Download

[e-reads] is reporting this:

 

The publishing business is experiencing massive changes and if MWA is to remain relevant, we have to change, too. That’s why we’ve revised our Approved Publisher criteria to make books published solely in e-book format or using print-on-demand eligible under certain conditions for MWA membership (and, perhaps later, for Edgar eligibility as well). Self-published books, whether they are published in print or as e-books, still do not qualify for MWA active membership.

In crafting the criteria below, we had to strike a balance between including books published using those new technologies while also maintaining our high professional standards and our commitment to protecting our members (and writers in general) from the less-than-reputable publishers who seek to take advantage of them.

We hope you’ll agree that we accomplished our goal.

Item #1: Change to Publisher Guidelines – #2 will now read:

2. Works of fiction or nonfiction must be widely available in brick-and-mortar stores (not “special order” titles), through standard
wholesaling/distribution channels or, in the case of print-on-demand titles and ebooks, available directly through major internet retailers like Amazon, Barnes & Noble, iBookstore, Kobo, etc. and not solely through the publisher’s website. (For e-books, publishers must also meet the separate criteria regarding that format)

Item #2: Change to Library & University Market Publisher Guidelines (changes noted with asterisks):

Publishers selling primarily to the library & university market rather than to retailers must meet ALL of the rules regarding PRINT PUBLISHERS with the following exceptions/additions:

a. During the preceding year, the publisher must have paid a minimum of $1,000, in advances and/or royalties, to at least five authors with no financial or ownership interest in the company. Payment must be in monies, not in barter for advertising or copies of books.

b. ***Works of fiction or nonfiction may be distributed primarily to libraries and universities. However, the books must be readily available for purchase by the public through internet retailers (not just your own website) or by special order from bookstores. A copy of your library/university sales catalog must be included with your submission.” ***

Item #3: New e-Book Publisher Guidelines:

Publishers interested in being on MWA’s Approved E-Book Publishers List must fill out the affidavit and submit a sample contract. If all of the following criteria are met, contact the national office to begin the vetting process (the affidavit will be supplied if these requirements are met). The publisher must also meet all of the following criteria (the term “book” refers to all e-formats, “Publishing” refers to print, web, and other e-formats):

1. During the preceding year, the publisher must have paid a minimum of $500 in advances and/or royalties to at least five authors with no financial or ownership interest in the company.
a) The publisher must have paid a minimum royalty of least 25% of net revenue to authors.
b) The royalties must have been paid at least quarterly, with a detailed statement, breaking out books sold through affiliate sites, through the publisher’s own site, as well as print books if applicable.
c) Payment must be in monies, not in barter for advertising or copies or any other considerations.
d) Payment must be actual – not, for example, a donation of writing deemed worth a given amount.
e) Payment must have been made and not merely promised.
f) A contract alone is not payment. Proof of payment may be requested by the committee.

2. The publisher must have been in business for at least two years since publication of the first e-book by a person with no financial or ownership interest in the company.

3. The publisher, within the past five years, may not have charged a fee to consider, read, submit, or comment on manuscripts; nor may the publisher, or any of the executives or editors under its employ, have offered authors self-publishing services, literary representation, paid editorial services, or paid promotional services. If the publisher is affiliated with an entity that provides self-publishing, for-pay editorial services, or for-pay promotional services, the entities must be wholly separate and isolated from the publishing entity. They must not share employees, manuscripts, or authors or interact in any way. For example, the publishing entity must not refer authors to any of the for-pay entities nor give preferential treatment to manuscripts submitted that were edited, published, or promoted by the for-pay entity. To avoid misleading authors, mentions and/or advertisements for the for-pay entities shall not be included with information on manuscript submission to the publishing company. Advertising on the publisher’s website for any for-pay editorial, self-publishing or promotional services, whether affiliated with the publisher or not, must include a disclaimer that it is advertising and that use of those services offered by an affiliate of the publisher will not affect consideration of manuscripts submitted for publication.

4. The publisher must publish at least five authors per year, other than those with a financial or ownership interest in the company, such as an owner, business partner, employee, or close relative of such person. Those persons should be listed on the application.

5. The publisher is not a “self-publishing” or “subsidy publishing” firm in which the author has paid all or part of the cost of publication, marketing, distribution of the work, or any other fees pursuant to an agreement between the author and publisher, cooperative publisher or book packager. Among (but not all of) the situations defined as “self-published or cooperatively published” are:

a. Those works for which the author has paid all or part of the cost of publication, marketing, distribution of the work, or any other fees pursuant to an agreement between the author and publisher, cooperative publisher, website owner or book packager;

b. e-books published by a privately-held publisher or in collaboration with a book packager wherein the author has a familial relationship with the publisher, editor, or any managerial employee, officer, director or owner of the publisher or book packager;

c. Those works published by companies, websites or imprints that do not publish other authors;

d. Those works published by a publisher or website or in collaboration with a book packager in which the author has a direct or indirect financial interest;

e. Those works published in an anthology in which the author is also an editor, except an anthology for which the author is a guest editor;

f. Those works published in an anthology or magazine wherein the author has a familial relationship with the editor or publisher

6. The publisher pays for editing, copyediting, design, cover art, production, advertising, marketing, distribution, web design, graphics, and all other aspects of publication. They do not require authors to pay for any of the above.

7. Books must be available through major online retailers, like Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and the iBookstore, and not just through the publisher’s website.

8. The publisher must not be engaged in the practice of wrongfully withholding or delaying the payment of acceptance fees to authors.

Here is the link to the new Publisher Guidelines: http://www.mysterywriters.org/?q=PublisherGuidelines

7 COMMENTS

  1. “Mystery Writers of America is the leading association for professional crime writers in the United States. Members of MWA include most major writers of crime fiction and non-fiction, as well as screenwriters, dramatists, editors, publishers, and other professionals in the field.

    “We welcome everyone who is interested in mysteries and crime writing to join MWA.”

    When we say everyone…. well…. we mean everyone EXCEPT ….

    “Self-published books, whether they are published in print or as e-books, still do not qualify for MWA active membership”

    Really catching up, folks !

  2. Howard: You want them to accept *active* membership for anyone who is simply “interested in mysteries and crime”? I look forward to your elegant strategy for running such an organisation.

    Seriously, I agree exempting the likes of Hocking from an award is elitist gate-keeping. (Whether that’s a bad thing…) But surely you admit it’s an elegant way to exclude works which haven’t been thoroughly copy-edited. Perhaps awards could be categorized, but I don’t expect you want to see a “second class” of active membership.

    It’s a step in the right direction. What you’re _not_ going to see is associations started by established writers having anything to do with “subsidy publishers”. I.e. a “publisher” who advertises the listed services, but expects the author to make the initial financial investment.

    …is it such a great idea for them to try to serve self-publishing authors? A lot of what they do will be about dealing with publishers. There’s a *massive disconnect* with the support you’d want for self-publishing. Take the issue of covers – the answer in traditional publishing is that it’s a marketing choice by the publisher; as an author the most you can really do about it is if you’re lucky enough to have a choice between different _publishers_.

    I suppose there’s a point when you look at the blurred line w.r.t going it alone with backlist. AFAICS, that’s a tiny corner case. DDuane wouldn’t be doing it if she still had a UK publisher. MayerBrenner has _stopped_ (and wasn’t charging anyway)…

    It looks like the main backlist model outside of publishers is the literary agent… who may be just failing to qualify on the critera for advances here[1]… is _that_ one of your major concerns? Or are you really bemoaning that they’re not _forward_ looking? (As opposed to failing to catch up, in your original words).

    [1] , via Teleread article.

  3. Alan – it is always a good idea to read a post before you reply.

    The quotations in my post are there for a reason. They are quotes from the main page of the MWA web site. They write: “We welcome everyone who is interested in mysteries and crime writing to join MWA.” This is their quote not mine.

    I also find your elitist, inaccurate and uninformed comments about self published authors quite astonishing considering the developments in self publishing in recent years. The suggestion that self published works have not been copy-edited is an utter nonsense. The suggestion that publisher approval is some kind of ultimate arbiter of quality is laughable.

    Alan wrote: “A lot of what they do will be about dealing with publishers.”

    In that case you either don’t bother reading their web site or they are being dishonest in their own description of what they do. Read what they say. I quote it in my first comment.

  4. Sorry if I went a bit far. I try to assume the best of others online, however difficult it gets, but “if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything” is always tough to follow. I _did_ read your quotes: that’s actually what made me post. I thought the distinction between

    1) “we welcome everyone … to join”
    and
    2) “… do not qualify for MWA _active_ membership”

    was fairly clear when you put them side-by-side in your comment. There’s clearly no contradiction in the letter of it. When I read it, I didn’t see a contradiction in spirit either.

    If an association called “writers of america” is inviting the public to join on the basis of interest only, it doesn’t surprise me that there’s two different categories of membership. That’s pretty clear if you start from their website — you see the categories as soon as you click under “Join MWA”. I thought it rather went without saying, if you start from a news article which is about changing the qualifications for membership.

    I didn’t expect that quote (1) was strong enough to offend you when qualified by (2). I thought it might be more useful to try and triangulate on your point with concrete example that eventually came to mind, rather than nitpick the exact set of quotations used. I do suspect I understand your POV better for having done so, but of course I’m sorry if I’ve been acting trollishly.

    We already know we’re mutually laughable :-). I’m amused that someone coming from a business angle (right?) would take an optimistic POV with regard to copy-editing. Note that I didn’t say it was absent from all self-publishing.

    But it’s something that has to be done by a fresh set of eyes; it should scale up to “I think this sentence could use improving ” and/or “”. Not just “this word should clearly be ‘here’, not ‘hear'” . And because there’s more than one type of thing to look for, if you look at people who think they can copy-edit, you’ll see a range of abilities. I didn’t mention Hocking just to get a rise out of you: she said she’s not had much luck with copy-editing and wishes she could do better.

    I see publishers who take a stake in the success of the book as one very elegant way to manage editing. Given that the publisher makes an investment which they risk losing — which is ensured here, even for ebooks, by the “advance” section of the qualification — asking “does this author have a publisher?” is a very efficient _approximation_ for questions like “has this book been adequately copy-edited?”.

    I don’t say it’s not brutal on the majority who the system rejects (sometimes to the later chagrin of the system). But if you don’t mind being brutal, try picking a random number between 1 and 64377

    http://www.random.org/integers/?num=1&min=1&max=64377&col=5&base=10&format=html&rnd=new

    look up the corresponding smashwords book

    http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/999999

    (replace the 9’s with your number) and ask yourself if the _description_ has been copy-edited. Repeat a few times for a larger sample. Discuss.

    Last effort: you say MWA should catch up, which suggests the bulk of the industry have already taken equivalent steps. I don’t think that’s quite fair. We can sit here and say “Amazon gives self-publishing authors a fair chance now, and so should MWA.” But in MWA’s case it’s changing its constitution – its charter (“bye-laws”), and the composition of the members who actually run it. It’s a rather more radical transition than Amazon’s decision.

  5. Well, I hope you’ve not let _my_ blatherings put you off. I’m just a random internet person with no association or credibility, you know that :).

    > protect the public

    That’s not really my point. _They’re_ not asserting self-pubs are bad or making public attacks. I can’t help but think there’s some misunderstanding about what this organisation is. They’re not set up to protect the public interest; they’re set up to protect the interests of authors. If they were trying to protect anything from self-pubs, it would be the public image of the genre; something that potentially affects their author’s sales.

    I think they just haven’t worked out how to handle self-pub professionals as active members and/or award nominees. My opinion is that’s understandable, because it’s a non-trivial problem.

    I’m assuming you’re not complaining about the sales requirement; it’s more about the unequal treatment of self-pubs. [I would say the same for Howard, but I’ve given up on reading his mind for the moment].

    But I suspect the publisher requirements let them set a relatively low sales threshold, lower than they would otherwise. Raising the threshold across the board would presumably exclude existing active members. So we’re asking a members-run organisation to either radically change their membership, OR accept less radical changes but try and maintain a separate set of requirements for self-pubs. (Hopefully this goes without saying, but it doesn’t sound like the latter is what you want, and it’d be a somewhat… contentious and unstable arrangement).

    And as I say, you will *not* see an existing organisation like this endorsing “subsidy publishers”, at least for print. The sector is just full of bad eggs. Seriously, that’ll have been one of the major factors when they drew up both the old and the new qualifications. So requirements on self-pubs would still end up somewhat constrained, in order to exclude anything that smells like subsidy publishing. Hopefully the bad eggs will be driven out by growth in legitimate POD, but author associations are not going let up at this point.

The TeleRead community values your civil and thoughtful comments. We use a cache, so expect a delay. Problems? E-mail newteleread@gmail.com.