Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

Tabetha, I didn’t post it because it took an unfair potshot at someone’s body of work. I guess I should have been more upfront about the reason I didn’t post it. Words are power, after all.

For the sake of transparency just in case anybody wanted to know - and for the record - yes, I am a Harlequin author. And I truly hope this all works itself out because Harlequin has done a lot to support romance writers and romance readers.

Tabetha, I didn’t post it because it took an unfair potshot at someone’s body of work. I guess I should have been more upfront about the reason I didn’t post it. Words are power, after all.

Ah.  Thanks for sharing your reason, Anon76.  I guess it’s no big surprise I didn’t see it that way? lol

Either or your post and that article are a good reminder that people are reading this thread and to keep it on topic and relevant.

I think it would be a different matter if Torstar wanted to own a vanity press, and did, but there where no links directly to the press from Harlequin.  That’s my understanding of the relationship between Random House and Xlibris.

Would people probably get taken in by Torstar’s vanity press at some point?  Yes.  Will Torstar make money off of them, yes.  Will Harlequin take them by the hand and lead them there?  That’s what I’m fighting against.

I don’t want to see a reputable and distinguished publisher like Harlequin leading authors to a company and a product that is a vanity press.  It’s not even a good deal for a vanity press.

So while scrubbing Horizon of the HQ name is the first step, scrubbing the links so new authors aren’t directed to the service through Harlequin in any way is the next one.

Scrubbing the “stars in your eyes, your dreams will come true, and what you perceive as the reality of your favorite author’s experience will become your reality if you buy this product…” off the website will help as well.

I don’t know if there’s a way to connect a traditional publishing house to some sort of valid, here are the services we offer, and here’s what you get when you pay for them… model of self publishing.  Clearly the writer’s communities are suspicious of this sort of change and should be to a certain extent.

If the writer’s organizations exist to help protect and foster authors’ professional writing careers, and as I said before, we don’t abandon or eat our young, then the writing organizations should stand up against business models that are misleading, and exploit new writers who don’t know the ropes yet.  Essentially, that is part of their mission.  So they have a mission to give people information to make an informed choice about risky publishing ventures, and they do that through their approval of publishers they deem “safer bets” for writers.  Yes, the writer’s organizations will have to deal with the fact that it seems many epublishing models are proving themselves reliable and profitable means of publication for their authors.  That change will come.

Back to what would make an unscrupulous self-publisher scrupulous.  It starts and ends with information.  The self-publisher should be in the business of having the best resources in terms of their service that they can, they should be fairly priced, but then the key is transparency, transparency, transparency.  Everything needs to be up front about rights the author loses, rights they keep if they choose to leave, products that they keep if they choose to leave, hidden fees, and the truth about distribution.  Anything I’m missing?

I think what Harlequin might have been aiming for with this is saying to authors, “If you choose this path, you’ll have a Harlequin quality (in everything but the actual writing) product you can keep, (a nice romance cover, nice printing, good binding, etc).  But that is very different from a “Harlequin product” you can sell.

I agree that the conference fee is probably going to go up year after next.  They have 10K members, fees are $85 which is $850,000. a year. How much is their wage bill? I think they must have something left after they pay all their expenses. The RWA seems to have money in their reserves, they bought an office building a while back. So, I don’t think they are completely reliant on Harlequin for money. Conference next year sure will be interesting. I imagine a lot of things will be scaled back.

Totally agree with Sarah that spelling out what RWA and SFWA would require to reinstate Harlequin would go a long way in speeding up this process. However, I think since both have boards, it make take some time for them to be able to formulate a proper response.

Theresa, good analysis there. I think what’s appalling to me is while Tylenol was blindsided by the tamper case (someone else did the tampering), Harlequin must have been planning this for months. And they never thought it might cause trouble? They sure didn’t have anything planned in response.  Is it possible—and I can’t believe it, but maybe you could explain—that all this was calculated to get a lot of press to the new venture?

I remember that agents can get in serious trouble by referring their rejectees to such places, especially if they get a kickback for the referral, and it’s hard to believe HQN doesn’t know how that little scam has been regarded by writers and writer groups and the major agent groups too.

Hey, has anyone heard a response from AAR about this? (The agent group.)

And that “RWA is biting the hand that feeds it” is infuriating. If Harlequin thought it owned RWA, I sure hope that it’s thinking different now.
Jell

Sorry for some of the twisted sentences above.  I’ve been up until two in the morning every night watching these threads, and I’m allergic to caffeine.

I need a nap.

Very good post, Jess.

Plus, why do they have to say, hey we’ll be watching sales and just might pick you up for contract? Westbow does this too, though they are more upfront about not actually providing editors from the parent company. An icky vanity-publishing venture, but not taken to the level HQN took it.

And though I’m not an ebook author, I didn’t say anything when Carina was added, though I probably should have. Not against HQN, but for them. Voicing my opinion that RWA needs to rethink their stance on the epublishing model and what constitutes a reliable, and therefore eligible, epublisher.

Anon76:
I think you’re right. Carina Press is viable and brilliant and a great move by Harlequin to move into the growing digital publishing market, which I believe RWA should accept (once Harlequin takes care of Horizons). I’m kind of sad Carina got entirely overshadowed by this whole vanity publishing thing.

Anon76

Yeah, hinting that they’ll pick up authors this way is not good either.  I don’t think it would be bad to actually do it every once in a while, but to promise a “win the lottery” kind of promise like that (actually your lottery chances seem a little more likely) strikes me as unscrupulous.

Jell:
Could it have been a twisted method of getting press? Yeah. Possibly. But given what I’ve seen Malle say and now Stacy Boyd (editor), I really think they were convinced this would provide opportunities to all those writers they have to reject every year who either don’t fit the lines specifically or who just “aren’t there yet”.

Problem is you have to think of the perceptions first. And nobody did that. Equating the Harlequin brand with vanity publishing was just a bad, bad branding mistake. Because it’ll take ten positive impressions to wipe out ever one negative impressions. That’s a lot of ground to make up.

I thought Stacy Boyd’s blog was interesting and I actually agree with a lot of what she’s saying and her reactions were similar to mine.  I don’t see anything wrong with the HQHo (love that) sales pitch they’re using on the website.  I don’t see anything misleading about them saying if you sell enough copies of your book we’ll notice.  And I don’t care that they were going to put their name on it.  Slap your brand on it and charge 20K for a video?  Great—more power to you.  But she loses me here:

Those watching the industry closely cannot help but see these kinds of services as a part of publishing’s future. (As a consumer, I find this very exciting. No longer are the books I want to read hemmed in by marketing guidelines. If I want it, I can probably find it published by someone.) Beyond the obvious differences in money (author advance vs. author fee), there is a huge rights difference. Authors keep all or most of the rights in self-publishing, which can offer unlimited opportunities for the right person. (The kinds of unlimited opportunities that might not happen in traditional publishing.)—Stacy Boyd

http://stacyboyd.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/omg-rwa/

As a reader I’m excited about the changes in publishing too.  I love that HQ is entering the e-publishing market with Carina Press.  Samhain is total awesome sauce—their books are reasonably priced and I’ve never bought one that wasn’t edited.  Sure they’re not all great but they’re not a steaming pile of crap like you’ll find at say Siren or an overpriced mixed bag from Ellora’s Cave.  So to hear there’s going to be another e-publisher that actually seems to have some standards regarding what they will and won’t publish is great news to me.

So when I read the announcement that HQ was offering a self publishing service I was equally excited.  I’ve bought a few self published books and frankly they’ve been pretty aweful but I still see the potential.  I’d love to see self publishing become a real alternative for writers and I mistakenly thought HQ was seeing the changes in the marketplace and responding to that in a legitimate, above board manner.  But they’re NOT.  What kind of BS business model charges HUGE fees to print your book and then keeps 50% of the sales of that book?  That’s outrageous. 

So what I thought was going to help produce a higher quality of self published product (hello editing packages) and a good thing is actually pretty revolting.  Like finding out your spiffy new sneakers were made in a sweat shop or they killed baby seals so I can have my tuna sandwhich—ok, that’s probably an exageration but not by much.  It’s still wrong and leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  I don’t want to feel that way if I happen to buy a book a Harlequin. 

I buy romances to feel good—not to feel bad that I’m supporting something I think is disgusting. So even if I don’t set out to purposely avoid Harlequin books it’s going to happen if I think there’s anything shady or exploitive about their business practices.

Those watching the industry closely cannot help but see these kinds of services as a part of publishing’s future. (As a consumer, I find this very exciting. No longer are the books I want to read hemmed in by marketing guidelines. If I want it, I can probably find it published by someone.) Beyond the obvious differences in money (author advance vs. author fee), there is a huge rights difference. Authors keep all or most of the rights in self-publishing, which can offer unlimited opportunities for the right person. (The kinds of unlimited opportunities that might not happen in traditional publishing.)—Stacy Boyd

Okay, what I don’t get is… why aren’t they publishing those books that aren’t “hemmed in by market guidelines”? I mean, she’s an editor. It’s rather disingenuous to act like she has nothing to do with that, that her only role here is as an underserved reader.

And I do wonder at this insistence that this is “self-publishing” and “retain all rights” and all that. If in fact the author retains all rights with this HH contract, then why on earth does HQN get 50% of net on top of the fees already charged? That does NOT happen in self-publishing, because the author really does retain all rights. Any contract that gives part of the net to the publisher means, uh, that the publishers has acquired some right.

You know, really, they don’t even PAY for that right. I wonder if it would even stand up in court—where is HQN’s payment that secures that cut of the fee? When a publisher gets, say, half of the option fee if your book gets optioned for a film, it’s because they’ve paid to put out a book and have paid you royalties, and presumably there wouldn’t be a film option without the publication, etc. But it sounds like in this contract:
1) Author pays all expenses of publication AND the markup (excessive) that gives HQN its profit.
2) Author does all the work of marketing and selling (or pays excessively for HQN to do some of it).
3) Author then gets only half the net from selling a book she has paid handsomely for.
4) HQN gets the other half for the consideration of… what? Taking all the money beforehand?  What exactly have they done for that half?
ANd now the one major selling point is gone—the Harlequin logo on your book.

I think the lack of candor and downright deception we’re seeing in all these info-sheets and editor-posts indicate something. Either no one there actually understands what they’re doing, or they know they can’t actually be honest or they’d have even a bigger firestorm.

Whenever a business has to pretend they’re not doing what they’re doing, it makes for corruption. Of course, we expect some spin, but based on truth. If there’s value here, and there should be—a business like Harlequin should be proud of providing something people want—they shouldn’t have to pretend. If they actually set up a real self-publishing division, with a new name and a reasonable markup for services (10%?), I don’t think we’d be so upset. But they’re pretending that they don’t even know the difference between self-publishing and vanity publishing, which, duh, has been established for a couple CENTURIES.

Testing comment process after database wheeze. Don’t mind me.

I can haz fixed feed now?

Will it embarrass you if I beg?

RE: “traditional publishing has changed so that authors can’t make it to the bigtime any more.”

This is simply not true.  WARNING THIS IS AN ANECDOTE AND NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENTATIVE OF A TREND OKAY?

A friend of mine spent two years writing the “book of her heart”.  She sent it out over the transom to agents.  She got nibbles from two of them, one of whom wanted to sell it into exactly the market she wanted.

She just signed the contract for a $200,000 advance.

Yes, I hate her a lot.  But in a nice way.  *g*

So.  Unpublished author, over the transom, big money.

This probably won’t happen to you, or to me.  But don’t tell me that you simply can’t make it in trad publishing any more.

My captcha is “why35”.  Why, indeed.

When you factor in the national conference, there has to be substantial corporate sponsorship (read: money) to keep the cost of attendance beneath $500 - which it is, and compared to some other conferences I’ve attended that were shorter in length, that fee is really a bargain.

RWA posts its financials in its Member Resource section. We can see how much they bring in from advertising, how much they collect in member fees for the National conference, and what their outlays are. I wish I had a better idea of the breakdown in some of those numbers—and I suspect some numbers are kept out entirely (e.g., if someone else pays for the tote bags, that line item simply won’t show up on the RWA budget and the figure will be smaller than total conference expenditures), but I don’t think it’s as hugely dire as that.

I don’t think anyone’s hand is really feeding anyone else here. It has, up until this point, been a symbiotic relationship—Harlequin needs authors, authors need Harlequin, authors may not need RWA but generally appreciate it, Harlequin has supported RWA in part because RWA helps train the next generation of authors so that they don’t have to and helps connect authors and editors, RWA gets financial support from Harlequin, and is mindful of the fact that Harlequin provides great opportunities to many of its writers…

Nothing is easy, but I would never say that the relationship is like a master feeding a dog for any of those parties. Harlequin pays, but they’ve been getting back in return; RWA accepts, but they do deliver benefits. By virtue of its long-standing nature, I think we can conclude that the relationship has been good for both Harlequin and RWA.

While Harlequin should know this, that entire Harlequin Horizons site is nothing but purple prose.

From wikipedia definition:

“Purple prose is a term of literary criticism used to describe passages, or sometimes entire literary works, written in prose so overly extravagant, ornate, or flowery as to break the flow and draw attention to itself. Purple prose is sensually evocative beyond the requirements of its context. It also refers to writing that employs certain rhetorical effects such as exaggerated sentiment or pathos in an attempt to manipulate a reader’s response.”

The manipulated response in this case is forking over dough.

I don’t see anything misleading about them saying if you sell enough copies of your book we’ll notice.  And I don’t care that they were going to put their name on it.  Slap your brand on it and charge 20K for a video?  Great—more power to you.

But what they aren’t making clear is that selling enough copies of a vanity pubbed book?  Do they offer any stats on how many self pubbed or vanity press books are sold by an author?

They make wondrous claims on the booming business of selfpublishing but the money in self pubbing isn’t being made by the authors, for the most part, it’s being made by the pubs who are paid by the authors.  They make their money selling dreams to writers…not by selling books to readers. 

That’s one thing they aren’t clear about.

Most vanity and self-pubbed books only sell a hundred copies.  A self-pubbed or vanity press book that sells more than that?  Awesome.

But it’s going to take more than 100, probably more than 1000, to make them notice.

I’ve said it elsewhere and I’ll say it again… HHz is selling stardust to desperate writers and those desperate writers who buy into it are going to so blinded by the stars and dreamed HHz slyly offers, they aren’t going to see past the stardust to the reality.

Now… is it HQN’s responsibility, if people don’t investigate?  Of course not.

But they are capitalizing on HQN’s name, and they are banking on the dreams of aspiring writers—it’s exploitation and IMO, it’s repugnant.

There are deep dark thoughts that each of us keeps hidden but that each of us suspects might be true of others.

For instance, would the editors receive a bonus for each rejection that led to a sale in a vanity press operation? Even if they didn’t, wouldn’t it be likely that writers might think that, especially those who took the suggestion, paid the money, found out their books were going nowhere because there was no support or true distribution, and then decided to sue making certain to include the rejecting editor’s name as one of the defendants? Sure the company’s lawyers would likely defend the editor, too, but what would that do for the editor’s reputation, especially if the plaintiff prevailed?

Or would writers suspect the purpose of the vanity suggestion was to sidetrack them and discourage them with the cost from becoming real pro writers thus decreasing the slush pile and maintaining the status quo for those already published while at the same time even earning some funds for the main company?

You don’t think these are true thoughts? They are. I receive correspondence from frustrated writers quite often with these exact feelings about the publishing business and they need only one fan in their hometown to help spread those feelings that the publishing industry is rigged because that fan believes the rejected writer, usually a close friend, is a good writer. After all, we’ve heard or read many of the misinformation and rumors about the publishing induster that get repeated and wonder how those came about. But it’s no mystery. Those come about because the rejected writer has a fan so it can’t be the story or the writing is bad. It’s a matter of connections or wealth that sets them apart from those who are actually commercially published. Anyone who says differently must be in on the conspiracy.

In the end, for a company with the status of Harlequin to have even a remote association with a vanity operation is nothing less than confirmation of those rumors and whatever else might be alleged by those seeking publication.

Dave Kuzminski, Editor
Preditors & Editors (tm)

On the plus side, if HQ withdraws its “support” of RWA and RWA crashes and burns (NOT THAT I THINK IT WILL), there won’t be as many educated, industry-savvy authors in the slushpile and a higher percentage will sucker into the HHz pitch.

I still want to know if they’re going to offer HHz discounts to current authors whose sales flag or whose lines close as an economical (*snort!*) way to prove they’ve still got what it takes to be a HQ author. Maybe you can get a 20% off Hollywood style video coupon with each option book rejection!

I mean, seriously. Why stop at charging new authors?

The Hh banners are gone off the eHarlequin website. 

Thank you, Harlequin, for reluctantly doing what was right after being reminded several times.

Dang, anyone here linked on Twitter to Publishers Lunch? Heard a rumor from another writer, but want someone to confirm.

And no, I’m not telling the rumor, lol, because it may be totally without fact. Words are power.

More media coverage of SBTB commenter’s reactions at Fandom Wank: 

http://www.journalfen.net/community/fandom_wank/1226613.html

One of Nora’s posts apparently made the author of the Fandom Wank post feel the same way he did when he heard Morgan Freeman say “motherfucker” in the movie “Wanted.”

“So awesome.”

I can haz fixed feed now?

In Google Reader, I just unsubbed from the feed, then put http://smartbitchestrashybooks.com/index.php in the add sub box and it seems to be fixed.

Dang, anyone here linked on Twitter to Publishers Lunch? Heard a rumor from another writer, but want someone to confirm.

http://twitter.com/Publisherslunch

Here’s the Publishers Lunch Twitter feed: http://twitter.com/publisherslunch

You don’t need an account to see it.

But what they aren’t making clear is that selling enough copies of a vanity pubbed book?  Do they offer any stats on how many self pubbed or vanity press books are sold by an author?

They make wondrous claims on the booming business of selfpublishing but the money in self pubbing isn’t being made by the authors, for the most part, it’s being made by the pubs who are paid by the authors.  They make their money selling dreams to writers…not by selling books to readers. 

That’s one thing they aren’t clear about.

Most vanity and self-pubbed books only sell a hundred copies.  A self-pubbed or vanity press book that sells more than that?  Awesome.

But it’s going to take more than 100, probably more than 1000, to make them notice.

I agree that self publishing is a risky business venture and I think the vanity press model is almost criminal.  But I don’t think it’s their responsibility legally or morally to educate their customers as to the pit falls of the business.  I just don’t. 

I’ve said it elsewhere and I’ll say it again… HHz is selling stardust to desperate writers and those desperate writers who buy into it are going to so blinded by the stars and dreamed HHz slyly offers, they aren’t going to see past the stardust to the reality.

I don’t think you’re giving people enough credit but I’m glad vetran authors take this seriously and form groups and organizations to arm aspiring writers with information to help them evaluate any contracts they might be considering.  I know the mentoring I’ve received over the years has helped me tremendously in my career. 

Now… is it HQN’s responsibility, if people don’t investigate?  Of course not.

Agreed!

But they are capitalizing on HQN’s name, and they are banking on the dreams of aspiring writers—it’s exploitation and IMO, it’s repugnant.

I do agree this newest business venture is repugnant but that’s because the vanity press model, to my mind, offers nothing of value in return for a huge investment.  In other words it’s a rip-off.  Feeding into peoples hopes and dreams just seems like effective advertising to me.

Publishers Launch twitter says that:
Harlequin Drops Brand from Self-Publishing Line, As Criticism Continues
http://twitter.com/Publisherslunch
There is a link to the story. Who’s got a subscription to Publishers Marketplace and can read the story and report back?
Pretty please?

Interesting news linked on Publishers Launch about Torstar’s new President & CEO previously beancounter in chief (not much of a beancounter if your company is in that much debt but I digress)
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/David-Holland-Named-Torstar-iw-2066892335.html?x=0&.v=1

Thanks all. My friend read it as the line was dropped, but it appears just the branding was dropped. I was hoping for the whole enchilada. Hahahaha

I have a paid subscription.  The story doesn’t say anything that hasn’t been fully discussed here and elsewhere.  It provides links to organizations’ statements that have been linked to and discussed here.  No new information so far as I could tell, and no rumors, only the facts, ma’am.

I don’t think you’re giving people enough credit but I’m glad vetran authors take this seriously and form groups and organizations to arm aspiring writers with information to help them evaluate any contracts they might be considering.  I know the mentoring I’ve received over the years has helped me tremendously in my career.

It’s not about giving people credit.  It’s about being realistic.

I subbed my first book to HQN when I was 19.  It was rejected.

Now if I’d gotten a little note, “This isn’t right for our line but perhaos if you’d like to consider Harlequin Horizons…”

If a writer doesn’t know how the publishing world works?  That’s going to sound very enticing, especially to one who is still reeling from the rejection.

Now a web-savvy writer, one who researches, learns the ropes, etc…they’ll figure it out, more than likely.

But it’s not about THEM.  It’s about those who aren’t as savvy. 

And there are plenty of them.  Those are the ones the vanity pub venture will target.  Is it effective advertising?  Perhaps.

But if you’re going to sell hopes and dreams, even knowing only a percent of a percent will actually make profit?  It’s unethical, IMO.

Thanks, Rae, for the link.

And while not wanting to offend anyone, I’ve found engineers to be as tunnel-visioned as bean-counters. Based on my experiences, of course.

Thanks to you, too, Reading and Writing.

Don’t mind me, just subscribing to give my refresh key a rest…

But if you’re going to sell hopes and dreams, even knowing only a percent of a percent will actually make profit?  It’s unethical, IMO.

I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this point. 

I have to say this is pretty disasterous for HQ from a PR standpoint because even though we’re miles apart on some of the issues we agree HQ is repugnant.  It takes some doing to piss everyone off. lol

To start of with I really disagree with Harlequin associating its name with this venture at all. If they really wanted to do it without causing such a ruckus they could have. Has anyone thought maybe this attention was what they were going for?

Another point I’d like to make is in an job or career you have to pay your dues and work your way up the ranks.
For examlpe: My husband drives trucks for a living. He had to pay for schooling, license, DOT physical and things like that out of his/our pocket.

I’m a newly published writer and I did a lot of research before submitting to the publishers I chose. I have paid a little for promo items. I did attend the Romantic Times Convention last year, and had a fabulous time. I’m the member of an organization where romance writing is the main discussion daily. I write everyday and love doing it. If I didn’t I’d quit and do somehting else.
Before reading any of the post I knew everyone has their own opinion and is welcome to it. I did find that some post irked me, because they weren’t focused on problem at hand. Rather they were focused on someones broad generalizations about authors.
Another example: Not all writers are poor money managers.
I for one handle all the money in my househald and do it damn well.

Just following the thread.

As far as HQN and Torstar goes.  I used to work for a well-known telecommunications company that was in the communications business and doing fairly well for itself.  It was bought by a well-known company that was in the financial pyramid schemes business.  It did not end well for either company.

HQN was in the book publishing and doing fairly well for itself.  Torstar, I am afraid, is in the gutting the golden goose business, and it will not end well.

I’m a newly published writer and I did a lot of research before submitting to the publishers I chose.

Another example: Not all writers are poor money managers.
I for one handle all the money in my househald and do it damn well.

I’m so happy to hear a women stand up and say she’s competent to take charge of her writing career and make informed decisions.  I know you’re in the majority but it was getting a little disheartening hearing over and over how easy it is to take advantage of romance writers.

If it were easy to pull one over on romance authors, this discussion wouldn’t be happening.  The presence of the discussion will be enough to give those looking for information all the information they need to make their own choices with eyes wide open.  Everyone has a right to make a decision with their eyes wide open.

Anyone has the right to open whatever business scheme they want so long as it is legal.  More power to them, but having the right to do business doesn’t give you the privilege to do business without the free voices questioning your business practices.

This is just an open market, very loudly questioning some business practices.  And there’s nothing wrong with that.

Check this out:

http://www.authorsolutions.com/News.aspx?id=356

I mean seriously, even this author solutions site was a bit more upfront about the whole thing.

And read the testimonial to the left. The guy had a book signing and sold 100 copies of his book…but granted, to mostly friends and family.

Wendy said:

And those of us not seeking commercial publication or the NY bestseller list also find Zoe a valuable voice and do not believe she is working any less hard. There’s no need for this.

Thank you! That means a lot to me.  It was never meant to be “that kind” of discussion or about “who” to listen to. It was a discussion that got off topic and into a cat fight for no reason. And that wasn’t ever my intention.

Authors will receive royalties equivalent to 50 percent of net proceeds on each e-book sale. Harlequin and Author Solutions will split the other 50 percent.

So this is basically a vanity press for e-publishing. Get more bewildering with every story I read. LOL

Not just the ebooks, Rita.  It’s the ebooks and the print books, 50% of net.

Yeah, Shiloh, but that could have been a Freudian slip. They know their biz, and in doing so, may expect that your major market (if there is one) is in ebook form.

And read the testimonial to the left. The guy had a book signing and sold 100 copies of his book…but granted, to mostly friends and family.

An googling the guy, his website doesn’t seem to have been updated since 2007… book appears to have been printed in 2005…
You’d think they’d be able to get some new testimonials with all those happy customers…

One of my favorite authors, Allison Brennan, discussed this on the Murder She Writes blog. 

I know the odds are against me ever being published traditionally.  It is my dream and I’m not giving up but that is reality. 

For a company that readers & writers trust to go into this kind of deal is IMO wrong.  To prey on writer’s emotions and desperation isn’t a crime but it sure isn’t right. 

I feel bad for the people that hand over their hard earned money and don’t see the kind of success that they’re dreaming about. 

Oh, and if the Nora Roberts commenting really is THE Nora Roberts, this isn’t the place but tough, I love your books.
Your writing rocks and you deserve your success.

I always thought women were more supportive of each other than men.  It seems some people’s comments are more interested in tearing others down.  That’s too bad.

Jonquil:  if your comments are directed at me (and I recognize they may not be, but as there are over 500 posts here it’s hard to know who you’re talking to), I never said people couldn’t make it big in trad publishing anymore.

I just stated the obvious that it’s really really hard.  And a lot of luck is involved.  Given that, I’d rather do my own thing. Other people’s mileage varies and that’s fine.  I don’t care how people choose to publish.  I don’t have a stake in anyone else’s publishing path but my own.

I’ve had a few e-books published and I have one coming out soon that will be available in e-book but also POD.  I’m not a bestselling author—at the moment—I’m not on any of the lists, I would say that at least 99% of the reading public have never heard of me or read any of my books.  I am not self-published and I have certainly NEVER gone to a vanity press.  I’m a nobody in the land of the published.  However, using the term “McJob” to describe what I do in relation to Nora, The God-dess of romance is just plain insulting.  When I read that word I couldn’t help but picture a writer standing in front of a greasy grill flipping burgers and wrapping them up in her manuscript pages.  It demeans and demoralizes my books and my writing and me as an author simply because I’m not Nora.  Well, hell, nobody is except Nora!  So what!  It doesn’t mean she didn’t work her ass off to get where she is.  And she deserves her success—every damn dollar.  And any success I have in my writing career I will deserve as well and it won’t be because of my “McJob.”  For those who have never met Nora in person you’re missing a treat. 

As to Harlequin Horizons, if you go to their web site they really talk the talk.  They are all charm and beauty luring the unsuspecting author into their world.  Only behind the door is quicksand.  I must admit my naivety when I first heard of Harlequin’s new venture.  But I have since been educated in the differences between SP and Vanity Publishing.  This new venture is definitely vanity publishing at its most flagrant.  For those new writers out there, beware.

Cher

As a reader, a fiction reader first and foremost, I’m interested in more diverse gatekeepers on different platforms. I want books that someone paid for, implying a vote of confidence, a belief in its appeal (whether right in my case or not). I have a huge prejudice against books whose only vote-of-confidence comes from the author. There are too many writers out there who think they’re the next Nora Vladimir Hemingway to….just no.

I am already a discerning reader. Mostly because of bookblogs I’m more familiar with particular imprints and have a general idea of what I’ll get from Riverhead/Norton/Viking vs the sick indies like Moby, Akashic, Softskull (I’m ignoring its bought, bear with me). This is even easier to do in romance publishing because it’s an industry that believes in branding even with big publisher imprints; therefore the different lines have an even stronger identity.

I’m totally stoked about different platforms. I tried Ellora’s Cave before it became a blip on most big blogs’ radars and dipped my toe into Samhain, Loose-ID etc. before figuring which others I enjoyed and sticking to ‘em.

I don’t want to be forced to be more discerning because someone’s churning out paid-for slush pile. Brand me an elitist, close-minded bitch.

Cher:

Several have taken offense at my McJob comment.  In the context of the original statement I was talking PURELY about economics. I was not in any way speaking about anyone’s talent or skill or anything else, just the level of money “most” midlist authors can expect to be paid for the hours they put in. (The advance is generally still in the $5,000 -$10,000 range for many right? Or has there been some giant leap in advances I wasn’t aware of?)

And while some midlist authors here have stated that they are happy with the money they make, others at conferences all over the country and in their blogs take great pains to make sure we know how very LITTLE money they net from all the hours and work they put in.

That was the only thing “McJob” was referencing. The compensation.  Again, I’m sorry if it offended or hurt people or if they thought I was putting THEM and their work down. I wasn’t.

Cher, I’d love to meet Nora in real life, but I can’t even find the courage to address her directly on blogs.

Color me silly. I know she doesn’t bite, however it’s not only her books, but her work ethics that astound me. She walks the walk in putting in the hours at the keyboard. True, she no longer needs to worry about certain monetary issues that many of us labor over at the beginning of our careers, but she also hasn’t stepped from the path that got her there.

And that was a “glomming on Nora” moment that I have refrained from voicing in the number of years I’ve seen her posting on sites like this.

Oh, geez. Is Harlequin handing out a vanity-press-phrasebook to all of their editors? Seriously.

This:

Beyond the obvious differences in money (author advance vs. author fee), there is a huge rights difference. Authors keep all or most of the rights in self-publishing, which can offer unlimited opportunities for the right person. (The kinds of unlimited opportunities that might not happen in traditional publishing.)—Stacy Boyd

is a slight riff on an extremely common vanity-press lie: That authors with commercial publishers do not get to keep their copyright, or control the rights granted therein. It is incorrect. Completely. There is absolutely zero “huge rights difference” between vanity press and commercially published books, save who actually pays for the use of those rights.

Now, granted, I’m not familiar with HQN’s contracts; it may well be that they take rights publishers do not ordinarily take (at least not if the author in question has an agent or a halfway decent knowledge of publishing). So it may be that HQN’s editors believe that all commercial publishers take every single right the author owns.

(Of course, even if that is the case—and I know some epubs take lots of rights—they still pay the writer, and not the other way around.)

I control all of my rights in commercial publishing. As do most writers who are commercially published. I sold first publication rights. I kept everything else. I’ve sold a few foreign rights, and audiobook rights. I got paid for those separately.

I own my copyright. My publishers register it for me (at their expense, not mine) but it belongs to me, not them. This is the case in all commercial publishing ventures.

What HQN is trying to tell writers, in trotting out that falsehood, is that commercially published authors do not control the rights to their work, and that the way to keep what you’ve created is to vanity publish. Not true. They are trying to tell potential customers that said customers retain all rights, which is true to a point, but not really. As has been pointed out, the act of printing the book with an ISBN uses First Publication rights. Those are gone.

My published books also represents the use of my FP rights. But, see, I got paid for those. Whereas with HQHo’s vanity press, I would be asked to pay them to take those rights from me, and in addition would be expected to give them 50% of the net proceeds of the rights I"M paying THEM to take. This is (excuse the analogy, it’s the most evocative I can think of) roughly equivalent to a prostitute paying a client to sleep with her, then letting him film the event and earn money from the video proceeds, and being grateful if he kicks her a few nickels after he’s doubled the money she gave him to start with.

Authors who publish through the HQHo/AS vanity press do not retain control of their first rights. They pay someone to take them.

Yes, they retain the other rights, which are essentially useless to them; the odds that someone will not only somehow find said vanity-press book, but want to make an audiobook, or translate it into Russian, or whatever, are so slim as to be microscopic. But in retaining all rights save first rights, they are no different at all from commercially published authors.

The “huge rights difference” is solely in who pays for those rights, and that is all. To imply otherwise is a statement I’m frankly shocked any editor for a commercial publishing house would make.

The house of Harlequin shall be forever sullied by this disgraceful elopement

From a software engineer named Jim.

Way to go, Jim!

I’m happier with this whole thing today now that Harlequin has done the right thing and dropped the ads for Horizons from the pages for aspiring writers on eHarlequin.

My issue wasn’t with Harlequin settiing up a self-publishing option, but with the ickiness of the way it was marketed.

Thanks eHarl! Maybe ethics have prevailed over profit. Certainly the voices of so many angry writers may have made them see what the romance community feels about the issue.

Now I’m waiting for my next rejection to see if it plugs Horizons!

I was up until 1:30 last night reading as many of the 550+ posts as I could before hubby “politely” (read grumble :) ) asked me to turn out the light.  Came back today to finish what I started and had about 100 more new posts to read on top of where I’d left off.  I’ve spent this entire afternoon catching up, and I want to say to all:  thank you.

Every opinion, no matter how controversial, is appreciated.  It’s refreshing to see everyone’s passions for what they love in black and white, though like everyone else, I could do without some.

I started seriously writing a year ago, and the first thing I did was learn as much of the industry as possible, including the difference between types of publishing.  Though I received my first rejection last week, doesn’t mean I’m going to stop going the traditional route.  It’s where I want to be and how I want to be known.  :)

So, Hq’s venture into vanity is seriously disheartening.  I love the HQN and Mira lines (though not immediately recognized as a part of Hq) and hope to see something with my name on it from those places…perhaps no longer.

I have to give RWA credit for educating me and props for standing up for themselves.  They truly had no choice in the matter, but standing up to the “giant” required balls of steel.

I applaud you all, most especially those pubbed authors from the house I hope to one day join.  Good luck during these rough times and keep up posted.

(Back to reading the (no doubt) twenty new responses since I took ten minutes to write this)

Has anyone checked Harlequin’s stock prices since this all began?

Katiebabs,

Never even thought of doing that, but good point. Have you checked?

Anon76: Torstar is at around $6 a share. I couldn’t find Harlequin. Is Harlequin on the Dow or Nasdaq?

Not a clue, katiebabs. I can never figure out which company is which if I don’t know their odd acronyms. (Correct word, dunno, been at this for days now. Thank heavens hubster understands the importance of this. Good man.)

Since the company is Canadian I don’t think they’d be listed on the New York exchange?  There’s been quite a few announcements so I think it would be hard say for certain that any fluctuation in their stock price is a result of the negative response to HQHo.  Anyway, here’s Torstar’s activity for the week—which is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange for what it’s worth. 

http://torontostar.morningstar.ca/globalhome/StockQuickTake/quote.asp?aspredirect=true&ticker=TS.B&ExchangeID=TSE&flagP=P

In looking on the NASDAQ site Torstar must be the only listing for the company.  I can’t find a separate listing for HQ.

You can read about Torstar, Harlequin’s parent, here.

http://www.torstar.com/inv_relations.php

This will link you to a page which will give you stock quotes.  It is traded on the Toronto stock exchange.  The stock was barely up earlier this week (after the announcement) and now it’s back where it was, but I think I can summarize it by saying there’s been no meaningful change this week.

Overall, the stock has been doing poorly, even taking into account that a lot of things economic are doing poorly.

Sarah, thank you for saying what I’ve been thinking.

Harlequin was taking flack for the introduction of Carina.  Introducing Horizons changed the entire conversation.  Now Carina is yesterdays news when it shouldn’t be.  Harlequin might be very clever, unveiling Horizons, taking back the name, and then letting Carina pass under the radar.  After all, they made concessions to the romance community and removed the Harlequin name, RWA should let the Carina situation just slide. And they would change the negative press from Carina into something less damaging.

The really sad part about Carina, is not only does the wonderful thing HQN did in starting them get lost in the explosion, but now if a writer sells to them and is an RWA member, their status as published (at 1k in sales) won’t be acknowledged within RWA unless HQN drops Horizons.

Theresa said:

3. Show how you are going to make it an option in true self-publishing not vanity publishing. Show how you are concerned about bringing the best work to market, not just any work for a buck. Show that you care about your readers and your authors and truly are the gold standard for romance.
All of the above is, of course, just my opinion, but an opinion after having spent way too long in corporate public relations. No company is big enough to screw with its branding and not take the hit.

You know, I was thinking this morning that this is where they might have intended to go, but were using AS as a stepping stone to build up sales in that area before they officialy opened thier own self publishing services. That way they got to test the waters and build up clientele first.

I’m not opposed to self publishing, and I wish they would have just made the jump if that was thier intention.

And that was a great comment.

Tabetha qutoes Sarah as saying:

After all, they made concessions to the romance community and removed the Harlequin name, RWA should let the Carina situation just slide.

I couldn’t find the original quoted post but I’m not sure what this means.  “Made concessions to the romance community”?  Huh? 

By “romance community,” do you mean the 3 major genre trade organizations out there, from mystery writers to romance writers to science fiction?  How is that the ‘romance community”? 

The response ran the gamut from outrage to disgust in places like the New York Times, the New Yorker,  Preditors & Editors, and so on. You know, all facets of the publishing world. 

(Tangentially, many of these places already held a murky view of the romance genre, and this move has tarnished it even further, which makes me angry.)

HQ’s actions violated the spirit of so many professional ethoses ( I cannot figure out how to make ‘ethos’ plural)  that almost *everyone* in the publishing world was appalled. 

And ‘concessions’?  That makes it sound like they were willing to go the extra mile and give a little.  But in truth, the Horizons package is vanity press, and has misrepresented itself from start to finish.  Who gives a rip if it’s illegal—it’s rotten, and people have said so.

Any ‘concession’ HQ made was not to be a nice guy.  It was about fear that people / organizations /authors would turn their backs on HQ, and that would affect cashflow.  It was self-interest, not ‘concession’ in any amiable, collaborative way.  Implying otherwise misrepresents the situation. The entire publishing world viewed this as a slimy move, and said so.

Are any writers here going to pull their submissions from HQ?

I was going to submit to Carina, and perhaps Harlequin Historical, but now I am in wait and see mode.

verification word: might 53. I thought perhaps they might take me on as an author, but now I’m not sure I might take them on as my publisher

Are any writers here going to pull their submissions from HQ?

No.

But if it gets rejected I won’t be mortgaging my life to take advantage of their Horizons program, that’s for damn sure.

If Harlequin Enterprises is wholly owned by Torstar, Harlequin wouldn’t have its shares listed. Torstar’s share prices are a reflection of its value, to include all its holdings (so that a high value (gain) asset like Harlequin was before this fiasco offsets a low value (loss) asset like the newspaper arm).

I don’t currently have any submissions with any Harlequin line that I’m aware of, but I will request that my agent not submit my next books to any of their lines as long as they maintain this vanity imprint.

Tabetha qutoes Sarah as saying:

After all, they made concessions to the romance community and removed the Harlequin name, RWA should let the Carina situation just slide.

I couldn’t find the original quoted post but I’m not sure what this means.

Kris, 
Eve Gale actually posted that quote, not me.  She was quoting a part of Just a thought’s post on page two—here’s that post in its entirety.

Just a thought said on…
11.20.09 at 04:50 AM
Could it be misdirection?  Harlequin was taking flack for the introduction of Carina.  Introducing Horizons changed the entire conversation.  Now Carina is yesterdays news when it shouldn’t be.  Harlequin might be very clever, unveiling Horizons, taking back the name, and then letting Carina pass under the radar.  After all, they made concessions to the romance community and removed the Harlequin name, RWA should let the Carina situation just slide. And they would change the negative press from Carina into something less damaging.

It wouldn’t be the first time a company used this marketing strategy.  Remember NEW COKE?  It got COKE’s name in the press and created a customer stir.  Just a thought.

As long as Harlequin is willing to pay me to write, I’m willing and happy to write. Because this is my job as a writer.

The moment any publisher suggests that I pay for seeing my name in print is when I no longer submit to that publisher, because I am a professional. Professionals get paid.

Harlequin still has the best distribution in the world for Romance, bar none. They pay well. Do I want to see the vanity press gone? Ideally yes. Would I be happy if they simply didn’t pimp it out in rejection letters, pulled it from the site and called it something else so it doesn’t impact the brand I’m writing under, yes.

Unfortunately, the brand has already been been sullied. And it’s going to take a lot of work to disassociate the brand name with pay-for-publishing in the eyes of the general public, especially with the kind of negative press this has been getting. And, no, I’m not the type of publicist who believes that any publicity is good publicity. Not when it messed with the brand.

Tabetha~
  Whoops!  My bad—I misattributed the quote within a quote.  LOL Sorry!  And since I was looking for ‘Sarah,’ I couldn’t find the original message, or see its intent.  Thanks for fixing me up.

Actually, I kind of see it as a PR mistake that both were annouced the same week. There’s nothing wrong with Carina Press. That was a brilliant move. Digital publishing is going to become a critical part of publishing in the near future.

I believe it’s unfortunate that Horizons took away the shine from announcing Carina Press, because Carina Press is following an established business model where money flows to the author. It’s a positive thing that’s now being overlooked because of the negative thing. (See what I mean about ten positives to undo one negative?)

Anon said “I don’t currently have any submissions with any Harlequin line that I’m aware of, but I will request that my agent not submit my next books to any of their lines as long as they maintain this vanity imprint.”

Ditto, except for the agent part. I don’t have one. *g*

And I won’t be buying any Harlequin books either. I know that punishes the authors too, and it’s not their fault. I’m sure I will miss out on some great stuff. But I refuse to give my money to a company who has no compunction about f****** people face down.

Like so many have said, it’s predatory. It’s not that romance authors specifically are easy to screw over, it’s that anyone with a dream can be a mark.

I am so glad to see such an outpouring of voices, to see us standing up for each other.

I think it’s “funny” that HQN seems to forget that their own authors and their authors friends and writing comrades are also HQN readers. Maybe not so much any more.

Anon76,

Nora is a kick, no doubt about it.  She’s smart, savvy and funny as hell.  She is a publishing phenom no doubt about it.
I asked her once if after publishing so many books if she still got a thrill each time a new book was released.  And she said absolutely. 

Hope you get to meet her one day,

Cher

No problem.  It did get a bit confusing there.  lol

I also thought this part of your post was spot on but I do give them credit for responding to the situation no matter what their motivation is.  Unfortunatly, it doesn’t fix what I personally find distasteful about this situation.

Kris said on…
11.20.09 at 02:13 PM
Any ‘concession’ HQ made was not to be a nice guy.  It was about fear that people / organizations /authors would turn their backs on HQ, and that would affect cashflow.  It was self-interest, not ‘concession’ in any amiable, collaborative way.  Implying otherwise misrepresents the situation.

Wow, another link breaking it down to brass tacks.

http://www.falconesse.com/2009/11/19/repent-harlequin/

Tabeth said:

Kris, 
Eve Gale actually posted that quote, not me.  She was quoting a part of Just a thought’s post on page two—here’s that post in its entirety.

Thanks for the fix, Tabetha.

Theresa Meyers said:

Actually, I kind of see it as a PR mistake that both were annouced the same week. There’s nothing wrong with Carina Press. That was a brilliant move. Digital publishing is going to become a critical part of publishing in the near future.

I believe it’s unfortunate that Horizons took away the shine from announcing Carina Press, because Carina Press is following an established business model where money flows to the author. It’s a positive thing that’s now being overlooked because of the negative thing. (See what I mean about ten positives to undo one negative?)

I 100% agree.

anaysis52-and I’m done with my analysis of this for the day. I have 3 little girl’s nails to polish and decorate (they picked skulls and kittens o_0 ) ;-)

I think it’s “funny” that HQN seems to forget that their own authors and their authors friends and writing comrades are also HQN readers. Maybe not so much any more.

This is the same slippery slope that ebay went down. They angered a lot of their sellers by hiking fees, making it very easy for buyers to scam sellers and now, if you look at ebay, the luster is gone. IT’s not what IT was. Sure, many factors went into this, but hanging out on the Seller Central board, must of us agree that it was forgetting the fact that sellers also equal buyers that started the decline. Mess with one, you’re going to screw with the other.

Now I’m not predicting the decline or fall of HQ. Hardly. But it’s worth remembering that authors are readers too. We feed each other. Readers listen to authors. Authors listen to readers.  I received the most lovely personalized rejection from Harlequin Historical Undone’s line. Will I be polishing and trying again? Not now. Will that affect much? Probably not. But little ripples do change courses.

What I find the most troubling in this is that many of the people talking (such as the HQ editor and those who should be soothing the waters, not rocking the boat) are confusing self-publishing and vanity publishing. I’m sorry, but when you do not, or choose not, to understand the differences in your business model, you’ve become irrelevent in your field. Isn’t that what the media has been telling us because of this recession? Get educated. Stay at the top of your game. I think any professional will tell you that you have to keep learning and growing and keeping up with the changes. Little worries in a big, troublesome whole. I think the ramifications of this will play out for a while yet.

So, I am confused (nothing new there).

Is Harlequin already back on the RWA list of eligible publishers?  The list on their website states it was updated Nov 20, 2009 and Harlequin is listed with a notation “(Books published by this company are eligible for the 2010 RITA Contest)”

The Thomas Nelson entry on the list has the same notation.
Does this mean they are eligible publishers again?  Or just that they were at the time the RITA submissions for 2010 were being accepted?

Any word on if writer organizations will be taking a closer look at other publishers with vanity presses due to all of this?

My name is Deb and I’m a bookaholic. I read to the exclusion of tv (although I do watch Craig Ferguson on the interwebs as he puts it). I am blessed with both living elderly parents who need increasingly more of a share of my free time. I have found that balancing my discretionary income and time requires making choices to get the best bang for my buck in both areas.

I made a decision to go digital as the books are a wee bit cheaper in most cases and I save time from driving around to bookstores to feed my addiction. Due to this, I have rediscovered Harlequin, as the first books I downloaded to the my ereader, were the free gifts celebrating Harlequin’s anniversary. Since then, I have discovered new authors available within several of Harlequin’s imprints. I have purchased the backlists on several of the new (to me) authors. I had prior to this, mainly purchased the single titles from Harlequin as well as most “big name” midlist authors and Best Selling authors.

My concern/rhetorical question with the new direction is this, Why should I invest my money and as importantly, time, in the offerings of the Horizon books if Harlequin wasn’t willing to invest in them? I have to balance my purchases like every one else. The Horizon books would naturally have to be priced higher due to the authors own investment. I feel saddened to a certain extent. I really do like support new authors, musicians, etc. But I also have to draw a line somewhere to balance my own needs to that of anyone else. 

As a graphic designer, I run into a similar situation in my office, in which my colleagues (my customers) choose to play at designer on occasion. The output is less than stellar, but they can hold something in their hands and say I did this. The time and expense I put into education, equipment, software licenses for work at home, etc. is cheapened and more, I fear for my job as well. I feel your pain.

@library addict: That’s interesting. Harlequin appears as an eligible publisher on the Publisher List at the RWA site, but is not on the Eligible Publisher Chart. In the absence of an announcement from RWA, I think the eligible publisher chart reflects their current position, but who knows!

@Tasha

Thanks. I didn’t realize there was more than one list/chart.

Is Harlequin already back on the RWA list of eligible publishers?  The list on their website states it was updated Nov 20, 2009 and Harlequin is listed with a notation “(Books published by this company are eligible for the 2010 RITA Contest)”

This has been explained on the RWA list. The 2010 RITA contest is the contest for books published in 2009. The eligibility for the 2009 RITA contest was determined on the day the contest opened for entries, which was sometime in September. As Harlequin was an eligible publisher on that date in September, Harlequin books are eligible for the 2010 RITA contest.

I think there were many, many inquiries to the board on this question. The point is, the change in eligibility doesn’t have an effect on the RITA contest that is already open for entries.

No word on the contest for the year after.

“(Books published by this company are eligible for the 2010 RITA Contest)”

It doesn’t mean they are eligible. It means they won’t pull any of the RITA submissions for next year’s conference. You submit in the year ahead. What this eligibility thing has changed are the 2011 RITAs.

and attractive women staring into a misty distance while chewing on pens,

Chewing on a pen and looking freakin’ pensive at mists? Is this Harlequin’s image of “the writer”?

Seriously?

Cause I just spent two days holed up in a room with 3 other brilliant women authors plotting, character building, and otherwise honing my craft, working my a** off and the only mists came when someone looked groggily at the clock and said “2 AM? We still have a couple of more hours to go”. There was nail biting, head pounding, shouts of eureka and lamentations that we’d run out of chocolate cake but no pensive pen chewing.

There were also 6 books plotted that I have no doubt will find their way to publication where I expect fair compensation.

It was hard work and I LOVED it!

PS I too appreciate you Nora. Your support of the genre is appreciated and recognized. You tell it like it is. “Write the book” and never back down from the truth of the effort it takes.

Here…have some chocolate cake.

I’m slow to seeing this post and commenting and I must say there have been some great comments and some…well, ludicrous ones. What Harlequin is doing, in my opinion is bad news and I wonder if they’re slapping their foreheads right now saying, “Doh!” Their bad.

But mostly I wanted to comment to Jell’s post about Nora. It was incredibly moving and I must say, Nora is the reason I found courage to finally seek publication for the over 50 novels I have accumulated over the years. (No, not all fifty have been published. I wish LOL) Reading her books inspired me to step out of my fear and take the bitter with the sweet and find a publisher.

So Kudos’s to you, Nora and to you, Jell for your post.

“But with every book, she got new readers. She realized, I think, that while men don’t make up the bulk of customers, they are key to getting best-seller status. So she had books that incorporated adventure and thriller aspects, and of course the whole JD Robb series, and she’s ended up with a lot of male readers along with gathering new women readers with every book. Now the young women I know tend to mention one of Nora’s as the first romance they ever read, and they go searching for earlier books. This helps keep the backlist selling, and also gets them buying her new stuff for years to come. New readers are the way, all along, I think she’s managed to sell more with every book.”

Ten years ago I wrote 3 romance novels, belonged to a writer’s critique group that met weekly, attended state and regional conferences and workshops, and acquired a well known New York agent. My first book did not sell, but it was well received by editors, whose main comments were that while my novel was funny, the story wasn’t original enough. Fair assessment. Then my life took an abrupt turn and my focus went elsewhere. I cringed when I recently read that first effort. I have polished it up and placed it online for free. It will never sell, but I’ve discovered that others are enjoying it immensely.

Will I go to a vanity publisher and pay to see this book in print? Never. Would I ever consider the self publishing route? I doubt it. Authors whose books are published by traditional publishing methods had to jump through a number of tough hoops. The reader can expect a certain standard of quality when purchasing a book from a traditional publishing house. This is not necessarily the case with self published books.  I receive unsolicited books to review for my blog weekly, and have reached a point where I will no longer review the self-published book. Not that all of them are bad, but many are, and I prefer to spend my time reading books that have already been vetted.

I fear Harlequin’s new self-publishing division because will give budding writers false hope. They will also be deprived of the editors and proof readers who do such a fine job getting a book in shape. In addition, Harlequin’s price list is ridiculous. They are charging enormous costs for services that can be found more cheaply elsewhere.

Just finished reading the Falconesse post, which breaks down HQHo’s pricing/services in more detail than anything I’d yet read.

“Sweet baby zombie crying Jesus this is bullshit” indeed. Who the frick will be able to afford even a portion of what they’re “offering?” I mean, even if we weren’t in the middle of a recession these prices would be way beyond the means of most people.  Is HQ betting that lots of bored rich folk will be doing this?

I’m really pissed that HQ stole Carina’s thunder. Won’t stop me from subbing to Carina since I’m an Angie James groupie, but still.

doubt26: I doubt 26 was as fabulous as I remember it but as I careen head on into 46, I find myself missing it.

I fear Harlequin’s new self-publishing division because will give budding writers false hope.

Ah, speaking of editing. So sorry. I meant to say: I fear Harlequin’s new self-publishing division will give budding writers false hope.

My bad.

If it is expected of new writers to do their research before jumping in bed with a publisher, shouldn’t the same hold true for publishers who have been in business for 60 years? Or was the profit projection so spectacular that it just didn’t matter?

http://accrispin.blogspot.com/2009/01/victoria-strauss-author-solutions.html

http://www.hoovers.com/company/Author_Solutions_Inc/rhshhyi-1.html

Read that first line verra closely.

http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Author-Solutions-Reviews-E43343.htm

My oh my!

http://onthegonews.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/author-solutions-launches-initiative-to-become-the-worlds-largest-publisher-of-original-digital-content/

Ah, see now the third link makes more sense. Digital focused. But wait, doesn’t this last link show that Author Solutions is in direct competition with Carina. Oops, I forgot, Carina pays to publish their authors, not the other way around.

I know this is late in the game, but I wanted to point out that the blog post that Stacia K linked to earlier in these comments was from my personal blog about my individual reaction to the Harlequin announcement. It was in no way meant to represent Harlequin. I work there, yes, but my opinions on the matter are separate from my job.

I have deliberately refrained from weighing in on this very interesting debate here at SMTB b/c I’m not the official response person. While I won’t be discussing Harlequin—much too stressful for me—I will be discussing self-publishing and other non-traditional publishing models on my blog. For those who are interested: http://stacyboyd.wordpress.com

Harlequin is a giant in the genre, and in the industry for a reason—for many reasons.

For decades it’s opened doors for writers, helped them forge careers, establish readerships. It’s provided readers with steady, regular choices—fresh voices, familiar voices. It’s been innovative, opening new lines, new opportunities, new choices. It’s supported the genre and established an enormous, and wwell-deserved presence. It’s been known for listening to readers and working toward providing what those readers want.

It’s been an important presence at RWA and other industry conventions where its editors and publishing professionals give their time, provide the face of the company, interact, and again listen. Not to mention it throws a hell of a party.

Harlequin matters, a lot.

I think, because of all of this, all these checks in the pro column, the issue of Horizon and the turn toward vanity press is only more important and distressing. For writers, published and unpublished, for readers, for writers’ organizations.

The reaction to this has been huge and largely negative—even outraged—because this is not innovation, it’s not an opportunity or a door opening. It’s not seeking fresh or familiar voices, or quality for the reader. It’s pay for play, and a way to make money from slush and rejections.

For most of us that’s not what Harelquin has stood for, or a direction we want the giant of our genre to take.

No, I’d never go that route unless it was a gift for friends and family. It’s difficult enough to be published by a reputable publisher, but self-publishing is a million times harder because no one takes it seriously and does not consider it “real” publishing.

While I am open minded to new things in the publishing world—-epubs, small presses, self publishing (in situations where it makes sense)—-this is not one of those things I would get excited about.

From the time you enter this business, join writing groups, talk to authors, buy books on publishing and talk to agents, they warn on one thing very clear—-

Never pay a publisher & never pay and agent.

If we accept what Harlequin Horizons is doing then we might as well tell Publish America and other Vanity Presses that this type of thing is alright now, and start putting their books in the bookstores.

I say come on Authors, we all know how difficult this business is so stop letting more big businesses push you into corners you know you shouldn’t be in.

RWA answered in the only way they could without looking like a bunch of schmucks. Face it, they have a major problem now. RWA needs Harlequin a lot more than Harlequin needs RWA. I’ll bet the BOD is meeting right now to discuss how to get around their own policies.

As for Harlequin? I think they’ll end up regretting this move.

I blogged about this yesterday, as did just about every other romance blogger in the country. Check it out at www.srossi.bravejournal.com. Florida Romance Writers new blog also had a posting. Find that at www.frwriters.org/blog.

I think that’s so, Nora. Harlequin has certainly made missteps before, starting lines and then cancelling them. But those were always in pursuit of finding new sorts of books for readers to enjoy.  That’s the problem here. There’s no focus at all on the reader. The reader doesn’t matter. They know no one is likely to read most of these books, but they can get money from exploiting the writer’s “Dream”. And what’s that dream? Apparently it’s just seeing the name on a book cover—“To be published!”  It has nothing at all to do with what the real dream is, to have readers reading the book.

It’s really disspiriting to see a publisher that made its fortune anticipating and responding to reader desires sell out for something that has nothing to do with those customers. In fact, with this, they’ve abandoned their customers, and decided their suppliers (writers) are more lucrative.

From the first, Harlequin was always about the readers. Sure, that was a mixed blessing. How many writer hairs got pulled out over H’s insistence on “this is what our readers want” and the constant shaping of lines after some focus group or marketing survey of readers spoke.  But at least the aim was to get readers and give them a fun reading experience.

That’s why this does sound like it’s all come from above, from the parent company. It is such a sudden and immense change of focus from what has always been a focused company. It just doesn’t sound like Harlequin in those press releases, which almost never mention the reader. And when the actual editors blog, they try to spin this as good for readers (outside-the-box stories, etc), which does show, I think, a certain desperate attempt to make this more in line with their traditions.

Can’t do it, but they are trying. I do wonder if the ones on the line even knew about this in advance. And if the Carina newcomers had any clue their new venture was going to be conflated just like that with one of the most notorious vanity publishers out there.

It really annoys me when HQ tries to present this as a bold, innovative move and an inventive new step in publishing, thus indicating that the naysayers are stuck-in-the-mud’ers who are all just afraid of development and progress.

There’s nothing new or innovative about vanity-publishing. Dorrance Publishing has, if we are to believe their website, been “helping writers realize their dreams” since 1920.
What’s new here is the fact that it’s a, up until now anyway, respected publisher that’s sticking its hand in writers’ pockets.

Now that’s sleazy in an entirely new and different way.

I just wanted to add a note about RWA.

I keep hearing messages about how this is going to hurt RWA, especially when it comes to conferences.

It probably will.  You know what?  I’ll go anyway and support my fellow authors.  If we are all sitting around a campfire somewhere in the Ozarks and RWA says bring your own tent, I’ll be there.  Heck, I’ll bring the hot chocolate and stuff to make s’mores.  We can sit around and tell vanity press horror stories.  I’ve got at least one.

If positions and rules have to change, we’ll get through it together.

And if any Harlequin authors out there want to sit on my log and chat around the fire, you are so welcome.

RWA will not crumble and die for doing the right thing.  (And yes, as I’ve said before, there are ways RWA has to adapt to the needs of its own membership with regards to ebooks and erotica specifically)  But that said, I’ll support them, goodies or no goodies, parties or no parties.  I stand for my fellow authors.

This has been the most fascinating hour of reading comments I have ever spent! Most of the posts were insightful and enlightening. We have had such a diverse range of perspectives - from the anonymous would-be author to the epitome of success. Each one brought something to the table that made the thread better.

I read and review romance novels because of authors like Ms. Roberts. I love the genre and support it in all possible ways. My bookshelves are a testament to the publishing industry that has entertained me for decades.

Seeing such a major player stumble and miscalculate so badly can only mean what we all suspected - that the finance department is driving the bus at Harlequin Enterprises. Let’s hope that sanity returns before irreparable harm is done. Their stable of fine authors deserves better consideration.

My keyword - cost55 - The cost of this blunder may be ruinous.

A few days ago, I went to a panel discussion of Young Adult writing as a career, and one of the writers said several times that she wasn’t much of a reader, was bored by classics, skipped the boring descriptive writing in other people’s novels, and thought the lack of description in her novels was a plus.

So I have not bought her books.

Now, I’ve read about half of this comment thread, so apologies if the discussion has moved on past Zoe and her many, many, many comments.  But I didn’t even know her name before this, and I do buy supernatural romance from time to time.  And when I see a writer saying that other partners to discussion should just realize that she wasn’t fine-tuning her wording?  That her words were all twisted by those reading them?  That she is never PC (an abbreviation I personally read as “pro-actively courteous”)?  Yeah, Zoe Winters.  I know your name now.  Zoe Winters, maybe your books are not in my local stores or my favorite e-stores, but I know what I will be thinking if I do see them there.

But I’m a little bit PC, so I will leave you to imagine it.

You know, I really can’t figure out how HQ will be able to modify the terms they entered into with Author Solutions. I don’t know those terms, of course, but if HQ actually does remove their name from the product and any references within the pay-to-play site, that’s a huge blow to potential sales to the targeted market.

Also, if HQ stops refering rejected authors to this new service, what value do they add to their side of the partnership with Author Solutions? This venture would just turn into a generic clone under the ASI umbrella. I doubt ASI would tickled pink about such a change.

Further to what Jellicoe said - this is what I find so incoherent about HQHo’s constantly shifting position.

HQ reps are saying that Horizons will offer readers outside-the-box stories, allow them to discover authors they wouldn’t otherwise have had the opportunity to read.

And why wouldn’t readers have had access to those authors? Because HQ wouldn’t publish them! So on the one hand, HQ says they’ll bring new authors to market, authors whom they presumably believe will find readers. So they will be applying some kind of judgment to the books they choose to accept payment for?  And if so, if they’ll be printing books they think have the potential to sell - why would they have rejected the manuscripts in the first place?

That’s no more coherent than the branding - or nonbranding - of the books. Supposedly, aspiring authors will want to vanity publish thru Harlequin, and not thru less expensive channels, because they’ll have the prestige of the Harlequin brand behind them. Only they won’t - the Harlequin brand will not appear on the book, the book presumably won’t appear on eHarlequin’s website - so Harlequin’s involvement in the venture will be invisible to the reader. So what’s the author getting for her thousands of dollars?

The readers aren’t benefiting, the authors aren’t benefiting…I’ve no objection to Harlequin making money, but someone ought to be getting something for that money.

I know everyone is probably getting sick of hearing from me (and my posting of links) so I’ll just add in a bit more information I found and take a break. (No linkies, just cut and paste. LOL)

I found these job opportunities on a search for Author Solutions. I’m just pasting the portions I felt relevant.

Inside-Sales-Publishing-Consultant-l
Job Description:
To contact prospective and current authors, primarily through phone contact, to enable them to purchase a publishing package by interviewing the author and selling the publishing package which fits the author’s needs.
Liase with client database on a daily basis to sell AuthorHouse publishing packages to new and established authors. Maintain a 60+ sales calls per day average and 3+ hours of call time each day.

Book Consultant-1
FUNCTION:
Call current authors to proactively sell volume books as their manuscripts “go live”. Pro-actively call authors previously live to sell volume book opportunities.
DUTIES:
Primary Duties:
% of Time Spent
Make 60+ outbound phone calls a day to current authors. 85%

Interesting. On the eHarlequin site, under Learn To Write, it says:

eHarlequin.com Romance Novel Critique Service

Please note: While we’ve been pleased to offer this program for a number of years, due to business reasons we regret to announce that we will no longer be offering the Romance Novel Critique Service as of December 1, 2009. All manuscripts submitted before this date will be critiqued. Manuscripts received after this date will be returned to the writer. We thank you for your interest.

I wonder what that means for HHorizons?

Becca, I think it means that Harlequin wants more money for the same service, so they intend to funnel those authors to HarleHoz where they’ll have to pay $4000 - $8000 for editing.

Jess Granger,

Can I sit on your log?

That sums up my own pride in being an RWA member.

Well said…..

I didn’t mean for that to sound quite so dirty, LOL.

Well, dear Lord neither did I, Jess LOL..

I’M thinking Girl Scout sitting around the RWA camp fire.

Yeah, that’s what I had been thinking as well.  LOL

Oh, come on, Jess. The log thing sounds like fun.  Dirty or not.  We’ll sit around, make smores, talk books and plotting and then later, we’ll sing kumbiyah. 

It’ll be different, but hey, that’s not always a bad thing.

;0)

In all seriousness, this isn’t going to be the end of RWA.  It’s not.  Does HQN have a large chunk of writers in RWA?  Yep.  But RWA is about those writers and quite a few of those writers, from what I’ve seen, are very proud of where RWA has stood on this.

If the writers turned their back on RWA, yeah, I’d see problems.

But the majority of the writers, HQN and otherwise, appear to be supporting this decision and we’re not going anywhere.

I also think HQN is going to work something out.  I really believe that.  If nothing else, HQN has savvy PR people and people who know their readers.  I don’t think this upset has gone unnoticed.

I sincerely and truly hope that RWA doesn’t back down-I don’t think they can without looking like wimps-all bark and no bite. 

But I don’t think this is over.  At least, I hope not.

Fascinating bunch of comments. However, I think some have veered off into pro-  vs anti-vanity publishing rather than the facts of this particular case. I think the point is not so much whether Vanity Presses Are Evil as the fact that a recognized publishing house is in a unique position to identify and exploit aspiring authors. Their setting up a vanity press means that they are essentially trying to make money off authors that they themselves are not willing to publish legitimately. No matter what they call their vanity press division and no matter how many walls they claim to be setting up to distinguish it from the legitimate side of the house, I don’t see any justification for using their reputation to make money off their slush pile.

Just one final comment and then I’m going to go nurse my aching head.  I’ve been looking over blogs that are mostly from readers POVs and what I’m seeing is that most people don’t understand why writers are upset. They think any venue that gives them more stories to choose from is a good thing.  I agree with them, but Hhz *WILL NOT* give them more stories.  They have no distribution. The books will not appear in stores.  They have no plans to sell these books to anyone but the poor author suckers who shell out the money for them.  Regardless of the name they stick on this business its a lose-lose situation for everyone but HQN and ASI.

Wow, that was a long couple of hours.  I’ve been scrolling as if my life depended on it. 

I am preemptively heartbroken for the authors who get an HH plug in their rejection letter.  It’s disgusting to see a legit, major publisher not only scheme up ways to cash in on the slush pile, but to extinguish many of the hopes and careers of writers in the process. 

Not all writers burn out after one reject…usually vanity publishing is the last stop on a long road of repeated queries, constant tweaking and editing, and piles of form rejections. But then again, most form rejections don’t contain referrals to vanity presses.  Even if EVERY manuscript Harlequin receives is a flaming pile of poo, it’s irresponsible to market HH to disappointed authors as a this-is-what-you-do-next option upon rejection.

Um, Shiloh I didn’t mean inviting people to sit on my log sounded dirty.

I meant it sounded *wink wink nudge nudge* diiirrrrttty.

I think a camping writer’s retreat would be too much fun.

Eva Gale said,

Sitting back for a week and really thinking this through and how it effects the members wouldn’t have hurt them at all.

Delurking to remark:

My money says a huge flock of little birds told RWA this was coming, and they’ve had plenty of time to debate and develop their current response.

Katherine Allred:

They think any venue that gives them more stories to choose from is a good thing.

They also have no concept of slush, and don’t really understand how bad it gets. The worst - the absolutely worst book you’ve ever read - was still in the top 2%.
Those readers will buy one, two, maybe three books from HQHO and that’ll be it. And they’ll be angry, feeling cheated into buying subpar work by Harlequin, because, in the readers’ mind, this is a HQ venture.

Personally, I’m thrilled to see Harlequin jump in with Carina and join the racks of well estbablished small press ebook publishers (i.e., Loose ID, Red Rose Publishing, Class Act Books, Extasy,....).  Yes, the costs for “self publishing” (which is totally different from small press publishers who offier POD as well as digital), but HQ is not the first self publisher out there.  I saw, Welcome Aboard HQ….there’s an organization waiting for you.

HQ isn’t a self-publisher at all. It’s a vanity house.

The difference is in the fleecing.

Apropos of nothing - it’s scary how spot on the verification words/numbers are sometimes…

Katherine,

Yeah, and that’s the problem. Author Solutions published 13,000 titles last year. Titles that vary in content and quality. Titles that perhaps didn’t quite fit a publisher’s existing lines. Those books already exist, but are the readers buying them?

And if not, why?

Those books will be no different than the product they will receive through Harlequin Horizons. Because these are Author Solutions products, not Harlequin products. These are products for writers, not readers.

OR they could say something like, If you get an agent you are PAN.

I have a book in hardback, the American large print rights were picked up a few months ago, and the British large print rights in hardback and paperback were bought by the BBC just this week. 

And because I did the work I’m not worthy?

Anon76

Yes, that’s it exactly.

Links to the romance sections in the bookstores of iUniverse and Trafford Publishing, both divisions of ASI:

iUniverse

Trafford Publishing

This is the quality, and probably price range, we can expect to see from HQHO. Readers should understand that HQHO books will not be vetted for quality by HQ editors. In fact, they won’t be evaluated at all.

I just looked at the Trafford blurbs.

With apologies and all due respect to the authors who no doubt worked very hard on these books, OMG.  Just OMG. 

There’s a lot to be said for gatekeepers.

Yeah, Eirin,

And figure it this way 2,500,000 copies were sold of the 13,000 titles. That first number sounds impressive, right? But divide that down to the average number of copies sold per title = 192.  Depressing.

Now look at the issue from the Author Solutions side. 13,000 packages sold to writers at a BASE price of $599 multiplies out to $7,887,000. Cha-ching

@Jane (who referenced me specifically),

People have repeatedly on this thread inferred things I NEVER intended nor was trying to say, pulling offense out of opinions that weren’t meant as personal attacks in any way, shape, or form.  Despite my repeated mentioning of this, and despite the other individual giving well past “as good as she got” and not needing any defending, the perception has continued of me as a “moron” at best and a “bad person” not worthy of your reading patronage at worst.

I’ve heard about the snarky blog posts referencing me from this stupid drama, but except for one, I haven’t read them, because if the first example proves to be the rule, it’s a bunch of people not reading what I’m actually saying (who already have a clear bias in the matter) and taking pot shots at the length of time I’ve been around, as opposed to the validity of my arguments. Which is funny considering that not once did I preach any type of “one true wayism.”  So I’m not exactly sure what the threat is in the viewpoint that “self-pub is right for some people and trad pub is right for others.” or “most people aren’t making career-level money in this business.”

I’m going to unsubscribe from this thread now to save me continued frustration. Should anyone have anything to say to me in reply to this, click on my name, and fill out my contact form on my site. 

Those who have decided never to read me, let’s get real, you weren’t going to read me anyway.  So making rude threats of not reading me for simply having an opinion and not expressing it with enough doe-eyed deference, isn’t really a threat. 

Whether or not I am for “PC bullshit” I don’t ever just jump on and attack people personally because they disagree with me, but that has not been the treatment I’ve received. There is a heavy hypocrisy in accusing me of attacking someone despite my repeated defense that those were never my intentions, while jumping on and attacking me.

You can have your thread back now.  Hope it’s as interesting with everyone agreeing with you.

If authors want to rage against the Horizons situation, that’s one thing. But doing it on the backs of readers is just damn exploitive!

Okay, I’m kidding there, at least 50%.

The other 50% is my serious point: Readers are NOT STUPID. We don’t read a bad book from Berkley, Pocket, Avon, etc. and say, ‘OMG, no more books from that publisher!’

Further, we know by Harlequin’s very structure that its readers tend to be very line and author loyal. So if, perchance, a reader did (somehow, miraculously, since the books are not going to be in Target or the grocery store or Borders, etc.) pick up a Horizons book, why in the world would said reader abandon the lines and authors she loves? Wouldn’t she just migrate back?

I know I’m speaking into the wind, at this point, but all these points about how Harlequin has such a recognizable name can be read in reverse: because Harlequin has a recognizable name to readers, and because it’s known for specific things, readers will have NO reason to abandon what they recognize, know, and love on the off chance they pick up a Horizons book.

I won’t even go into the possibility that a reader might enjoy a Horizons book, since it seems to be asserted an immutable law of the universe that they must all suck to the very depths of hell and beyond.

Oh, and apply the 50% rule to the above paragraph, as well.

You can have your thread back now.

“I’m really happy for you, I’m going to let you finish…”
The Bitches have their own Kanye West moment!

Zoe, I know you’re an articulate and passionate supporter of self-publishing, but this thread was never about that. It was about Harlequin and its venture into vanity publishing.

@robin

If authors want to rage against the Horizons situation, that’s one thing. But doing it on the backs of readers is just damn exploitive!

So in your world authors and readers are mutually exclusive?

Readers are NOT STUPID. We don’t read a bad book from Berkley, Pocket, Avon, etc. and say, ‘OMG, no more books from that publisher!’

So you are saying that to stop reading a publisher or author because of one bad book is somehow ... stupid?

Interesting.

Not everyone has an unlimited disposable income or access to free review copies. If they read a bad book and chose not to spend their hard earned cash on that author’s or publisher’s next book that is up to them.  I wouldn’t call them stupid.

And if readers do find a bad book with a publisher they will stop buying with that publisher, author or genre. Maybe not with the first book, or the second book or even the third book but eventually if they find enough bad books they will stop. It all depends on the individual readers crap threshold. Some people have a higher crap threshold than others.

Personally if I read a really crap book from an author I won’t buy another book from them. If it’s meh I’ll check out the reviews. Similarly with publishers - I have dropped a number of ebook houses because of the quality issue. I would do the same if I found a traditional publisher’s standards dropped. I don’t have money to waste on crap. YMMV.

Robin, my recent posts are pointing out that readers AREN"T stupid. That they are discerning and vote with their dollars. Any chance you or anyone else (and I’m not being snarky) could give me an estimate of how many books you’ve purchased from a branch of Author Solutions this year? Because there is no gate-keeper involved with these books, so you have a much broader spectrum to choose from.

Also, I can understand the traditionally pubbed HQ authors’ angst. There is already damage involved if by nothing else than the HQHo label. Sure, it’s not for THEIR line of books, but it exists all the same. Romance authors have been battling such labels for years and this isn’t helping any.

I also wonder when the tides turned and it became EBIL for an author to be profit for his/her writing. That at the end of the day, if your income/loss statement reads 0, then all is well. (No you didn’t say anything about that, just voicing a trend I was noticing. This venture with Author Solutions is just another step in that process.)

And lastly, why is it than when readers feel ripped off by the products they purchased they have the privelige to tell all and sundry what a bad deal they got, but when writers try to steer other writers away from bad deals it’s…well…not.

Being both a reade and a writer, I feel both practices are good things.

Sorry for all the typos in my last post. I think my brain has become “internet drained”.

@rae and @Anon76: What I mean when I say readers aren’t stupid is that we can tell the difference between a Harlequin book and a Horizons book (especially now that the Harl name is not going to be associated with the line).

I understand some of why authors are so outraged (although admit I’m one of those who wonders why other publisher forays into self and vanity pubbing have been ignored), and I think there’s nothing wrong with an author saying that they feel devalued as a writer by this move and that they feel the prestige of being published has been tarnished. I would expect those reactions.

But I think the whole “Harlequin brand dilution” argument can be read just as strongly in reverse as some of the dire predictions here and elsewhere. Namely, because Harl is such a recognizable and trustworthy brand for many readers, it will take a BIG disincentive for readers to exit the brand. In other words, a brand that has a great deal of customer loyalty has a WAY better chance of withstanding the effects of what some believe is a bad business decision than a lesser brand.

That’s one of the reasons that for me, pointing to the recent New Yorker piece as an example of brand dilution is unconvincing; it’s like telling my misogynists speak hatefully about women. IMO that New Yorker piece was dripping with already existent disdain for BOTH HQN and self-publishing (just the assumption that HQN is “dirty” and focused on sex).

IMO, if the issue is that publishers should not be associating with vanity presses or trying to monetize the slush pile, then ALL pubs who have such relationships need to be impugned. In fact, those who try to make those endeavors appear more distant and legitimate (i.e. Authonomy) should be even MORE suspect, because it’s like they’re trying to profit from the slush or whatever without having such endeavor somewhat distanced from authors. That, to me, is like the days when the hired help had to enter the mansion through the back door so as not to be mingling with (and confused with?) the guests.

So while I get that authors are upset by this, I can only say that for me,  as a reader, an author’s reputation and the prestige of being published and the value of creative work is TOTALLY unaffected by this move of Harlequin’s. I get that authors may feel that way (perhaps I would, too, if I were in that position), but I see it as an issue contained within the author-publisher relationship, not the author-reader-publisher equation.

And lastly, why is it than when readers feel ripped off by the products they purchased they have the privelige to tell all and sundry what a bad deal they got, but when writers try to steer other writers away from bad deals it’s…well…not.

I guess I’d like an answer or opinion on that, too.

I don’t think anyone on this thread alluded that readers were stupid. But I’ve certainly read discussions where a reader or group of readers stated they’d stopped buying Avon, for instance, because they didn’t like the Avonization of their Romances. Or they’d ceased to buy Ellora’s Cave as they didn’t feel they were getting quality, or that quality was too uneven. Neither of these are my opinion, just examples of what I’ve read readers saying re a publishing house disappointing them with books they’d read from that house. Therefore, they’d spend their reading money elsewhere.

Otherwise, imo, the objections to Harlequin’s actions are many, with this concern only one of the multitude.

As to this. Many books are rejected by a certain house, sumitted to another—maybe several others—then bought by another house. Obviously, that book didn’t suck in the opinion of that house or acquiring editor, and the author is then PAID. Or, a writer may deem self-pubbing is the best option for any number of reasons. In which case the author keeps all the profits from the sales of the book.

If vanity press is hyped as publication, when it is pay for printing, it’s deceptive. If the book can’t be sold to a publisher, and it can’t be self-pubbed and vanity is the only option (or worse hyped as what it is not), the odds are pretty high that it will indeed suck.

While this is certainly more a concern for writers than readers, a great many avid readers have aspirations to write or are actively trying to become published. Discussions like this help lay out the facts so those readers who may hope to become writers can make an informed and educated choice.

Robin, let me add this on the reader angle.

All publishers (and authors) look constantly for new readers. First time readers, new to the brand readers, new to the genre readers. It’s the life blood.

A new or first-time reader would not know the difference between Horizons and Harlequin if Harlequin remains associated with the vanity press. In this deal the Harlequin name and muscle is the shine. And that new reader may buy a Horizon book to dip their toe in—then never read another Harlequin.

If you don’t think that sort of thing happens all the time, let me assure you it does. A reader tries one Romance, dislikes it and decides the genre sucks. Or tries one Harlequin, and decides Harlequins suck.

Without new readers, stagnation. And not all readers are as savvy as those who frequent these boards.

A reader tries one Romance, dislikes it and decides the genre sucks. Or tries one Harlequin, and decides Harlequins suck.

I have done that. I have done it with Genres, Publishers, & Authors. Now while I will give it a few books before I decide, I know people who do not. It is what it is.

A new or first-time reader would not know the difference between Horizons and Harlequin if Harlequin remains associated with the vanity press. In this deal the Harlequin name and muscle is the shine. And that new reader may buy a Horizon book to dip their toe in—then never read another Harlequin.

If Horizons books were going to be shelved right next to HQN books, I’d be more inclined to accept this argument. But since distribution channels will be different, I find it less convincing.

Harlequin, it strikes me, is one, if not THE BEST marketer of its books in the business. They have made subscriptions work, they have made categories and single titles work, they have made electronic books work. So for all the ways in which I think publishers often create an artificial construct called “reader” off which to make questionable/unsupportable assumptions, Harlequin seems to be a publisher that has a history of directly soliciting reader feedback as part of its process. They’ve been focused on understanding and doing what it takes to keep readers coming back. All of which makes me feel like focusing on potential peril to readers in this situation is even less powerful as a line of argumentation.

Robin, the reason HQN Ho is being dissed more than the others is that Harlequin decided to link the two houses in at least three different ways. In the other cases (except for Thomas Nelson) the two houses are entirely separate.
But referring rejected authors to a paid-for service is a clear conflict of interest. It is when agents do it, it is when publishers do it.

Discussions like this help lay out the facts so those readers who may hope to become writers can make an informed and educated choice.

I think that, if nothing else good comes of this move of Harlequins, this discussion is a benefit.  I’ve spent way too much time this week leaping between various blogs and message boards, all talking about this, and what’s become clear to me is that LOTS of people are confused about the spectrum of publishing options.  Lots of people who’ve been actively involved in on-line writing communities for years.

So if this debacle makes aspiring authors more aware of predatory vanity publishers, good.  If more writers are aware of questionable marketing links between publishers and vanity houses, and between agents and vanity houses, good.

If it causes writer organizations to review their bylaws and definitions, good.  (The RWA definition of a vanity press, as quoted at Dear Author, was pretty murky.)

By the way, Harlequin Horizons is still called Harlequin Horizons.  Did anybody hear a timeline as to when they were going to remove the “Harlequin”?

Just my luck. Nora Roberts decides to copy and paste a question I had and it’s riddled with typos. LaSigh. (By the way, hello Nora, long time fan whose typing skills obviously left her days ago.)

Nora said:
“If you don’t think that sort of thing happens all the time, let me assure you it does. A reader tries one Romance, dislikes it and decides the genre sucks. Or tries one Harlequin, and decides Harlequins suck.

Without new readers, stagnation. And not all readers are as savvy as those who frequent these boards.”

EXACTLY!

OMG, I have to say that Trafford site is a gold mine of unintentional hilarity. 

Some of my favorite blurb quotes so far: 

When All The Banks FAILED is a love novel that reads like a doctorate thesis on economics.

Oh, the romance…

Anthony has literally found the girl of his dreams. Ripping off her blouse was not the best of introductions.

Ya think?

Nancy, with husband Robert’s concurrence, sought the services of the renowned Obstetrician, Dr. David Jordan who immediately became enamoured of this patient’s beauty but initally suspicious of her projected goodness and sincerity.
The Doctor performed a relatively minor elective surgical procedure which unfortunately resulted in a litany of potentiall dangerous and disasterous complicationions

Darn, I hate it when sexy elective surgery leads to those pesky disasterous complicationions…

To those who read my story, have you ever wondered if life is fair?

Heck, I’m wondering this just after reading your blurb…

@Lynne Connolly

But referring rejected authors to a paid-for service is a clear conflict of interest. It is when agents do it, it is when publishers do it.

I just want to point out that agents and publishers have very different legal duties relative to referrals. Jane of Dear Author explained it really well here. I was (sort of) joking the other day by saying that publishers are, by definition, self-dealers. In any case, there’s a different applicable standard of duty. I’m not even sure it’s a COI issue, actually, at least not in the case of publishers.

Given that HarHo is not going to be lifting a finger to get these books into stores, I don’t think there’s a huge danger of readers associating the slushy badness with Harlequins in particular.  I don’t think it’s a good thing to unleash poorly-written, poorly-edited books on the unsuspecting public, but I don’t know too many serious readers who just buy books blindly.  We read the back blurbs, we read the first X number of pages.  If I pick up a HarHo book that miraculously makes it into a bookstore that I frequent, and it’s really, egregiously bad, I might make note of the publisher for future mocking purposes, but otherwise, I’d just put it back down and choose something else.

I think that the HarHo thing is more damaging to writers and aspiring authors than to readers (readers who are ONLY readers, and have no writing aspirations).  But I do think that damage, or potential damage, is significant enough that the reaction from writers, and from writer organizations, is justified.

If HarHo is getting a larger negative reaction than other publishers (the Xtian ones), it’s because they have a bigger audience, a bigger pool of hopeful authors, and made a bigger, splashier announcement about it.

Maybe it’s unfair that Joe’s Christian Vanity Publications would slip under the radar and Harlequin would cause this big backlash, but really, it’s the scale of things.  A minnow makes a little splash, a whale shark makes a big one.

Boy, I sure hope this is more coherent than it feels like.

Arguing the legalities of this issue is futile. The Harlequin Horizons venture is legal, else Author Solutions would have been taken down long ago. So too, the Westbow venture.

Is it ethical? Well that only matters to the duped hopefuls once they’ve been stripped of their cash, no? After all, the only loser in this situation is them.

Caveat Emptor!

@Suze

Maybe it’s unfair that Joe’s Christian Vanity Publications would slip under the radar and Harlequin would cause this big backlash, but really, it’s the scale of things.  A minnow makes a little splash, a whale shark makes a big one.

Except that Nelson is the largest Christian publisher in the US, and IIRC, Christian publishing is even bigger than Romance publishing. So Nelson, and the Christian book market, may actually be the whale shark here.

Suze:

Given that HarHo is not going to be lifting a finger to get these books into stores, I don’t think there’s a huge danger of readers associating the slushy badness with Harlequins in particular.

You’re probably right in that the majority of HQ readers will never know of, or encounter, a HQHO book.

But HQ intentionally (initially, at least) made a splash with this venture and, as Katherine Allred pointed out, folks on several readers’ blogs/loops see it as a good idea that will generate more stories for them to read and enjoy.
Chances are that those readers, at least, will keep an eye on the HQHO bookstore site and buy a few books. The reviews resulting from that should be…interesting.

Christian publishing is even bigger than Romance publishing

Really?!  Good lord.  I find that very disturbing, for deeply-suppressed emotional reasons.

So Nelson, and the Christian book market, may actually be the whale shark here.

Not in terms of perception. No other publisher on the planet has succeeded in associating the type of books it publishes with the brand to the same degree that HQ has.

Hell, I live in Norway, and I can tell you that HQ is romance in all of Scandinavia. I wouldn’t be surprised if that goes for the rest of northern Europe, as well.

@Suze: LOLOL! I’m not even gonna ask…

But DA Jane tweeted that data yesterday. And here’s the source.

One thing I keep reading all over the web is that “these books won’t make it on to shelves anyhoo, so I don’t see how this will hurt the other Harlequin authors. I mean, how many people will actually read those books?”

THIS is the exact problem. Readers already know they’ll probably never encounter one of these books, but the writer is being sold the dream that if they buy these overpriced services, they too can be a “star”.

THIS is the exact problem. Readers already know they’ll probably never encounter one of these books, but the writer is being sold the dream that if they buy these overpriced services, they too can be a “star”.

Or recognized by Har , who will in turn make them a star.
The Author may think, “Yes they see possibilities in me which is why they sent me over here anyway.” or “All I have to do is sell, sell, sell and show them my book can earn its market so next time Har will publish me.”

It will become a lottery thing. “I know I won’t win but as long as there’s 1 chance in a gazillion—I shall try.”

@Jennifer Mueller:

I have a book in hardback, the American large print rights were picked up a few months ago, and the British large print rights in hardback and paperback were bought by the BBC just this week.

And because I did the work I’m not worthy?

No.  It’s never been about “worthy” or “unworthy” regarding an author or her books, even though a lot of very misguided people try to put that idea forward.  RWA criteria for publishers rests on whether the particular publishing venue is high or low risk for the author vis a vis a profitable revenue stream, once that author is contracted/engages in business with that publisher.

The less stable a business is, the less proof it can offer that it is doing business with the author in earnest, the fewer years it has been in business, the higher the risk.  The Better Business Bureau as well as the Small Business Administration have criteria similar to these to determine whether a business is high or low risk.  A plain, “Trust me, I’m a viable, low-risk business,” isn’t good enough for either of these organizations.  Likewise RWA.

I’ve mentioned on my writing blog that RWA is NOT an entrepreneur organization, though many of its members are entrepreneurs. It was not created as a “let’s pursue the latest in publishing technology” organization. It’s an author advocate organization.  As an author advocate, RWA is not going to promote high risk ventures for its members. That includes vanity publishing and self-publishing.  Not because these venues are less “worthy” or less viable than the regular sort, but because they’re high risk to the author.  High risk means the publishing venue demands the author takes more than postage money out of her pocket upon beginning that publishing process for it to happen at all, with little guarantee that these books will be in the bookstores.  It means the money needs to go toward the author, not away.

As a result, RWA can’t be seen as somehow promoting publishers who push these high-risk ventures to writers.  RWA doesn’t prohibit its members from pursuing those ventures, although certainly its recognized publisher and agent list can have a chilling effect on pursuing those high-risk ventures.  But in this case, that chilling effect can be a good thing.  When a writer looks at that list and doesn’t find Publish America on it for example, at the very least she (I hope) will ask why, and get some good answers.  And from that point, the writer can decide whether she wants to pursue that high risk publishing venture or not.  That’s what the recognized publisher list is supposed to do—push the writer to ask questions of the business, and as a resource.

The fall-out is that RWA has criteria for its published author network (PAN) that will exclude self-published and vanity-published authors.  This is not because these authors are any less “worthy” or hard-working as anyone else, but because including people published through those high-risk venues would be considered the same as recommending or promoting those venues to the unpublished writer.

Vanity or self-published authors aren’t any less published than anyone else, especially when it comes to copyright laws, and especially if they have ISBNs for their books.  But for the purpose of author advocacy, their venues for publishing are not going to be recommended by RWA if RWA is going to fulfill its plainly-stated mission statement.

I remember being in the midst of (as a RWA chapter president) figuring out the criteria for publishing venues just as e-publishing was born years and years ago.  I have a hell of a lot of respect for entrepreneurial authors who go the self-publishing route (and small press, for that matter) and get their work out there to the public, because I really adore the entrepreneurial spirit and love to see small businesses make good.  But when it comes down to author advocacy as a mission statement, the two have to be separated.

Wow, purpose38.  How uncannily appropriate.

Karen: I think that’s the best explanation of RWA’s role that I’ve ever read. Bravo!

appear39: actually (sniff), I’ve been told I appear 35 or 36. So there.

@Anon76

Readers already know they’ll probably never encounter one of these books, but the writer is being sold the dream that if they buy these overpriced services, they too can be a “star”.

But that’s an issue between the author and the publisher; it’s not a *reader* issue. And that’s what I’ve been objecting to—the use of reader harm to make the case against Harlequin. 

I haven’t yet decided what I think of this whole enterprise. I’m not against vanity publishing per se, and I like that Malle Vallik actually tried ASI out with her own MS (talk about putting your money where your mouth is, lol). I understand many of the reasons authors are objecting to the partnership, but I really think it’s primarily an author-publisher issue, and that the perceived harm to authors (vanity or HQN or otherwise) is not going to be amplified by the deception or desertion of readers.

Then, Robin, forget the readers—though I don’t agree. That issue or problem or objection is only one of many.

I would say this, if authors—new, fresh, potential authors particularly—get screwed—and vanity press is a door closed instead of a door opening as it negates the possibility of another house buying a rejected ms, nurturing that author along—the reader ultimately gets screwed, too. Because the very small percentage of fresh, new voices with potential in those rejected mss may very well grab onto the shiny brass ring being offered—fulfill your dreams, another way to publication, just pony up the money and you’ll become a published author!

There is a chorus on the blogs re the crappy books on the market—waste of time and money for the reader. With a new avenue through a major house in the genre for vanity, the crap’s going to get a lot deeper.

But I’ll agree with you, at its core this is a writer/publisher problem.

@ Anon76

I also wonder when the tides turned and it became EBIL for an author to be
profit for his/her writing. That at the end of the day, if your income/loss
statement reads 0, then all is well. (No you didn’t say anything about
that, just voicing a trend I was noticing. This venture with Author
Solutions is just another step in that process.)

Because writing is an art, and art I say!  It cannot be sullied by the pursuit of filthy lucre, particularly in the creation of it.  Let publishers be tarnished by their money-grubbing ways, but an author must remain pure, yes, even unto a foreclosed house and bedraggled children.  The purity of art should reign supreme.  Physical sustenance is nothing, nothing compared to art.

iOW, everyone else gets to be paid for 40 hours a week at their job, but a writer has to have a 40-hour-a-week day job and work another 10 to 20 a week for no pay or pay for the priviledge, because, you know, WTF, art.

Re. the idea that RWA’s role is to advocate for and protect authors, I couldn’t agree more. But reading some of these defenses of RWA have brought back memories of grad school in the 90s.

Many Humanities departments were impacted and tenure track teaching positions were in decline. In short, departments were producing WAY more PhD’s than could be absorbed by the current market. This was a well-known problem, but being in a department that identified itself in terms of exclusivity and prestige, many faculty believed that it was their job to prepare us exclusively for tenure-track faculty positions. Period.

Unfortunately, this was not correlative of market realities, and consequently, many fabulous candidates could not find traditional tenure track placements. Some of us were lucky and had the choice of traditional or non-traditional job options, but even then, it often took some doing. Taking jobs at community colleges and spending every year applying to four-year colleges and universities, for example. Taking a job outside the academy that the candidate found on his or her own, being totally unsupported in this endeavor by the department. This option meant that a number of people (quite a few of my friends fell into this category) didn’t even finish their PhD’s, but instead ended up in other fields, insisting that it didn’t really matter that they didn’t have the doctorate (in many cases, these folks were not really happy, but they did not want to go back and finish).

In any case, there were so many opportunities outside the academy for doctoral candidates in my field, but we were never encouraged to explore them, never told about them, never assisted in maximizing *legitimate* avenues of professional success in a changing market that was definitely deviating from traditional definitions of professional success. Ultimately, the professional aspirations and success of a number of students were compromised, not because the faculty didn’t care about us and think they were doing the right thing for us, but because they refused to adjust the paradigm in which they had been trained and with which they were comfortable.

So while I get the whole argument about how RWA shouldn’t encourage its members to pursue “risky” publishing ventures, I think there’s a big difference between pushing their members in any direction and ensuring that authors are able to maximize their professional success in a changing market. While I would not suggest in any way that RWA should be encouraging or supporting vanity publishing for its members, I do think that RWA has shown a steadfast loyalty to one publishing model (advance-based, aka print) that may no longer correlative with the state and future of the industry and the market. And while on the surface the de-listing of HQN seems a bold stand against trad publishing, I hope it turns out in authors’ ultimate best interest, because at this point, I don’t think Harlequin is going to be the one to blink first, which is going to raise many difficult issues and choices for RWA.

There is a chorus on the blogs re the crappy books on the market—waste of time and money for the reader. With a new avenue through a major house in the genre for vanity, the crap’s going to get a lot deeper.

Because it’s going to push quality books out of the market? Authors have control over the quality of their work, and IMO, as long as authors are focused on producing the best books they can, good books will sell. Not *every* author may sell, and not ever book may do well.

But in the main, it strikes me that the other option is for publishers to produce fewer books, and I haven’t seen many authors advocating this strategy. OTOH, profitable publishers are publishers that can take risks and have more authors with viable contracts. Clearly these partnerships/affiliate relationships are profit-oriented ventures. And if they succeed in generating more money for the pub (I’m not commenting on the ethics of the issue here, merely making a pragmatic argument), will that increase the crap or will it allow publishers to put more money into editing, distributing, and acquiring quality work? Obviously, I think it’s the latter. Or at least I sure hope it is, because the financial downturn in publishing has not really served anyone well.

KarenH,

I darn near laughed myself from my chair reading your last post.

Thanks, I needed that laugh.

Robin, you said:

“In any case, there were so many opportunities outside the academy for doctoral candidates in my field, but we were never encouraged to explore them, never told about them, never assisted in maximizing *legitimate* avenues of professional success in a changing market that was definitely deviating from traditional definitions of professional success. Ultimately, the professional aspirations and success of a number of students were compromised, not because the faculty didn’t care about us and think they were doing the right thing for us, but because they refused to adjust the paradigm in which they had been trained and with which they were comfortable.”

And based on that, I will now ask you directly: How many books provided by Author Solutions, or any of its affiliates, have you purchased this year?

Robin,

I hear you on exploring the market, and there are workshops at various local RWA conferences on different aspects of publishing, with of course the disclaimer that these can be high risk. 

On the advanced-based model, I have never understood why advance-based must mean print publishing.  Why can’t e-publishing, for example, offer an advance as a sort of earnest money on the publishing deal?  If it is a viable, stable, long-term business, why doesn’t this business have enough cash reserves to offer an advance?  I’d think there would be less overhead in the way of printing and certainly distribution. 

I’m thinking of contract work, for example.  If you’re a web designer, a company comes to you, asks you for some samples of your work.  You give them some, they come back and say they want you to create a web site redesign for them.  What’s common practice is to get a lump sum up front, then you get paid hourly.  The lump sum is to ensure that you don’t do a hell of a lot of work and then last minute get choused out of your money when the company decides they don’t want a redesign after all. This is common practice whether you’re a web designer, a graphic designer, or a contract bridge engineer.

I’ve never heard a good reason why publishing should be exempt from this method of doing business.  We’re doing contract work, for heaven’s sake.

As for HQ…eh, nothing is stopping anyone from pursuing publishing with them, and RWA isn’t saying anyone should stop.  HQ is not going to hurt much that way, unless they want to have on-site presence at the national conference, in which case they’ll have to pay for their presence there instead of being comped. They stay away, they save money.

RWA…yeah, it’ll be harder on them, but it’s not like RWA hasn’t dropped a mainstream publisher before. It survived just fine.  While there’s good networking elsewhere, and certainly on the web, there’s amazing networking within RWA.

And in addition:

Robin, you said: (quoted again)

“In any case, there were so many opportunities outside the academy for doctoral candidates in my field, but we were never encouraged to explore them, never told about them, never assisted in maximizing *legitimate* avenues of professional success in a changing market that was definitely deviating from traditional definitions of professional success.”

So if you’d been told that you could practice your field in “this opportunity, sponsored by us but paid entirely by you and without any recognition from us” that all would be well?

Because, seriously, we are now strolling down the avenue of an HQ editor saying, this isn’t right for us, but try Avon, Dorchester, etc. Not gonna happen. However they will send you to their pay-to-play site.

Anon76,

Yeah, well, I’m living it: put my writing career on hold, working the full time job, sometimes with overtime, to help put my kid through college, and then doing NaNoWriMo on top of that.  I’m really, really tired.

But, WTF, art. And I chose it, damn it.

@ Robin

I’m not against vanity publishing per se, and I like that Malle Vallik actually tried ASI out with her own MS (talk about putting your money where your mouth is, lol).

I wouldn’t put any money on the assumption that Malle spent her own funds on this.  In her position at Harlequin, I think it is far more likely that she anonymously submitted to ASI as a test of the process during the negotiation stage and was either re-imbursed for her expenses by her employer or that ASI waived the fee later as part of their contract with Harlequin.

Why would someone with seven published romance novels, who was also a professional editor for ten years, suddenly feel the need to find the errors in a very old manuscript and pay a vanity-press to look at it?  Surely, if anyone could get access to someone to give her competent advice on an old manuscript that just hadn’t come together, a Harlequin editor could! It makes good business sense to assume Harlequin did investigate the process they were going to put their name on, and the only thing that would surprise me is if they did not ask one of their employees to undertake an anonymous vetting of the system.  However, I think that paying for an opinion on her manuscript falls under “reimbursable business expense” for Ms Vallik and is not, for me, an unsolicited and unbiased endorsement of the system.

KarenH,

God bless ya. It’s darn hard to focus on writing when real life keeps striking you a blow, let alone when the industry keeps striking you a blow.

I’‘ve been fighting myself for days regarding whether or not to reveal my own truths about my publishing ventures. They have nothing to do with self publishing, nor vanity publishing, and while pertinent, owning up to them in public frightens me, because it does involve a small and well intentioned print pub.

In her position at Harlequin, I think it is far more likely that she anonymously submitted to ASI as a test of the process during the negotiation stage and was either re-imbursed for her expenses by her employer or that ASI waived the fee later as part of their contract with Harlequin.

See, I don’t have a problem with that.  If HQ hadn’t tested the water AT ALL, I’d be shocked and dismayed.

But did she send in a relatively good manuscript, or was it problematical?  And if it was good, did she also send in a terrible manuscript, to compare the response?  Did HQ have several “secret shoppers” try the service out, to make sure they were getting a consistent response?  Did they try the same thing with other POD companies?  Did they try any actual self-publishers, or just AuthorHouse?

I kinda don’t think so, and that’s a shame.

Um, Author Solutions.  Potato, po-tah-to.

Sorry, @Anon76, I’m not going to take the bait; I made it very clear in my post how I felt about RWA encouraging the vanity model.

@KarenH: Editors, publishers, and analysts of digital publishing have been much more articulate than I could ever be on why the digital publishing model not only doesn’t have to be advanced based, but can be a more lucrative financial opportunity for authors (or at least as lucrative as print). Time to publication is MUCH MUCH less, authors are often contracting *already completed* novels, royalties are substantially higher and in many cases delivered much more promptly, etc.

And if that model, a different business model, allows digital publishers to publish more diverse works, to take more unconventional work on, etc. then why *should* that model conform to the advance model? In both cases, an advance is income (anticipated or earned), but in one case the publisher has to put out money up to several years ahead, making their return on the investment substantially delayed. And if that investment does not pay off, for whatever reason (book doesn’t earn out, author isn’t able to produce, etc.), then it’s not like that author would be a good bet for *reinvestment*. So the guarantee does not extend beyond the existing contract, even though it may feel more secure to the author. Also, if an author is not going to be spending months, and possibly a year (or more) producing the work under contract, an advance can make a lot of sense. If the author is selling a completed work, though, and publication is months instead of years off, the advance for the purpose of supporting the author through completion and publication of the manuscript makes much less sense, IMO.

I understand that NY publishing has long been seen as the gold standard for authors, but is it really the case that a 1K advance and 12% royalty rate is clearly superior to no advance and an almost 40% royalty rate? GIven the small percentage of RWA members who will ever get a NY contract, is the NY ideal the most mathematically sound for the vast majority of RWA members?

@Gwynnyd: Oh, I don’t think for one minute that Malle Vallik paid personally for the service or that she did it for any reason but to see how ASI did with it on behalf of Harlequin. But that doesn’t dim my appreciation for the method. Whether the manuscript was good or bad (and some of this is taste, of course), she tried it and was able to evaluate the process as any author would. And I can’t really think of a better way to test out a business.

Robin,

I’m sorry, but when you consider what I feel honest questions bait, I’m at a loss as to how form them in a manner appropriate.

(And by the way, if you haven’t read all of my posts, I’m totally into the establishment of Carina and challenging RWA to rethink their views on eligible houses when it comes to the epub model.)

I looked at that link. It’s not until you pay $999 before you’ll get an editor! Also, I don’t know what’s the difference between their standard covers and their better ones.

Unless you’re rolling in dough, this is not a bargain. There are lots more expenses that are not covered here, plus you have no control.

You may as well bite the bullet and self-publish it by yourself, hire a good editor, get a cover artist or find a picture you like somewhere and go to a printing house like Lightning Source, which is a division of Ingram, offers great distribution and other services and you’ll be in full control.
Morgan Mandel

@ Robin -

But that doesn’t dim my appreciation for the method. Whether the manuscript was good or bad (and some of this is taste, of course), she tried it and was able to evaluate the process as any author would. And I can’t really think of a better way to test out a business.

- scratches head - well, er, yes.  Malle said as much in her first post.

All of that said, I do want to share that we are very comfortable with Author Solutions as a self-publisher. We fully vetted their processes and found their services to be excellent.

It seemed to me that you implied that Malle V. submitted her manuscript with her own funds and for same reasons a non-connected wanna-be author might. I don’t think so.  I, too, would be happy to spend many thousand bucks of corporate money on testing a supplier and would, if my job depended on toeing a corporate line, say complimentary things about it in public if I was encouraged to.  It would be my job to do that.  My own money, not so much. My own opinions, maybe not.  I do not expect that a Harlequin employee would come out on a site like SBTB and say anything that was uncomplimentary to HQHo, and I take anything positive they do say as ... marketing.

I’m sorry @Anon76, but this sounded super sarcastic to me:

So if you’d been told that you could practice your field in “this opportunity, sponsored by us but paid entirely by you and without any recognition from us” that all would be well?

Especially after I’d already said this:

So while I get the whole argument about how RWA shouldn’t encourage its members to pursue “risky” publishing ventures, I think there’s a big difference between pushing their members in any direction and ensuring that authors are able to maximize their professional success in a changing market. While I would not suggest in any way that RWA should be encouraging or supporting vanity publishing for its members, I do think that RWA has shown a steadfast loyalty to one publishing model (advance-based, aka print) that may no longer correlative with the state and future of the industry and the market. And while on the surface the de-listing of HQN seems a bold stand against trad publishing, I hope it turns out in authors’ ultimate best interest, because at this point, I don’t think Harlequin is going to be the one to blink first, which is going to raise many difficult issues and choices for RWA.

The first question, about how many books I’ve bought from ASI, just came across to me as a smart-ass provocation, both in the context of the paragarph I quoted above and the paragraph of mine you quoted, which was all about how even the best intentions for protection may not necessarily be the best protection. The suspicion with which the digital market is viewed, for example. I buy * a lot* of ebooks.

This has been an interesting discussion and kudos to all the writers such as Nora for stepping in with her experience.

Dear Kevin from AS. You and Harley are full of bullhockey. You are exploiting aspiring authors’ desperate needs to see their names on the cover of a book. Nothing more, nothing less. You make money off the dreams of people who don’t know better, or who actually think that “publishing” through you is their ticket in.

My first book was BOUGHT by Harlequin (what a concept, getting paid instead of paying) so I have fond memories of who they used to be. No longer. When they and you exploit writers’ dreams for your own profit, you’re just plain disgusting. The reason RWA, MWA, SFWA, NINC, SinC and other PROFESSIONAL writer organizations have come out to call a pig a pig is because it’s really a pig.

PLEASE, PLEASE aspiring authors do not buy (literally) into this scam. Your words are worth money. Not yours, but theirs.

Trish

http://smallbeerpress.com/not-a-journal/2009/11/22/small-beer-press-horizons/

Surely the devil has hoarfrost on his ass, because here I am agreeing with Robin again.

Theresa Meyers said way upthread because I missed a day and there’s another million comments :

As long as Harlequin is willing to pay me to write, I’m willing and happy to write. Because this is my job as a writer.

You are so much awesome, Theresa! I notice that your comments always make perfect sense to me (slavish butt-kiss moment here :wink:).  I’m a Harlequin author and get paid for my work so far.  But this whole tragedy does make me think I should stop heel-dragging and write my other non-HQN books. 

Also someone else asked way, way upthread if HQN informed their authors of this move.  A big fat no.  Not at Nationals, not via editors, nothing.  And usually, when TPTB want to get everyone excited, they crow their new innovations to the roofs - the Bombshell, Next and Everlasting lines spring to mind (wonder if HQNHo goes the same way as those, too? One can only hope).  So the thundering silence speaks volumes to me.

BTW KarenH, thanks for the laugh!

@Robin

Editors, publishers, and analysts of digital publishing have been much more articulate than I could ever be on why the digital publishing model not only doesn’t have to be advanced based, but can be a more lucrative financial opportunity for authors (or at least as lucrative as print).

Well, yeah, I’d be saying that, too, if I were an editor, publisher and (maybe) analyst of digital publishing.  But I have yet to see the numbers compared to print publishing.  And whether an author has the whole book done or not when it comes to the contract is a moot point.  In any negotiation, each side is going to push for the maximum it can get, whether the manuscript is done or not (the advantage is actually on the author’s side if the manuscript is done).

Every once in a while, I go over to the Show Me the Money site:

http://www.brendahiatt.com/id2.html

I know the gal personally for more than a decade, so I trust what she’s reporting.  Not too many people from the purely digital side are reporting in. Makes me wonder why.

I’m not dissing any other kind of publishing than trad. print; I see it as a continuum from vanity to traditional print publishing, and it’s all good, depending on what you want to accomplish (although, vanity—I’d want to shop around to get a good price, rather than pay what HH is charging, sheesh).  I’d sure like to try out the purely digital kind, especially if there are any that publish longish short stories.  Hell, I totally see the benefit in not offering an author an advance if I were a publisher—why pay out when I don’t have to?  It’d be crazy to do that if some person out there would be willing to go without or even to pay for being published.  Bring it on!

But as an author, I have to also look to the highest benefit for me I can.  it’s like applying for jobs:  if all else is equal, why go for the job that pays $12 an hour, if I can get one that pays $20 per hour with a health plan?  If the employer paying $12 per hour says the potential is great to earn tons more, but isn’t willing to show me numbers, then why should I believe that employer?

In any contract situation, both sides have to push for their advantage, negotiate, and come to some kind of agreement.  It’s expected.  If the publisher can get away with not paying an advance, cool for them.  If the author can get away with getting an advance, cool for her/him.

At the risk of dragging the thread off topic - but hell, we’re fast approaching 800 comments so who gives a flip? - I’d like to address Karen’s comment.

I wish more digital publishers would report numbers. And I’ve only published one novella so far—through a primarily digital publisher - so I’m certainly not an expert, but I’ve done a lot of studying.

I qualified for RWA’s Published Author Network within the first month.  I agree with what Robin said earlier - about digital pubs paying higher royalty rates, and bringing the books to market much faster than trad print publishers. And as one who thinks that instant gratification takes too long, I probably won’t sub my second book to a traditional house.

Everyone knows that the print houses are buying fewer manuscripts, especially from new and unproven writers - even proven midlist writers, those with two or three decently selling books under their belts, are seeing their contracts cancelled, new contracts not offered.  Smaller advances are being reported. And, according to what I’ve read, it’s very common for a new writer not to sell more than her advance. So a new author gets a modest advance (under normal circumstances, unless you wind up like Rebecca James, selling your second ms for a million bucks), then waits one year to 18 months for her book to hit the market, and then another year or so to find out if she sold through her advance.

It just seems, as a new writer with no backlist, that digital publishing offers opportunities that trad publishing does not. Some writers start out with digital publishing, intending to try to crack NY at some point.

Anyway - small press and epubs are, it seems to me, by now proven, viable business models. Some are better than others, of course.

Ya know, even though we’ve dissected this whole debate to the nth degree, here’s something new one of my crit group showed me :shock:!  On the HarHor site, under the ‘basic’ package it explains ‘soft cover’

All of our softcover books are formatted and printed as trade paperbacks. Trade paperback is an industry term that lets readers know the book is made of higher quality materials, is produced in a larger size and is offered at a higher price than mass-market paperbacks. Typically mass-market paperbacks are printed on cheap paper and are poorly made. We want your book to last a lifetime, hence the reason we print trade paperbacks.

As my CP says, “So does that mean the mass-produced Harlequin paperbacks are cheap and poorly made? Did they just slag off the parent company?”  I mean, WTF?

IIRC, an editor explained to me that POD publishers print trade paperbacks because it’s cheaper - something about the way the paper is cut, and using less than mass market paperback size that way.  We were asking why digital pubs, when they do POD, tend to do it in trade size, not MMPB. She said it was a matter of cost.

So, yeah - BS.

@KarenH: Do you really think $1K advances represent meaningful investment by publishers in the author’s success? Because that amount seems to me more token than anything else. And if a publisher can get away with paying only $1K, how much incentive does that provide to really get behind the author and work for her success? Shoot, with that number, a publisher could sign a bunch of authors and throw them all out into the market to see which, if any, stick. And I don’t know, maybe that’s worth it for the author who is looking for the opportunity to get a NY contract, especially if her book DOES stick, but do you really see it as *more legitimate* than no advance and 3X the royalty percentage of that same NY contract?

Trade paperback is an industry term that lets readers know the book is made of higher quality materials

Trade paperback is an industry term that refers to how the book is returnable.

Mass marked is strippable, hardcover and trade paperback are whole copy returnable. The terms have nothing whatsoever to do with size or quality of print/materials.

Karen H (and others)—

The e-book equiv of B Hiatt’s “Show Me The Money” is E Veinglory’s EREC sales tracker:  http://www.erecsite.com/SALES.html

Fran, thanks for that link.

Here’s a link I found interesting:

http://www.falconesse.com/2009/11/21/harlequin-horizons-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-deal/

It’s really long, but it’s the math portions that I found interesting and those are in the second half of the post.

Also, I support epublishing whole-heartedly. When discussing the horizons line, I wasn’t speaking about that model of publication, but the print side. I assumed (and you know what they say about that) the main drive behind the line was to see yourself in print and on physical bookshelves. Why? Well I guess because of the wording of the site and the fact that Harlequin already offers an epub option through Carina.

So whether the focus is print or epub, IMHO, Horizons is not the way an author should go. True self-publishing print AND digital options are out there for a much better price. Or if you are ebook focused, publishers who will “buy” your books and take on the burden of production costs.

And going back to discussing print, even if your epubbed book goes to print, the publisher absorbs the cost (or at least a majority of the publishers do) and royalty rates to the author drop significantly.

Hey!

How come you didn’t get stuck in moderation for posting that link, Anon76?

Does this mean they really are out to get me?

:-)

~Because it’s going to push quality books out of the market?~

No, I said there’d be more crap on the market, which is something readers already complain about. Harlequin states on their web site that through their distribution arrangement with Ingram the Horizon customer’s book will reach Amazon, B&N.com among others. That’s a chunk of the market.

Writers are responsible for the quality of their work. However, this enterprise is encouraging the customer to bypass improving the work, honing the craft in exchange for paying 600 bucks to have the book printed as is. Shell out more, you could get an editorial ‘overview’ , more still, some line editing, a whole bunch more, content editing.

Again, writers are responsible for the quality of their work—but publishers are responsible for the quality of the books they publish. Harlequin may not be publishing Horizon, but the statements on the website are pretty deceptive in that area, and they promise distribution—a line to the reader.

Being a vanity press, they don’t have any responsibility over the quality, which is part of the problem as I see it as they’re using the trusted brand of Harlequin to cash in on customers who they’ve rejected as meeting the needs and standards of that brand.

And then they’ll use their association with Ingram to have those books distributed to major outlets like Amazon and B&N.com.

(Blinks)

Moderation? Um, dunno, Eirin. Maybe it was a server goof or something.

I decided not to put up a post with a number of BBB links I’ve compiled regarding Author Solutions and its subsidiaries for just that reason. Figured it might make the server go, huh?

What Show Me The Money doesn’t explain is the time it takes to get that advance. The advance is typically paid in three installments - on the delivery of the manuscript, the completion of editing and the publication of the book. I know there are different models, but I don’t know of one where the advance is paid in one big happy sum.
Take the agent’s fee, usually 15% off the top, and divide by three, and bear in mind that the timescale can easily be two years. Not so good now?
The advantage of the digital non-advance model is that the turnaround is faster, so the author is getting her money a month after the book comes out. So she can get the full “earnout” amount in a couple of months. And continue to get a trickle as each new release gives a boost to the backlist. True ebook earnout is a bit problematic, because as long as the book is on the publisher site, it’s continuing to earn money. I’m getting royalties from books published 5 years ago.

There are a lot of different reasons, but the best, as far as I know, is a combination of the two. The advance model for a nice financial lump sum every so often, plus that monthly check for the faster result.

Here’s another thing I can’t figure out: If ASSISTED self-publishing is so lucrative for a writer, why even care about a traditional publisher picking you up as one of their contracted authors?