuff on it.
I’ll give HQ credit in that the verbiage used on this site is nothing like the other one.
Vuir said on 11.25.09 at 04:33 PM • [link]
The royalty rate has gotten worse
Anon76 said on 11.25.09 at 04:40 PM • [link]
Vuir,
Yep, that’s the type of up front information that probably has ASI execs spinning on their heads right about now.
And in the FAQ about marketing your books (I think) it kinda makes it clear that it’s better to target your local bricks and mortar, rather than those in say, Florida. Puts it out there that the distribution isn’t as easy as others would like to make you think.
Anon76 said on 11.25.09 at 04:48 PM • [link]
BUT, Vuir,
They do say that your royalty rate depends on what you set your book price at.
IMHO, using the term royalty kinda muddies the issue. I would say that, instead, it’s the monies you would receive after printing costs. However, these are based on net sales, so I have no clue if the printing is taken off the top to achieve that “net” number, And an ebook wouldn’t fall into that category anyhoo, so…
Anon Author said on 11.25.09 at 06:19 PM • [link]
Exactly. And what makes this so, so egregious, terrible, horrible, dishonest, scummy, I-need-a-shower worthy, is that it’s Harlequin backing it up. It’s not Brittney’s Book-O-Rama! where—for just a *wee* bit of your hard earned money—you, too, can see your dream come true!—This is HARLEQUIN. That’s where the biggest scam of all comes in. The ignorant will be taken in, and the worst part is, Torstar probably knows it.
I will add that I know a lot of the HQ editors personally, and I find it hard to believe they’d go along with this with smiling faces and positive attitudes. They were probably all taken aback by the whole thing as well. This reeks of “men in suits” at the very top of the “it’s just those stupid little romance books that bored housewives read anyway” chain, who know NOTHING, who made this decision and then dropped a stinking bomb in the lap of the people who actually care.
Manna Francis said on 11.25.09 at 06:29 PM • [link]
Dani - you were right the first time. 7.7 cents x 50,000 = 358000 cents = $3850. And while that is undoubtedly a horrifying rip-off, somehow is doesn’t seem as bad to me as $1750 for a service which really guarantees no more than someone running the thing through a spellchecker.
Poison Ivy - apparently, the romance community demands higher ethical standards from their publishers than the Christian book community :-)
Anon said on 11.25.09 at 07:03 PM • [link]
Forgive me if this has been posted already, but I just saw mention of it in the Dec RWR online this morning. Its old news but the first I’ve seen it.
http://news.sel.sony.com/en/press_room/consumer/computer_peripheral/e_book/release/42042.html
mulberry said on 11.26.09 at 01:45 AM • [link]
They have made some signinificant changes to the wording of the new DellArte site.
It’s far more transparent than the old site was.
Seems like Harlequin is highly responsive to feedback.
Sara said on 11.26.09 at 03:42 AM • [link]
I’m quite happy to see that RWA was at least consistent with their policies and responded to this strange turn by Harlequin.
After all the recent drama in the Romance Industry over e-pubs, small presses, etc and establishing/changing the rules about the coveted “Accepted Publisher” and Published Author status from RWA, it would have been difficult for them to respond in any other way, regardless of the amount of “support” Harlequin has given them over the years.
Anon76 said on 11.27.09 at 06:52 PM • [link]
I found this link interesting. This individual decided to contact Dellarte and recieved an automated response that included a piece of information that is no longer listed on the site (unless I missed it somewhere.)
http://colleenanderson.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/harlequin-begins-vanity-press/
It seems the carrot is still be dangled, but in a slightly different way.
Quoted from the computer generated response:
“Publishing with DellArte Press offers several advantages:
Discovery Opportunities – Titles published through DellArte Press will be monitored for possible pickup by DellArte’s traditional imprints”
Care to comment?
Comments are now closed for this post.
Subscribe to These Comments