Charlie Sheen’s use of technology and web 2.0 has earned him big dollars and a ‘winning’ formula for his own personal brand.
The Two And A Half Men star has greatly benefited from his own ability to embrace the internet, exploring all the marketing tools available to him. From breaking a twitter record, to hosting his own internet show on Ustream, the actor has done what few in Hollywood have ever achieved. Parody videos created by fans and websites dedicated to his one-liners are giving the actor non-stop free promotion and this in turn has created an audience of marketers for Charlie Sheen.
His infamous ABC interview gave birth to many of the viral video spoofs we have seen of his ‘radical’ behavior, which in turn, has fueled his twitter fan growth, and other media interview requests. With so many people discussing and sharing his antics, his own brand of controversy has been implanted onto the web, and has helped him sell tickets for his tour dates.
On top of that, Sheen’s regular updates with his fans on twitter provide a direct relationship and route to market. Sure that sounds a little cold, but he does have a following he can reach out to about his products.
Looking at what he did this week, Sheen took the next step in his own web fueled marketing campaign by making a self-parody video. This clever twist gave yet another viral hit to his name, as bloggers and social media re-posted and discussed how outrageous it was to see him spoof himself.
With many dates left on Charlie Sheen’s tour, the actor has a non-stop ‘Bi-Winning’ 24/7 marketing campaign, and other celebrities in the entertainment industry should learn from his online success.
bench craft company
New York Yankees reliever Pedro Feliciano likely done for season
Yankees lefty Pedro Feliciano will get a second opinion on his injured shoulder, but an MRI indicates he's likely done this year.
bench craft company
Taptu allows iPad owners to “DJ your <b>news</b>” | VentureBeat
Anthony is a senior editor at VentureBeat, as well as its reporter on media, advertising, and social networks. Before joining ...
bench craft company
Wii 2 to be revealed at E3 – report <b>News</b> - Wii - Page 1 <b>...</b>
Read our Wii news of Wii 2 to be revealed at E3 – report.
bench craft company
Given the current cost of components, a prepaid contract-free iPhone with less internal storage would likely earn Apple only about 16 percent gross margin if it were priced at $300, a new analysis has estimated.
Analyst Charlie Wolf with Needham & Company took a closer look at the prospect of a hypothetical "iPhone lite," to see if it would be in Apple's best interest to build such a product. A cheaper iPhone has been viewed as a strategy that would work to Apple's advantage in emerging markets like China.
In February, both Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal reported that Apple is working on a smaller and cheaper iPhone that it could sell contract-free. Soon after, The New York Times chimed in, and claimed that while Apple is not working on a smaller iPhone, it has explored opportunities in developing a cheaper handset.
Wolf largely agrees with the Times, and doesn't see a smaller iPhone with a new form factor as something that would be in Apple's best interest, even though it would be the easiest way to cut costs and created a cheaper handset.
"In our view, the iPhone would not be an iPhone if the display were, say, cut in half," he said. "Such a move would (dramatically) reduce the value of the iPod module for video viewing as well as the size of web sites accessed through the Safari browser. A smaller screen would also degrade the experience in using some applications, not to mention the possibility that some applications would probably have to be rewritten to accommodate a smaller screen."
iSuppli estimated that the 16GB iPhone 4, when it launched last June, carried a bill of materials of $188. The iPhone has an average selling price of $625 with a carrier subsidy, while gross margin is usually around 50 percent, suggesting that additional costs like assembly, software, testing, licenses and warrantees add up to $100 or more.
Ruling out the possibility of a smaller iPhone, Wolf said Apple could reduce internal storage from 16GB to about 4GB, but that would only reduce the bill of materials by $30 to about $157. By his estimation, such a handset would still have a total cost of $270.
"Apple would at best break even if it priced an iPhone Light at $250; and it would earn a modest 16% gross margin if it priced it at $300, which we regard as the high end of the range for a prepaid phone," Wolf wrote.
Gross margins of just 16 percent would be a number uncharacteristically low for Apple. For example, in its last quarterly results for the 2010 holiday buying season, Apple reported margins of 38.5 percent, or more than twice Wolf's estimate for a low-cost, no-contract iPhone.
"We suspect that the iPhone's designers and engineers have thought about this a lot more than we have so that the cost savings would be somewhat greater than we've estimated," Wolf said. "If, for example, the expenses incurred beyond the cost of components could be materially reduced, Apple might be able to earn a gross margin of 20% pricing the phone at $250 and 33% gross margin pricing it at $300."
The possibility of a cheaper iPhone with fewer features was hinted at by Apple Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook earlier this year. Cook, in an interview with Bernstein Research analyst Toni Sacconaghi, said Apple doesn't want its products to be "just for the rich."
Cook reportedly said that Apple is planning "clever things" to compete in the prepaid handset market. He also stated that Apple is "not ceding any market." He also referenced China, where Apple has found great success of late, and noted that it is a "classic prepaid market."
Video calls were a mainstay of classic sci-fi films, and even today there’s something almost magical about seeing your friends and family on the screen of a portable device. Video calling has been around for some time, but it’s only really in the past year or so that its got more attention among regular users. That’s thanks in no small part to Apple and FaceTime, as found on the iPhone 4, iPad 2 and other gadgets from the company’s range. Read on as we give FaceTime the full SlashGear 101 treatment!
So Apple invented video calling, right?
No, not at all, though they did do a lot to make it easier to use – just as long as you have the right hardware. Video calling is actually a part of the 3G standard, which – if the carrier and whatever phone you’re using supports it, which isn’t the case in the US – has been available since around 2003. Unfortunately a combination of high pricing, poor understanding by users, mediocre quality and patchy reliability meant this form of video calling has never really taken off.
Apple’s FaceTime takes advantage of the company’s tight control over the iPhone, iPod touch, iPad and MacBook software, which has allowed it to polish the video calling experience to the point where everyday use is possible. Now FaceTime is available to anybody at the touch of an on-screen button.
Do I need an Apple phone to use FaceTime?
Not necessarily a phone, but definitely something with the Apple logo. FaceTime was first supported on the iPhone 4, which was Apple’s first mobile device with a front-facing camera (i.e. one that looks at the user, rather than out the back of the handset). The latest iPod touch and iPad 2 both have front-facing cameras and FaceTime support as well, and Apple has released a FaceTime app for its Mac and MacBook computers so they can join in the fun as well. FaceTime comes free on the mobile devices and the very latest Macs, and is a $0.99 download from the Mac App Store for earlier Mac owners.
Okay, so how do I use it?
It’s pretty simple, just as Apple was aiming for. On the iPhone you make a voice call in the normal way and then tap the FaceTime button on-screen to switch to video. On the iPod touch and iPad 2, you start a video call in the FaceTime app. You’ll need an Apple account in order to make and receive calls, since that’s used as the “phone number” for devices other than the iPhone 4.
Currently, FaceTime video calls can only be made when you have a WiFi connection, not when you’re using the mobile network for data. That’s a limitation Apple has put in place itself, though the company has said it is working on removing it in the future.
I’m not into Apple, can I video call with something else?
You certainly can, though the process gets a bit trickier. Various apps are available for Android and other mobile phone platforms which promise video calls, sometimes over not only WiFi but the 3G mobile networks too. That means you can make video calls when away from your home network or a WiFi hotspot, as long as your signal is strong enough.
Skype, Fring and Qik are all among the companies offering video calling apps, though their effectiveness often varies on a phone-by-phone basis. Not all phones have front-facing cameras, either, though they’re becoming more common on the latest handsets. A future SlashGear 1010 feature will look at the best video calling apps if FaceTime isn’t your thing.
Apple has said it plans to open up FaceTime to other manufacturers, so that non-Apple phones can make and receive calls too, but so far there’s no sign of that actually happening.
More information at Apple’s FaceTime page.
bench craft company
bench craft company
It’s not such a wonderful time to be a doctor, patient, hospital, health plan or pharma company, but judging by the quality and quantity of entries received for this edition of the HWR, it’s a wonderful time to be a wonk.
A couple weeks ago CMS released draft rules for Accountable Care Organizations. Several bloggers weighed in on that development:
- Mark McClellan and Elliott Fisher at Health Affairs provide some historical context and argue that “those who care deeply about health care reform all have a common interest in the success of ACOs as a way of avoiding more classic fee-for-service payment cuts to providers.”
- On a more downbeat note, The Road to Health concludes, “Dr. Berwick and his colleagues at CMS appear to have taken the ACO concept and made it into a financial program that only delusional practice administrators, or physician organizations bent on financial self-destruction, could love.”
- The Healthcare IT Guy expects ACOs to be “far more lucrative and disruptive than Meaningful Use and likely to yield more patient quality improvements.”
- GE Healthcare puts the emphasis on ACO change management challenges: “Healthcare executives and management teams are left to focus on preparing their organizations for a cultural shift of seismic proportions.”
- HealthBlawg reviews the proposed rules and produces 8 takeaways. #2: “This is the Frankenstein regulation: A Medicare beneficiary must sit on the board of the ACO, CMS must approve all marketing materials before they are used.”
In the midst of the battle over funding the 2011 budget, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan came out with a plan to radically restructure Medicare and Medicaid starting in 2012:
- The Apothecary likes much of what he sees and thinks the proposal may force Democrats to devise a credible plan of their own
- John C. Goodman’s Health Policy Blog contrasts PPACA and the Ryan plan. “Obviously, the path we are on leads to an impossible place. So the only question is whether we are going to get off the current path in a planned, orderly way or whether we are going to let unplanned chaos do the trick.”
- Wright on Health is less impressed and wonders, “if Rep. Ryan is so adamant about reducing the deficit, why is he cutting taxes for the wealthy and cutting programs for the poor and the elderly?”
- Managed Care Matters is decidedly unswayed. “If you were looking for real solutions to the health cost problem, you’re going to be sorely disappointed… Unfortunately, he’s fallen into the same trap his Democratic colleagues did with their version of health reform – the Ryan plan does little to address costs.”
- The Incidental Economist takes issue with Ryan’s plan to convert Medicaid to block grants and cut spending. “Should Medicaid be cut back, more people will be uninsured. Contrary to what some wish you to believe, those who become uninsured will suffer worse health outcomes”
As if the ACO rules and Ryan plan weren’t enough, there’s more on Medicare in the blogosphere:
- The Covert Rationing Blog –always good for a lighthearted pick me up– “asserts that we are one giant step closer to the day when it will become illegal for all Americans to spend their own money on their own healthcare.”
- Dr. Liberty discusses CMS’s deliberations on whether to pay for Provenge, a pricey prostate drug. “Decisions are made on the basis of politics, and the drive is to cover everything, leading to higher costs.”
Amid all the federal policy blogging, there’s still some room for technology talk:
- Healthcare Talent Transformation has had it with Health Net’s repeated goof up’s leading to loss of confidential data. Although it may seem like there’s not much the average person can do, the blog argues, “You can make an impact on the security of your sensitive data by conducting due diligence when it comes to your insurance provider.”
- The Healthcare Blog offers a video collage of the new Kaiser Permanente Center for Total Health. “The Center is a pretty fascinating place–part tech and idea showcase and part meeting room. Certainly no other health care organization that I’m aware of has spent so much on a place designed to stimulate the imagination and enhance conversation–under the nose of the folks on Capitol Hill.”
- Meaningful HIT News features a podcast with mHealth Initiative’s Peter Waegemann, who’s shifted over from EMRs to ride the mobile wave
- Healthcare Economist delves into new papers that, “examined how to develop accurate algorithms to account for cancer stage in studies using claims data.”
It was encouraging to receive a couple submissions about journalism:
- Disease Care Management Blog asks, “Is the kerfuffle over National Public Radio (NPR) the long delayed comeuppance for liberal bias run amok, or a narrow-minded attack on the inconvenient truths from journalistic excellence?” The blog reaches into the world of medicine and discusses of “framing” and its impact on patient decision making to provide an answer
- HealthNews ReviewBlog cites, “daily evidence of the need for improvement in health care journalism – especially when we see examples like hype of a tiny, preliminary study of strawberries for esophageal cancer.”
We always have room in the Health Wonk Review for some posts on medical ethics:
- Nuts for Healthcare looks at the pharma industry and concludes, “Doctors need to take a more definitive stand against the specter of industry influence. A good target? Industry sponsorship of continuing medical education.”
- Health Care Renewal is concerned that so-called government run programs are more private than we think. “The majority of Medicaid has been out-sourced to private health care insurance companies… We need to have some real discussions about the rise of corporatism in US health care, in other aspects of US society and around the world.”
And finally, a few odds and ends
- Workers’ Comp Insider provides resources for employers concerned about radiation exposure
- Colorado Health Insurance Insider chronicles the decline of bipartisanship in the creation of a health insurance exchange for that state. “Healthcare reform has become such a polarized topic that it’s difficult for lawmakers to have any stance other than for it or against it. Even though the health insurance exchanges would be marketplaces that sell private health insurance, the word ‘exchange’ has been thrown around so much during the reform debates that many opponents of the PPACA see it as synonymous with ‘ObamaCare.’”
- Last week I went to a health care direct to consumer marketing conference to see former TimeWarner CEO Jerry Levin interviewed by OrganizedWisdom CEO Steve Krein. I also shared my thoughts in the video clip below
Thanks for reading the Health Wonk Review! The Incidental Economist hosts the next edition.
The Business Rusch: Royalty Statements
Kristine Kathryn Rusch
Imagine this:
Pretend you run a very large business. The business has a lot of built-in problems, things not easily fixed. You’re aware of the problems and are trying to solve them. A decade ago, you actually had hope you could solve them. It will simply take time, you thought, but back then, your business was a leisurely business. Back then, you had no idea that the word “leisure” would leave your vocabulary and never return.
In that decade, your business has changed dramatically. Your corporate masters sold out to large conglomerates, so now you can no longer point to your small but steady profit as normal for your industry. The conglomerate doesn’t care. All the conglomerate cares about is quarterly profits, which should rise steadily.
Your industry doesn’t work that way, but you do your best to make those quarterly balance sheets work for the conglomerate. Unfortunately, that means any long-term outlook you used to have no longer works for your corporate masters. Now you can only look one year ahead, maximum, because that’s all the focus the conglomerate will allow.
One of your business’s largest problem comes out of the nature of the industry itself. The success of each product cannot be replicated. Just because you build one really good widget doesn’t mean that your next widget will sell at all. Your business has a luck aspect to it, an unpredictability that no matter how much you plan, you can’t fix.
The other built-in problems mentioned above cause your prices to verge on too high. If you solve the built-in problems, you might lose even more revenue, because most of those problems benefit the stores that sell your product. Those stores have made it clear they will not order from you if you take those harmful (to you) perks (to them) away. So your prices hover at a point too high for an impulse purchase, even though your business does better when consumers can buy your product on impulse.
You have maintained this system for decades now, trying different ways to fix the built-in problems. None of the solutions work, because the only way to fix the built-in problem would be to have an industry-wide change, one that all of the businesses in the industry agree to. Unfortunately, if all of the businesses in the industry make that change, it will hurt stores, which will say that the industry businesses colluded to hurt their retail business—and sadly, the stores, under U.S. law, would be right.
So the easy solution is impossible, and all other solutions are half-assed. You hang on and your business maintains a consistent, if unspectacular, profit year after year after year.
Then some changes hit your industry that force you to cut costs where you can. Some of that cost cutting comes in employees. You have to lay off necessary folk and hope that the remaining staff can pick up the slack. These things have happened before, and you believe that you’ll be able to rehire in a few years.
Only this time, the economy “craters” and a global recession hits. Every business loses much-needed revenue and products like yours, which are not necessities, sell to fewer and fewer consumers because the consumers have less disposable income.
You anticipate, cutting everything you can, dumping real estate, abandoning rent, maybe even negotiating your way out of some long-term contracts. At the very end, though, you can’t prevent it: You cut staff to the bone.
Now, in some departments of your business, one person quite literally does the job that five people used to do as recently as a decade ago. You have no flexibility left.
And then the industry you work in undergoes a technological revolution, one so big, so profound, that it changes the way business gets done. Because you aren’t flexible, you adapt to the change late. You can’t hire new employees to help with the shift without firing the remaining good, valuable (and dare we say it), unbelievably efficient employees that you kept when the recession started. Yet your old employees can’t adapt to the new world.
Worse, this new world requires new systems. You have to figure out new ways to produce your product. You need to shoehorn these changes into the existing contracts with your suppliers. You need an entirely new production crew because the old ways to produce your widgets are becoming obsolete.
And, most annoyingly, you need to develop an entirely new accounting system, because everything you’ve known, everything you’ve done, no longer applies in this brand-spanking new technological age.
But you can’t hire employees who can actually help you develop these systems. Because those employees won’t earn you any money. At best, they’ll prevent a loss of revenue. At worst, the systems they develop will cost you money because your suppliers, whom you pay a percentage of the retail price of the product they supply, will realize you’ve been inadvertently shorting them since the technological change hit at the same time as the beginning of the global recession.
In other words, to fix this problem, you will need to invest—in new employees, in brand new technological systems, in new ways of doing business. More importantly, you will have to take a huge loss as you make this change. A loss that might eat into your profits for not one, not two, not three quarters, but maybe for two to three years, something your corporate masters will never, ever allow.
Better to close your eyes and pretend the problem doesn’t exist. Better to hope no one notices. Better to keep doing business as usual until profits rise, the recession ends, the world becomes wealthy again, and you can make the changes without causing a series of quarterly losses on your balance sheet.
Better to keep kicking this problem down the road until you retire or move to another company, preferably one which has already solved this problem so you don’t have to deal with it.
Does this scenario sound familiar? It should if you watch the evening news or read a daily newspaper. Industry after industry suffers a variation of these problems, some caused by inefficiency, some by technological change, and all exacerbated by the worst recession to hit in the last eighty years.
But this blog deals with publishing, and what I just described to you is the situation at traditional publishers—the big publishers, the ones most people mistakenly call The Big Six (there are more than six, but leave it)—all over New York City.
Last fall, I dealt with these problems in depth. Before you decide to comment on this post and tell me that traditional publishing will die (which I do not believe), read the first few posts I did in the publishing series, starting here.
I’m grappling with the changes in publishing just like everyone else is. I knew that the changes—particularly the rise of e-publishing—would hit traditional publishing hard. And it has, although not as hard as I initially thought. As Publishers Weekly reported earlier in the month, traditional publishers have remained profitable in the transition so far.
The reasons why should sound familiar to those of you who read my earlier posts. Publishers Weekly puts it succinctly: “While the improvement in the economy helped all publishers in 2010, companies where profits improved all pointed to two main contributing factors—cost controls and skyrocketing e-book sales.”
Right now, e-books comprise about 10% of the book market, but some analysts believe that e-books will be as much as 50% of the e-book market by 2015. Some see evidence that e-books will grow faster than that. A month ago, a Barnes & Noble executive made news when he stated in a speech that e-books will “dominate the market” in 24 months.
We all know these figures are important. Daily, writers tell me about their careers and then ask me if they should become independent publishers or go to traditional publishing. As I’ve said repeatedly, I see no harm in doing both.
Earlier this month, however, I opened my mail to find a big fat warning sign of the future. And if the problem that I—and hundreds of other writers—noted doesn’t get resolved, then traditional publishing will cease to be viable for all writers.
What happened?
I got a royalty statement for backlist titles of one of my on-going series. The statement came from a traditional publisher. Let me give you some background.
A few years ago, the publisher refused to buy the next two books in the series saying that while the series had some growth, the growth was not enough to justify the expense of a new contract. I started writing some novellas in that series and publishing them in the magazine markets while I searched for a new publisher.
Then the e-book revolution hit, and as an experiment, I put up two of those novellas as e-books. Since they were the first two e-books I had ever done, the covers—in a word—sucked. I did no promotion and no advertising, except to say in the cover copy that these e-books were part of this particular series.
In the first six months of 2010, those badly designed short novels sold about 300 copies each on Kindle, the only venue they were on at the time. No advertising, bad covers, just hanging out waiting for buyers to find them.
I would occasionally check the Amazon sales ranking (that weird number you see on each book Amazon publishes, the thing they use to compile their hourly bestseller list). Even though that ranking did not give me actual sales numbers, I did note that the sales of the novellas were less than the sales of the traditionally published e-books on Kindle in the same series.
In August, I wrote to the traditional publisher, asking that my rights revert. The kind woman in rights reversal explained to me that she couldn’t revert the book rights because the e-books were “selling too well” to revert. Okay. All well and good. What I care about is getting books into the hands of my readers. I figured I would eventually be compensated for this. I just had to wait until the royalty statement hit.
Which it did. At the beginning of this month.
How many e-books did the traditional publisher say I sold? 30. That’s right. 30.
When the novellas, which had worse sales rankings from Amazon, sold 300 each.
That 30 number didn’t pass the sniff test for me. So I talked with other writers who have books in the same genre with the same company. The writers I talked with also had some e-book savvy.
Guess what? They had been shocked by how low their e-book numbers were as well, especially in comparison with their indie published titles. The indie books which had Amazon rankings indicating fewer sales sold more copies than the traditionally published books by a factor of ten or better.
Let me indulge in another sidebar for a moment. I’m involved with four different indie publishers, two of which allow me to see the day-to-day operations, and one of which I own part of. We’ve been having trouble setting up an accounting system that works efficiently for more than 100 different e-book titles. The problem is, in short, that the ebook distributors report sales by publisher and then by title, and not by author, so if you’re published by AAA Publishing and your book is called The Embalming and I also have an older book called The Embalming through AAA Publishing and they’re both in e-book, AAA Publisher will get sales figures on a daily basis for The Embalming. Which Embalming does that statement refer to?
Also, the e-stributors report at varying times throughout the year (some daily, some monthly, some quarterly), so if I want to know how many copies my book The Embalming sold in March of 2010, I can’t easily get that information because the info might not have been reported yet from some e-bookstore in some faraway country.
What all of the various indie publishers have figured out is that using a standard spreadsheet for each title is labor-intensive. You can easily input data into a spreadsheet for one or two or even ten novels. But when it comes to 50 or 100, the data-entry—figuring out what book belongs where and when (even if you use the estributor’s the computerized spreadsheet)—becomes prohibitive.
What we need is a cloud-based system that can be queried. For example, the system should easily answer these two questions: How many copies did KKR’s The Embalming sell worldwide in March; and how many copies did KKR’s The Embalming sell through Kobo’s out-of-country distribution channels? Right now, no spreadsheet program can answer that information easily from a pool of 100 titles and various e-book outlets without a lot of man-hours of data entry.
Traditional publishers—and indie publishers, for that matter—don’t have the staff with the ability to organize this wealth of information. Still, traditional publishers must —by contract— report the information to the best of their ability on royalty statements.
To do so, they revert to an old pre-computer accounting method. The method existed back when there was too much data to be quickly processed. We all learned it in school. They used little snippets of data to estimate, often using an algebraic equation that goes something like this: If The Embalming sold (x) copies in January and e-books sales rose on a trajectory of (y) copies over a six-month period of time, then (x) times 6 adjusted for (y) equals the number of sales of The Embalming.
Close enough. And frankly, I would be satisfied with that, if the number the publisher had come up with wasn’t so wildly off.
For me, in the instance with the traditional publisher I mentioned above, the difference between 30 copies per title and 300 copies per title is pennies on the dollar. It’s not worth an audit.
But I never think in small terms. My training in three fields—journalism, history, and the extrapolative field of science fiction—forces me to think in terms of the future.
Right now, e-book rights are a subsidiary right, negligible and relatively unimportant. Between two and five years from now, e-book rights will become the dominant book right.
If traditional publishers do not change their accounting methods now, then these accounting methods will end up costing writers hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. (In some writers’ cases, millions of dollars.)
Those of you who have any knowledge of journalism have just looked up and asked, Why the hell did Rusch bury her lead? That’s the story: publishers are screwing writers on e-book royalties.
But those of you who have had journalism careers know why I buried that lead. When I was a news director faced with a reporter who had brought me information like the information I gave to you above, I would have said, Sounds like a good story. But it’s all supposition. Now get me something concrete. Somthing I can use.
So that’s what I tried to do. Last week, I contacted dozens of traditionally published writers who also had put up some backlist on their own in electronic format. The writers who had the information handy responded with actual numbers. The writers who didn’t told me that they had worried about their royalty numbers when the statements arrived, but had no real proof that anything had gone awry.
I also spoke to some trusted agent friends, several lawyers who are active in the publishing industry, a few certified public accountants, and other professionals who see a lot of publishing data cross their desks, and I asked those people if they had heard of a problem like this.
To a person, they all confirmed that they had. All spoke off the record, none with numbers. A few hinted that they couldn’t talk because of pending action.
In other words, I got the confirmation I needed, just nothing that a reputable journalist could print. Most people spoke to me on what’s called deep background, confirming my theory, and giving me some suggestions of places to look, and people to contact. Several people, mostly writers, spoke on the record, but rather than using their information in isolation, I’ve chosen to keep their statistics confidential and to only go with mine.
Frankly, what I’ve learned is this:
Right now, some—and I must emphasize some, not all—traditional publishing houses are significantly underreporting e-book sales. In some cases these sales are off by a factor of 10 or more.
This is a problem, but at the moment, not a serious one. When e-books are 10% of the market, we’re talking a relatively insignificant amount of money per author. As one long-term writer said to me, “Ever since I got into this business, I expect my publisher to screw me on the sales figures. This is no different.”
If you don’t understand that writer’s point of view, read the trust-me post I wrote a few weeks ago.
In the past, I would have agreed with that writer. But I don’t in this instance. We’re at an important moment in publishing. We have the opportunity to change the behavior of traditional publishers. We can, with an effort, get them to change their accounting practices.
The reason I started the blog post the way I did is this: I wanted to explain, before I got to the heart of this post, how traditional publishing works. I wanted understanding before I worried some of you.
Because here’s the truth: traditional publishers are not indulging in a criminal act. They’re doing the best they can out of necessity. They see no reason to spend precious dollars revamping their accounting systems to accommodate e-publishing when those dollars can be used elsewhere in the company. Especially when an accounting change will cost them money, and might lead to payouts that will hurt quarterly profits for months to come.
It’s up to writers—and writers organizations—to force publishers to allocate those scarce dollars to develop systems for accurate e-book accounting.
If you are a traditionally published author, do not—I repeat, do not—write a blistering letter to your publisher accusing him of stealing your money. Instead, contact any writers organization you belong to and point that organization to this blog.
What needs to happen is this: writers organizations need to band together and order group audits of e-book sales on behalf of their traditionally published authors. One organization cannot handle the cost of this group accounting alone. It’s better to have all of the writers organizations work in concert here.
A group audit of all the traditional publishers in various publishing divisions will force an accounting change—and that’s all we need. But we need it before e-books become the dominant way that books are sold.
If you’re a traditionally published author who has also produced some self-published e-books and you want to do more than contact your organization, do this:
1. Look over all of your royalty statements. Compare your indie e-book sales to your traditionally published e-book sales. Make sure your comparison is for the same time period. For example, do not compare January 2011 sales to January 2010.
2. Compare similar books. It’s best if you have books in the same series, some indie published and some traditionally published. If you don’t have series books, then compare books in the same genre only. Comparing romance sales to science fiction sales will not work because romance novels always outsell sf novels.
3. If you see a discrepancy, report that—with the numbers—to your writers organization. Be clear in the letter you send to your organization as to what level of involvement you want in this issue. Are you only there to provide background information? Will you take part in a group audit? Will you work on this project?
I’ll be honest. I’m not going to participate in any group action. Even though I’ve published with every single major publisher in New York, I only have two books caught in this problem. I’m more interested in getting the rights in those books reverted than I am in insignificant back royalties.
If I was still a reporter, I would spend the month or two going after this story with a vengeance. But I am not. In nonfiction, I am just your humble blogger, stirring up the pot. My career is in fiction, and I have found no problem with the publishers of my frontlist books. I also have six novels with firm deadlines that won’t allow me to take time away from fiction writing to pursue this.
So all I can offer is a blueprint.
If you’re a reporter who specializes in the publishing industry and you want to tackle this story, e-mail me privately. I’ll tell you what I can without revealing confidential sources.
If you’re a traditionally published writer, please follow the steps above.
If you’re an indie-only writer, stop gloating and for heavens’ sake don’t tell me or anyone else that this is proof traditional publishing is dead. The majority of writers don’t want to self-publish, even when told how easy and financially beneficial it is. They want a traditionally published novel.
Here’s what I believe: If a writer wants to publish traditionally and can secure a contract, then that writer should be treated fairly, with accurate sales reporting and good royalty rates.
Let me state again for the record. I do not believe that anyone in traditional publishing is setting out to screw writers on this issue. I do believe the scenario I wrote in the first 800 words of this blog: I think traditional publishers are overwhelmed and stretched to the limit. Accurate e-book sales reporting is not even on their radar.
Right now, changing the accounting system is not high on their priority list. It’s up to the writers—acting in concert through their writers organizations—to make accurate e-book sales reporting and accurate e-book royalty accounting a number-one priority in publishing houses across the country.
Let’s work together to solve this glitch before it becomes an industry-wide disaster for writers—anywhere from two to five years from now.
Last week, a few of you asked in e-mail why I have a donate button on this blog. Also, last week, this blog marked its two-year anniversary. Every Thursday for two years without a miss, I have published an article on freelancing, business, writing or publishing (and sometimes on all four of those topics). For the first 18 months, those blog posts were part of a book I was writing called The Freelancer’s Survival Guide (which, even though it’s now published, is still available for free on this website).
Initially, I had hoped to make my publishing articles into a book as well, but the industry is changing too fast. I cannot make the publishing articles into a book that will be accurate in the short time it takes to produce. So when this month rolled around, I did the numbers like I always do. When I do a strict economic analysis, I am losing about $100 per week on each post—even with donations. That’s because I can’t leverage these posts into any other income source.
However, I always ask the next question: am I getting something besides money out of these blogs? Right now, I am. I would be doing the same research, the same work, and the same analysis with or without the blog. I would be discussing the changes with my writer pals. But I would lose the week-to-week contact with writers all over the world, who comment on the blog or in e-mail, sharing their own stories.
And that would be a significant loss. It more than makes up for the financial loss. But the donate button is here to minimize some of the financial damage, and to encourage me in busy or difficult weeks to carve out the time to write my post.
I hope that answers the question. As always, I appreciate the feedback and all of the support.
“The Business Rusch: Royalty Statements” copyright 2011 by Kristine Kathryn Rusch.
bench craft company
Taptu allows iPad owners to “DJ your <b>news</b>” | VentureBeat
Anthony is a senior editor at VentureBeat, as well as its reporter on media, advertising, and social networks. Before joining ...
bench craft company
Breaking tech <b>news</b>? Get email notifications as it happens. - TNW Voice
We're in the technology news business. To that end, if it's old, it isn't news. Given that you're reading this, chances are that you live, eat, sleep and breathe the tech lifestyle and want to get the news as soon as it happens. ...
No comments:
Post a Comment