I agree with the lower advance/higher ratio of royalties. I also think another factor that could be requested, is that houses and retailers need to start looking at putting less books on the shelves– and go non-returnable. Then, authors may not be putting out as much on a first print run, but they can also require the house not to withhold the percentage of royalties against returns, something which the house should be taking responsibility for, anyway, if you ask me.

Those are some avenues I think should be explored in the new model, at any rate.

And ultimately, as a writer, I think that there is nothing wrong with making this industry more competitive for those book contracts– rather than making them go for formulaic, sure things, it’s just as likely to make the quality of what’s being published increase as everyone tries to make their work better than their competitors’.

Like? 0

Of course, I’ve been through an industry that turned upside down seemingly overnight. When I started medical school, the family docs carrying black bags ruled the world. They were all but instinct when I graduated and HMOs ruled the world. Now, the pendulum has settled a bit with the advent of the concierge practice. I worked through the wild and woolly nineties, and I survived (even prospered) though there was a lot I didn’t like.

I could do it again, and I’d be fine, but I like my current life better.

I’m not afraid of change in the publishing industry. We’ve got greater problems for me to worry about. Take global warming, for example…

Like? 0

One of my questions are: who chooses which books are “good” books and which are not? I mean, if it had been up to me, I might not have chosen The Da Vinci Code, and I would have then been an idiot. (Not that I disliked it, particularly. It was fine. I just wouldn’t have realized it was going to sell 20 gazillion copies.) Everyone would like to be able to predict which books are going to be commercial successes and which will not, but it’s largely a crapshoot. Something clicks. All the elements come into alignment. The fashion is right for a particular book–would the Time Traveler’s Wife even have sold 15 years before it was published? Maybe. Maybe not.

As for authors taking lower advances–mmm. No. Better that the practice of selling books to stores on consignment be halted. The shipping costs would be more than enough to cover the (mostly modest) advances of most of a publishers’ authors. The costs are not so much writers as everything else attached to publishing books in an expensive format: heavy hardcovers.

We’re in a period of extreme change. The Internet has changed everything about music and television and movies….it was bound to hit books eventually, too. (Especially because publishing, as a system, has always been the old gentleman.) I can’t presume to know what things will look like in 5 years, but I’m betting it’s going to be quite a different system.

It’s not always BAD when things change. As writers, we just have to be alert to the possibilities that open up to us. Be curious. Be questing. Be open.

Like? 0

I think what we’re going to see very soon is a shakeup of the dominance of big publishing houses. And the small, boutique houses will rise in prominence, which I think is how it should be.

Like? 0

Like? 0

Like? 0

Aside from that though, as much as I’d like to see fewer books and higher quality, one big concern is that it could instead result in less originality and innovation. I think it is still important to put out those small, original voices. Otherwise we run the risk of books that are too ‘safe’ and similar, as publishers instead bank on the big books, and the sure things.

I’d like to see a happy medium.

Regarding advances, I wouldn’t be surprised if we see more big names taking more of the risk for a higher percentage. Stephen King has done it already. Especially as the e-market grows, that could be a lucrative niche.

Like? 0

I know for myself that I am keeping busier than I was last year and almost double the work load of two years ago. The work is there, it just takes more hustle than it used to.

I read on Mediabistro that one of the major houses has created their own iPhone app and another is exploring options for getting into the smart phone market. I personally think this medium will eventually open the doors for higher revenues for all forms of print – news, periodicals and books. People carry their smart phones with them everywhere, and having a new push venue for both content and advertising could be a huge asset to the industry and to writers.

Just my two cents…

Like? 0

I, for one, have to second pretty much everything Jenna said, minus the crack at Walmart. I don’t love Walmart, but they’ve actually done a lot of GOOD things that they don’t get credit for, so I don’t hate it either.

ANYWAY, back to books. Yay for better quality books being published. Hopefully that will include mine in the near future… ;)

Like? 0

And yes, you’re right that they can pour tons of money into a book and still have it tank. I can think of PLENTY of books off the top of my head in which that’s happened. But unfortunately, the reverse is rarely true – it *does* happen, sure. Word of mouth inevitably helps a book. A lot. But in order for word of mouth to be generated, people need to be aware of the book (and have access to it in stores, ie, it needs to have a decent-sized print run), and if a book is given a pitiful advance, neither of these things will happen. (IMO.) Those books that you can cite for which it did happen? Very, very unique.

Melissa – I’m not so sure, to be honest. I think it’s what Teri said: it all depends. My second book certainly received just as much attn from in-house folks as my first, and now that I’ve made them some real $$, I expect my third will as well. I think the problem comes when the *authors* feel the pressure to write, write, write, so they turn in something that is less than their best, and since the pub houses know that this author is a commodity, they put it out anyway…because, let’s be honest, readers still buy the books.

Like? 0