Rant: Who needs to get "real?"

Real publishers.

While sitting at the Zumaya table in the dealer’s room at ArmadilloCon last month, I discussed with one of the “visiting authors” why he should try to persuade his publisher, Ace, to offer his books as ebooks. For some reason, he seemed determined to turn it into a discussion of why ebook publishers aren’t “real publishers.” Suffice it to say that while some of his points were legitimate, others were based on outdated and incorrect information.

However, I have before and since encountered discussions of what constitutes a “real publisher.” It led me to collect criteria from on high as to how that appellation,” the bestowing of which title on a company that publishes books is the key to authors’ entry into the hallowed halls of various genre organizations, is determined. Here’s what I’ve found.

Real publishers carefully screen submissions, selecting only the best. They carefully edit and re-edit and copyedit and proofread. They provide professionally designed covers, layout and formatting. They pay royalties on sales and assist authors with promotion and marketing. They don't accept payment from the author for any portion of this process.

So far, so good. However, there are a couple of other things that are almost always included in the list of what identifies a “real publisher” that strike me as being just a little arbitrary.

1. Real publishers pay advances.

An advance is more properly “an advance against royalties.” The publisher pays the author whose book it wishes to publish a sum of money. The total of that sum must be paid back via the author’s royalties before said author begins making any more money. Average advance for a new writer who isn’t somebody famous these days runs $2,000-$5,000. However, some small presses pay equally small advances, anywhere from $25 up to $1,000. Why? In some cases, just so they can say they did.

One explanation for why a publisher should pay an advance is that it indicates their belief in the work in question, that it will do well on the market. Thus, it’s explained, it is a sign of the publisher’s faith in the writer’s talent.

If I offer someone a contract, that’s sufficient sign of my faith in their talent—not to mention their ability to sell copies. A small press that only does 20-30 books a year, unless they’re just starting out, doesn’t have the resources to spend publishing books that aren’t going to sell. So, why is it better that we pay the writer X dollars up front than to pay them royalties on their sales from the moment the book is published?

Another reason given is that the advance allows the writer the freedom to work on the next book (or offset expenses if the book was purchased based on a proposal) without having to fret about finances. Come again? The last I heard, you needed $30,000 a year to live decently if you’re single—and half again that much to make ends meet if you’re a family. Explain how my paying somebody $500 (or $5,000, for that matter) is going to do much more than give them bragging rights for having gotten an advance—and us the ability to say we gave one?

2. Real publishers register the copyright for their authors.

First, you don’t need to register copyright. The creator of a work is covered by copyright the moment they type it into their computer. Yes, if somebody steals it and you want to collect damages, the copyright needs to be registered. This costs $30 and a copy of the manuscript.

If you were an author, which would you rather your publisher spend that $30—registering your copyright or paying for some promotion or marketing? Such issues don’t concern the big publishers (on which more shortly) because they have budgets for both. Smaller publishers have to make decisions on where their money is better applied. How, then, does their choice to spend on marketing and promotion rather than registering copyright make them “unreal?”

I said we’d talk about the big publishers. Am I the only one that notices these two “criteria” pretty much narrow the field of what constitutes a “real publisher” down to the Six Sisters and those companies who copy their business model because it’s the accepted one? For example, in its membership requirements, the Science Fiction Writers of America not only specifies that to be accepted a writer has to have received an advance but goes farther and dictates that advance has to be $5000 or more.

Ask yourself how many small and mid-sized publishers are paying that kind of money. Not a whole bunch, I’d wager.

And be it noted that more often than not the ones who are insisting these last two “criteria” are valid are those associated with one of the big publishers. Who publish an average of 200 new writers a year—and that’s across the entire company. Six times 200 is 1,200 new writers making it to print annually.

Meantime, there are something like 70,000 independent presses of various sizes. If each of them only published one book by one new writer a year…

If there is logic here, I’m missing it. If you have lots of operating funds, you can afford to offer little amenities—like registering copyright. But does that make what you do any more “real” than what publishing is all about, which is making good books and selling them?

Some will argue that if you can’t afford to provide the appropriate services you shouldn’t be in the business. Is that it? Is it all about money? Does not having lots of it mean one shouldn’t make the effort to see that talented people with good stories have the opportunity to find people who want to read them? Should spending $900 a year to register copyrights for our authors weigh more heavily in determining Zumaya’s validity as a “real publisher” than the time and effort we put in to helping them find those people? Or nurturing a newcomer who needs just a bit more support--something I've been told over and over the ones claiming the authority to decide who's "real" no longer have the time to do?

It strikes me that these two alleged criteria are just another sign of how hidebound the existing publishing industry has become. What's sad is that writers buy into this nonsense without taking the time to really analyze whether it makes any sense or not. Of course, it would be great to get an advance. I'd love to get one myself. But I'd rather be published.

The only real criteria for determining a "real publisher," other than the ones I listed in the beginning, should be the quality of what they publish. Not how closely they ape the operations of one of the Six Sisters. Not how much money they pay when the author signs a contract. Not whether they offer this service or other that's only peripherally related to their primary function of getting a book in print.

If a publisher consistently produces books of excellent quality and content, that should be all that matters.