Considering the opinions of publishers who’ve been around the block longer than I have, I’ve been hesitant to say this, but in the earlier days and after having done more research, I rewrote our standard contract to include an easier out for my authors and a greater royalty rate and then asked the ones I already had on contract if they’d like to sign it. None of them turned me down.

It seemed, and still seems, like good business sense to me. I want the authors happy. I believe that, since I’m not relying on profits from Drollerie Press to survive, nor having to contract out web design or many of the other things we have to do to be a viable company, being able to attract more and better authors is one of the best ways to grow.

*waving* The other half of that comment which addresses the dynamics of negotiation deals with the authors goals. It is where the publishers goals balance with the authors goal that the contract is made. After the contract is made then we have a cooperative effort, but until then author and publisher are both jockeying for the best possible position and neither is looking out for any interests other than their own. While we’re sitting across the table from each other you wouldn’t be slipping me notes saying, “Ask me for a higher royalty rate, I’ll go up a point” and I wouldn’t be making hand gestures indicating you should go for a longer grant of rights. Within the greater parameters of industry norms, there is a wide swing of options. And both sides have a responsibility when handling their business to maximize those options to their benefit.

However, I do have to say whether I was unhappy with my publisher or not, I would still be pushing my book. Bad deal or not, (For which I would have no one but myself to blame as I negotiated the contract) it’s still my book and it’s still my name I’m building and that doesn’t change no matter where the the book is published.

If publishers cared long term, they would be more patient in developing writers, just as in the Max Perkins days.

I’ve defended the right of publishers to exist and really hate the way Netfolks trash ‘em without understanding the major value they add, but too many houses think “One night stand” as opposed to marriage.

Notice the magabucks paid for best sellers and the typical lack of marketing support for ordinary books? Or the problems that first novelists often have with repeat books if the debut efforts don’t earn out as expected.?

Unfortunately the publishing business for the most part is no more than just that—a business.

But enough of that. I couldn’t agree more with your terrific comment elsewhere on the perils of patron-sponsored books and your aside on the fact that “reprints” are already edited.

People might want to drop by your site for some fine examples of the latter.

Thanks,
David

Rob Preece
Publisher, http://www.BooksForABuck.com