Is the book industry dead (again), as it is often noted? Hope not! The latest death-of-print story, published in this week's New York, is about the retarded voodoo economics the industry is crippling itself with:
"Lately, the whole, hoary concept of paying writers advances against royalties has come under question. Following their down payments to authors, publishers don't have to pay a cent in royalties, which are usually 15 percent of the hardcover price, 7.5 for paperbacks, until that signing bonus is earned back. The system is supposed to be mutually beneficial; the publishers guarantee writers a certain income, and then both parties share in the proceeds beyond that level. But it only works for publishers if they're conservative in their expectations. As auctions over hot books have grown more frequent, prudence has gone out the window- paying a $1 million advance to a 26-year-old first-time novelist becomes a public-relations gambit as much as an investment in that writer's future. But overspending isn't going away, even with a rotten economy. Last month, Harvard economist Anita Elberse wrote a piece debunking the hypothesis of Chris Anderson's anti-blockbuster blockbuster, The Long Tail (which Bob Miller acquired at Hyperion for a mere $550,000). Elberse led off with a tidbit from a study of Hachette's Grand Central Publishing. Of 61 books on its 2006 list, each title averaged a profit of almost $100,000. But without the top seller, which earned $5 million, that average drops to $18,000. "A blockbuster strategy still makes the most sense," she concludes."
Or as Martin and John author Dale Peck is quoted, "When you get $100,000 for a novel," he says, "you want $150,000 and then $200,000, so when they pay you $25,000 for the next one, and my rent is $2,500 a month, what do you do?" Um, get a cheaper apartment, I guess. Looks like everyone in publishing should. Have We Reached the End of Book Publishing As We Know It? [New York]