# Monday, November 23, 2009
Harlequin's Self-Publishing Venture: Is It the Future of Publishing?
Posted by Jane



As I observed the writing community's reaction to Harlequin Horizons last week, I felt incredible sympathy for the people at Harlequin. It appears they've been blind-sided by vitriolic outrage from all sides—unpublished writers, published authors, writers organizations, industry professionals.

For those who aren't familiar with the story yet, Harlequin announced a partnership with AuthorSolutions to create a self-publishing arm (or vanity publishing arm, depending on who you ask) called Harlequin Horizons. You can get a good feel for the story, and the gnashing of teeth (particularly in the comments!), on these blogs:
Dear Author: Malle Vallik, Harlequin's Digital Director, Answers Questions on Harlequin Horizons

Jackie Kessler: Harlequin Horizons Versus RWA

Janet Reid (Agent): C'mon Harlequin, Don't Try to Blow Smoke

Rachelle Gardner (Agent): Self-Publishing Rant

Scalzi: Writers Organizations to Harlequin: If You're Not Going to Act Like a Real Publisher, We're Not Going to Treat You Like One

The situation is still unfolding, but the Romance Writers of America have stated they are removing Harlequin from their list of recognized publishers, and other writers organizations may follow suit.

Frankly, I was caught blind-sided too. When Thomas Nelson announced pretty much the exact same venture with Author Solutions several weeks ago (called West Bow), I was expecting an uproar.

But in comparison to what's happening now, with Harlequin, you could say the response to Thomas Nelson was benevolent resignation. I'm still waiting for someone to logically explain to me why the two situations are different from each other (while not, in the process, denigrating Christian writers or the Christian market).

Harlequin's move has been called sleazy, unethical, fraudulent, greedy, and predatory. When they responded to the public outcry, and to the RWA specifically, part of their statement read:
It is disappointing that the RWA has not recognized that publishing models have and will continue to change. As a leading publisher of women's fiction in a rapidly changing environment, Harlequin's intention is to provide authors access to all publishing opportunities, traditional or otherwise.
People aren't having it. I think it made everyone even more angry.

I've been thinking about this issue since Friday. I go to bed thinking about it, I wake up thinking about it. I drive around thinking about it.

And I finally realized today why.

This move touches the deepest roots of what people believe traditional publishing is—and what it has been.

Harlequin's move is not shallow.

It is either progressive (even if some say executed poorly), or a path to ruin. How you interpret it depends on what you believe publishing fundamentally is, and how you can envision it or permit it to change.

It should be no secret to anyone that publishing today is undergoing immense transformation. But many writers don't see or understand what that means for them or how that change will manifest itself in a way that affects them.

In my time in the industry, I've always seen Harlequin as a progressive and innovative company. I don't think that has changed. But this latest move fundamentally questions what it means to be a publisher. And it's a fascinating question.

No doubt Harlequin leadership has read and considered what publishing futurist Mike Shatzkin has commented on many times. Here's a snippet from a blog post he wrote in June 2009:

At a conference on “Giving It Away” in Toronto at which I spoke two weeks ago, Carolyn Pittis of HarperCollins was explicit that the publisher buying content and making money by selling it was “one model”, and she pointed out that there is a “fee for services” model as well. The inference I drew was “that’s not what we’re doing today, but every option is on the table for tomorrow.” Why not? Don’t we have to believe that one of the exit strategies for the investors in Author Solutions, the biggest rollup of self-publishing service companies, might be to sell to one of the Big Six who, despairing of the future of their publishing model, tries to buy their way into a new one? …

A friend of mine in the financial business wrote a book 20 years ago and wanted to get an agent to sell it. He knew the advance would be low, but he also knew the book would add credibility to his business. He wanted it sold. An agent told him that the agency only handled books on which they thought the advance would be $25,000 or more, yielding a commission of $3,750 at the normal 15%. This friend told the agent, take the first $3,750. The agent took the book, sold it for $6,000, and everybody was happy. This kind of arrangement, as well as others where the agent actually charges a fee for helping an author manage self-publishing options, are going to have to become more common in the future. Let’s not be too judgmental about the pioneering agents who change the paradigm.


(my emphasis)
Harlequin is clearly at an advanced stage of considering how it will evolve—or devolve, considering on your perspective. But most writers and writers organizations (and publishers) have NOT grappled with these questions yet. Publishing has often been slowest to change and adapt of all industries.

Some argue Harlequin should've been better prepared and planned more strategically to respond to the criticisms that would arise. But when you've already moved on, like Harlequin—and are seeking solutions—it's tough to backtrack to the mindset of those people who are stunned, angry, and indignant, and can't even conceive of adaptation.

Harlequin has been brave to take this step. Some would say brave and immensely stupid, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume these people whom we thought so well of just a month ago, and praised to the hills (see Carina Press), haven't become evil minions and thoughtless corporate grunts overnight.

That's the big picture that concerns me most. You can stop reading here, because it's the most important part of what I wanted to say.

For those who want to read on, I'll address the lower-level concerns that have sparked the majority of criticisms now levied against Harlequin Horizons.


"Horizons is NOT a self-publishing option.
It's a VANITY publishing option."


This argument wants to differentiate between authors who pay a publishing service (e.g., Author Solutions) to produce a book, versus those who are truly DIY or independent and do not use any kind of middleman to produce the book.

I find this argument elitist, but it's still meaningful, for 3 key reasons:
1. If you contract with a publishing service like Author Solutions, aside from charging you an upfront fee (and we could argue all day whether the fees are exorbitant), they're also going to take a huge chunk of your royalties.

2. Despite what the marketing messages say, with a publishing service, you give up some control and uniqueness of product, depending on the service you're working with—or you have to pay extra fees to have the control/uniqueness you want.
3. You might sign a service contract you don't understand, or it could lock you into things that you regret later. (I tell writers to never sign contracts they don't fully understand, to make sure they are keeping all rights, and to have a straightforward way to terminate the contract.)
Writers who are truly independent in their self-publishing venture—at least when it concerns a physical product—often put out a better quality product. It's because they have a bigger investment on the line, and usually a stronger entrepreneurial spirit.

But let's face it. Not all writers/authors are entrepreneurs or do-it-yourselfers. The world of publishing is not something most people consider accessible. I've advised two former Procter & Gamble executives, who are masters of business. Why? When it came time for them to consider self-publishing, their first step was to find a consultant to sort through the mess and make sure they didn't make any mistakes—and remove the guesswork.

This is the boat most people are in. They need help. And publishing services are the first place that people stumble upon (have you done a Google search lately on "get published"?).

I can already hear you proclaiming, "If writers aren't dedicated and motivated enough to self-publish properly, then they shouldn't do it."

Or: "People should sweat and toil until finally their work is good enough to get accepted by a publisher." (That wait might last until the grave, considering how dramatically publishers are cutting their lists and acting more risk-averse than ever.)

I'd rather tell writers: Go ahead and do it, eyes wide open, and pay the fees, but don't complain that your book's not selling or it's not in stores (or insert common gripe here), because you didn't take the time to understand the value proposition of using a publishing service (which in some cases is arguably zero).

And, as Guy Gonzalez is fond of saying about all forms of self-publishing, it's a business decision. Let's take the moralizing out of it. There is a market demand for these services, which have made thousands of people very happy and satisfied. Which brings me to the next criticism of Horizons.


"The Horizon fees and/or royalty rates are exorbitant/predatory."

Horizons' deal is no better or worse than what you'd find with another publishing service. Undoubtedly the fees and rates are what the market can bear, optimized for volume, overhead, and profit.

Whenever you ask a middleman to do the work for you, you expect to pay more. Your savings comes from using your time, energy, and resource to do other things. Writers may be unable or unwilling to do the work required to "truly" self-publish, so it's their decision to make if it's worth the added expense to have someone else do the work.

We make these decisions everyday. Do I hire a financial advisor? Do I use a real estate agent? Do I hire a cleaning service? Do I buy the cut, washed veggies in a nice tray from Kroger, or do I go to the local market and spend half the money?


And the big daddy of criticisms:
"Harlequin is underhandedly and greedily profiting off its slush pile by referring unsuspecting writers to its self-publishing arm."


A few points to make here:

1. For any other company with an ancillary service to offer, this move would be considered smart marketing. In the writing world, this is considered predatory, unethical, and possibly fraudulent. I'm pretty sure it's not fraud, but I am sympathetic to claims that this could mislead writers in all kinds of ways (which is why clarity is needed—see discussion below about what could be better).

However, I doubt writers will only submit and only be rejected by Harlequin in their lifetimes, and I doubt Harlequin's mention of the self-publishing option will be revelatory and ground-breaking information. It would take a very sheltered writer to submit only to Harlequin, get rejected, consider her traditional publishing journey at an end, and immediately run to Horizons to take advantage of a tremendous opportunity.

2. A wide swath of writing community has always been averse to any entity (including Writer's Digest) profiting off of writers' dreams. It's almost a cliche at this point. But it's a strange criticism—as if writers' own artistic endeavors were meant to extract NO money!—and often it is writers/authors who (rightly so) yell loudest when they think their work is not being properly valued or paid for.

3. Ninety-nine percent of writers don't get their work published traditionally. This doesn't mean writers should self-publish or stop their efforts to get published & paid, but publishing services know that most writers are frustrated, disappointed, and want to get published anyway, even if they have to pay, even if they're not getting edited, even if it's a dead-end. Harlequin is mentioning an option nearly all writers have been confronted with, or will be confronted with.

The big and most interesting question for me
Is it possible, in the future, that a Horizons author could end up bringing in more revenue or more profit than a traditional Harlequin author? If so, I think it shows you just how much traditional publishing is broken. (I leave it to the reader to decide if this is the kind of change to pursue.)

OR: What if the revenue/profit from Horizons made it possible for Harlequin to better support its entire business, and they were able to do a better job with traditional authors? It appears to me Harlequin is setting up as many different tracks as possible for a potential author: traditional (for the very best, with most commercial promise), Carina Press (digital only, for almost-theres, or to test-market), and pay-to-play (Horizons). Why shouldn't Harlequin try to get some of the huge piles of money being spent on self-publishing to keep its traditional business going?

They are a business, and be as cynical as you like about their motives, but if it keeps editors and other talented people in jobs, I'm in favor of it.


What could be better (whether Horizons-related or not)
The marketing copy and description of any publishing service should be crystal clear about what the service CAN and CANNOT accomplish. Publishing services have a lot of feel-good language about achieving dreams/goals, and aren't upfront about the reality of how well self-published books perform, or what the "distribution" or "marketing" packages really mean or can really be valued at. Usually these are packages to be strictly avoided, or independently contracted.

A writer who conducts even the smallest bit of due diligence (e.g., via Writer Beware) will understand the significant limitations of these services. They should not be considered a stepping stone to traditional publishing success. It's just as hard to get traditionally published as before.

Yet I disagree with those who argue Horizons would actually HURT a writer's chances of future traditional publication. If you have a great follow-up manuscript that has tremendous commercial appeal, you WILL get takers no matter the results of your self-pub effort—which frankly will be expected to fail. (That's why publishing services have to make their money upfront, not off book sales.)

But Horizons and other services are not HELPING you either, unless you use it to build an audience, test-market, or otherwise market/promote to some level of awareness/success. Many of these same goals can be achieved by using free digital services like Lulu, Smashwords, Amazon DTP, Scribd, and others. You don't need a physical or POD product to effectively self-publish, which is why I recommend writers use FREE methods before spending a dime.

--

This post might be the longest I've ever written—but appropriately so. This issue touches the heart of what publishing is—though I've probably just slathered myself with honey and stuck my hand in a dozen hornet's nests.

People like to say (and I've said too) that money should flow TO the writer, not AWAY from the writer.

But I can see a business model emerging where publishers work with authors in more diverse ways. What we've held to be sacred—that a writer should NEVER pay to publish—may change. Writers may pay agents, they may pay publishers. And it may turn out to be an accepted and ethical practice if done with transparency, honesty, and in the spirit of mutual benefit.

I'm not saying that Harlequin has got it right, at least not out of the gate. But it's an important step. I predict other publishers will follow, and the model will be improved and made more attractive. Just wait.

Photo credit: CJ and Dan

Digitization & New Technology | Getting Published | Industry News & Trends | Self-Publishing
Bookmark and Share
Monday, November 23, 2009 4:32:34 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #  Comments [55] Trackback
Monday, November 23, 2009 5:08:40 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
I'm still confused about how Harlequin Horizons trying to lead writers into a broken publishing model that's already been used for many years by companies like Author House and Publish America is somehow them pushing toward the future of publishing.

It seems more like they realized they could get in on the vanity publishing racket, and are trying to use the same rhetoric as PA to defend what is still basically a predatory move. The idea that any revenues they generate will be plowed back into innovation for their traditional publishing arm seems like wishful thinking, since it's far more likely to be used to prop up Torstar's hemorrhaging bottom line.
Michael
Monday, November 23, 2009 5:18:29 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
You may have broken the cardinal rule of blogging with this post and left no [legitimate] room for debate!

I think Harlequin totally botched the pitch -- and more incredibly, badly misread their community -- but Horizons' underlying model is one we're going to see more and more of in the next year or two, BECAUSE THE MARKET EXISTS FOR IT.

Not only is publishing a business decision, it's an individual decision; different strokes for different folks, caveat emptor, etc..

As always, kudos for offering a rational look at the big picture.
Monday, November 23, 2009 5:24:56 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
@Michael - I don't think Horizons brings anything ground-breaking to POD/publishing services, other than a niche focus.

But I do believe AuthorSolutions (and the rest) serve a market need. There will always be writers who want to self-publish, and will pay for help to self-publish. Whether salable or commercial product pops out is almost beside the point. People still want to do it even when the have the right expectations of it. I think these services are not predatory when people understand what they can and can't expect from them.
Monday, November 23, 2009 5:31:38 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
@Guy - Very kind, thank you! It's so strange to me that Harlequin botched their delivery on this one. Normally they've been incredibly in tune with both writers and readers -- very engaged. Perhaps they thought Thomas Nelson did just fine with their announcement, so they didn't need to worry. (But - they don't have a CEO like Hyatt blogging and delivering the message, which could've helped.) I wonder if they considered conversing with the RWA beforehand, even a JOINT announcement.
Monday, November 23, 2009 5:37:47 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
I'm popping in on this to say thank you for such a thoughtful, considered argument on this topic. I've been following the various discussions on Twitter and elsewhere and find myself always taken aback by the ferocity of protectiveness agents, publishers et al show toward the traditional model, as you describe. The vitriol produced against anyone who wishes to follow a less traditional path is unwarranted in my opinion and smacks of a kind of elitism I'm not sure the industry can afford any further.

We all want quality of work and no one wants to see publishing suffer and be dragged down in a quagmire where anyone with $1500 and word processing software is an 'author,' but we also want publishing to endure however it can in as many ways as it can. The response to Harlequin's business decisions is a little stunning.

Quality will always be a concern and there is no doubt that more than changes in the publishing industry will affect it. There is a larger circle of exploration concerning art, education, technology and the politics of possibilities that effect what we read and how we read it. That more quality writing is available (for free) through online sources and that so many writers are forming collectives (whether as hobbyists i.e. fan fiction writers or artists with an entrepreneurial spirit) to add another dimension to this argument, I find encouraging and will create its own model that might be worth a closer look.

Thank you again - wonderful, thought-provoking ideas as always.
DJ Young (@dijeratic)

Monday, November 23, 2009 6:01:22 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
Thank you for this post. As an emerging fiction writer who is still looking for an agent, I have struggled to wrap my head around the changes happening in publishing. The paradigm we all know and love is very likely NOT to be the one that gets my foot in the door. Posts like this help me to feel less anxious and more informed about the process. At the end of the day, it's still about getting your work in the hands of readers who will (hopefully) love it. We all still want that right?
Monday, November 23, 2009 6:10:14 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
I agree that a new paradigm for the publishing of romance novels may be around the corner, but I don't see Harlequin Horizons at the forefront of that paradigm. (Carina Press might be, but not Harlequin Horizons.)

Harlequin Horizons is not an alternative to Harlequin's commercial publishing business. I've read nothing that suggests Harlequin's intent was to present its established authors and would-be first time authors with a different model for publishing. It's pretty clear that Harlequin Horizons is intended, in effect, to be a consolation prize for those writers whose manuscripts didn't get picked for Harlequin's various lines. I could be wrong, but I doubt Harlequin based its decision to join with Author Solutions on the notion that good (i.e., good enough to be published by Harlequin "the old fashioned way") manuscripts would skip the slush pile entirely. Harlequin still wants to cherry-pick the good manuscripts. The rest can go to Harlequin Horizons.

I'm pretty sure any business venture that starts off with the cast-offs or also-rans is not one that people think will take off like gangbusters. Which takes away the sense that someday we'll all be reading novels published by Harlequin Horizons. Carina Press? Sure, that could happen. True self-publication (where the author pays all the freight for publishing and markets the book herself) efforts? Might well happen. But I think Harlequin Horizons is a mash-up of the elements that could work in theory but don't because it isn't economically sensible for the writer or a promise of quality for the reader.

So I don't think Harlequin just botched the pitch, I think they botched the paradigm.
Monday, November 23, 2009 8:03:05 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
If there was no implication that it was the yellow brick road to a commercial publishing deal it might be different, but everything about the venture is designed to make a writer who couldn't make the cut with a commercial HQ line think that this is the back door to doing so.

You're not talking about people who went looking for a self-publisher. This is being SOLD - in every since of the word, and at a premium - to people who either aren't ready for publication or aren't publishable no matter how hard they try.

These books will NEVER be marketed to anyone other than the writer, but someone with no experience in publishing (and HQ is the starting point for bushels of romance writers who know nothing other than how to format a Word document) can easily be led to believe (thanks to the leading wording) that their books will be ON shelves next to all the other HQ romances. It's not like Hh (horizons) looks much different on the spine than HH (historicals).

There's no upward limit for the number of VANITY published titles a year, so those 99% of things rejected are going to flood the (online!) store. That = branding dilution. All it takes is a couple of readers mistaking Hh for legit commercial books and they'll lose their taste for all things Harlequin.

Not to mention that they totally mislead the writers.

Get a bound copy to send to agents!!! Um, no. Agents don't want bound copies.

Publishing with us take none of your rights!!! Um, no. You're published with an ISBN. You've used up first rights and can't get them back.

We use good stock (Yay! Trade!) not like the icky stock most publishers use (Boo!!! Mass market!) Um, no. They're both printed on the same thing, the difference is in return requirements. (One you strip, one returns whole.)

They're using outright lies perpetuated by another company and, in the process, compromising their professional integrity. Poor move and bad business.
Janey
Monday, November 23, 2009 8:12:10 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
Let me open by saying the Harlequin execs I've seen posting in response to the outrage seem entirely professional, intelligent and even kind. I wouldn't have a problem with Harlequin Horizons, but for two things: lack of clarity & consistency across Harlequin & Horizons messages, and the fact that Horizons' publishing packages (like those of any vanity/subsidy outfit I know of) are overpriced.

The Horizons website says, "With Harlequin Horizons, you'll receive the professional services and assistance you need...Our designers, editors and publicists are ready to provide expert assistance..."

That sounds like *Harlequin* personnel will be shepherding your project, *not* ASI staffers. While Harlequin has openly stated ASI will be running the Horizons show in online comments and letters to Harlequin authors after the brouhaha erupted, copy on the website is unchanged, and in my view, it's misleading.

The site also says, "Harlequin Horizons is a division of Harlequin Enterprises Limited, a global leader in romance and women’s fiction." This seems to welcome Horizons authors into the Harlequin family, yet in other statements, Harlequin is doing all it can to distance the Harlequin name from Horizons. In communications since the rollout Harlequin has stated Horizons books will not carry Harlequin branding anywhere on the book, in product listings, nor even in catalogs used by bookseller/library purchasing agents. Harlequin has also stated Horizons books will not be sold side-by-side with Harlequin books, yet the Horizons site still says, "Our books are available to the author, retailers and customers on demand..."

This implies the books will have the same distribution channels available to them as Harlequin books, but it appears to me the books will only be made available for sale through an online Horizons storefront. I don't even find any mention of Amazon distribution on the Horizons website, nor in any communications from Harlequin/Horizons I've seen since the rollout. Sure, authors can approach booksellers and libraries themselves to try and get their books stocked, so in that sense Horizons books are "available" to retailers, but it would be no less misleading to state Horizons books are "available" to Oprah's book club. Technically, *any* book is.

My second objection is to Horizons' pricing. Given that Harlequin already has the staff and machinery in place to produce and distribute quality books, why didn't they elect to form a new imprint in-house to offer publishing services at a reasonable price, while still earning a respectable profit? Considerable work and financial investment would've been required to set the whole thing up in-house as a brand new, fully-staffed imprint, but Harlequin's now reaping the whirlwind outsourcing has brought them and I wonder if, in hindsight, they'd have given an in-house solution a little more consideration. They'd still have to answer the brand-dilution concerns, but that's no different than what they're facing with Horizons.

As more mainstream publishers explore the self-pub-arm option, I expect such concerns will dissolve. It will simply become an accepted reality that every major publisher has its self-pub arm, and no one will give it much thought. Orgs like the RWA and MWA may have to alter their rules such that they are applied to individual imprints, not entire parent publisher companies.
Monday, November 23, 2009 8:18:08 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
The issue is simple - if your writing isn't anywhere near good enough for Harlequin to accept for publication they will direct you to their vanity publishing arm. That is predatory and anyone who thinks it isn't is clearly deluded. The market can barely sustain the books already on store shelves, now Harlequin in partnership with Author Solutions proposes to flood an already bloated market with a crap pile of books that weren't good enough to be published legitimately.

Everyone (including the author of this column) say it with me: MONEY FLOWS FROM THE PUBLISHER TO THE AUTHOR - NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
Monday, November 23, 2009 8:41:05 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
To DJ Young & Dawn Maria: Good to know that my post is hitting its mark for both of you. Like me you seem to embrace the philosophy of "Ask questions, be wary of answers."
Monday, November 23, 2009 8:49:30 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
@Magdalen - It may be true they botched the paradigm, and agree that Carina Press feels like a good, albeit safe, extension of what they do.

I also agree your take on Horizons; I think when I talk about a different model of publishing above, I'm really approaching it from the internal perspective of a business, rather than the external perspective of the author (which in part relates to the disconnect in their response to RWA). Who knows what the new model for authors will be? -- but Horizons may represent a new or transition model for publishers.

Regarding this: "I'm pretty sure any business venture that starts off with the cast-offs or also-rans is not one that people think will take off like gangbusters."

I don't think Harlequin is looking for mainstream/commercial success here, but rather something that can help create a new cash flow to sustain the business, and perhaps create inspiration/ideas for things that might be commercially viable that they initially misjudged.
Monday, November 23, 2009 9:05:46 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
@Janey - I agree that it's not appropriate for any publishing service to make promises about the self-publishing path that are really pipe dreams. All publishing services tend to be guilty of this. There is one notable exception that comes to mind - Lulu.

I do question whether writers will be hoodwinked as easily as has been suggested by many people. Does it paint writers in the right light?

People are SOLD everyday. It's always odd to me when people use the word "sold" in this context as if it were dirty -- or as if writers are so child-like, they have no critical eye for a sales pitch or marketing copy.

I'm sure authors don't object when publishers SELL their books, or when bookstores put books on display to SELL, or when promotions tell people to buy books for gifts this holiday season.

So why is it suddenly horrible when writers are SOLD on something they might legitimately be interested in?

My plea, though, like yours, is that any service be upfront and realistic about what these services achieve, and especially that bookstore distribution is not a part of the deal. *Transparency in these matters is critical.*

Regarding using up "first rights": As a longtime acquiring book editor and mag editor, I can assure writers this issue is not in play with books. It's only important with short pieces (e.g., magazine articles).

There are plenty of examples of writers who have completely published/exposed their work (either on their own, or with a service) and still interested a commercial publisher. A few examples to start: Scott Sigler, Seth Harwood, Laurie Notaro, Christopher Paolini.

I have also acquired many books that were previously self-published. And agents have sold them. Publishers have distribution and reach that most self-published authors do not.
Monday, November 23, 2009 9:16:37 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
@April - Excellent thoughts, thank you. I haven't analyzed the misleading language as in-depth as you have, and you & Janey raise similar good points. My hope, as with every publishing service, is that they better clarify/explain how things are being done.

On your second point - why didn't Harlequin bring this in-house rather than outsourcing - I wondered the same thing myself. I'm convinced what you say here is key: "Considerable work and financial investment would've been required to set the whole thing up in-house as a brand new, fully-staffed imprint."

One luxury publishers don't have right now is time and capital. I imagine, eventually, they may come to do exactly as you've described. If they don't, another traditional publisher could seriously challenge the entire publishing services establishment by doing so - while being transparent & honest in their operations.
Monday, November 23, 2009 9:20:30 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
@Sean - There are indeed too many books being published. However, those that are getting self-published, usually by means of services like Horizons, never see bookstore shelves.

About 75-80% of your typical bookstore is filled with books coming from the Big 6 New York publishers; the rest are not self-published books, but offerings from mid-size presses, small presses, independent presses, university presses, and so on.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 12:06:30 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
Jane, thanks for an excellent and thought-provoking post. I think you've brought us to a larger discussion that clearly overshadows the specific publishing houses involved in these recent moves into self-publishing.

This will be a rough road perhaps, as we continue to see people experimenting with different models, trying to find where the market is leading. Certainly perpetuating the kind of misleading pitches and exorbitant pricing that April has pointed out, will not help firms establish themselves as trusted vendors.

But overall I think your point is well taken. Market forces and the desires of the hundreds of thousands of authors who have used the new generation of "author services" companies dictate that we find new, and newly cooperative models, to bring books to the public.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:05:07 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
"I do question whether writers will be hoodwinked as easily as has been suggested by many people. Does it paint writers in the right light?"


If you spend a week reading the various threads in the Bewares & Background Checks forum of the Absolute Write Water Cooler, you'll see that writers do indeed fall for vanity pitches *all the time*. Some that seem blatant to most of us (like Strategic Book Publishing and PublishAmerica) catch people left and right. Find the threads where writers defend their vanity and/or scam publisher up, down, and sideways, and you'll understand why we are so angry at Harlequin for this move. They stick a thin veneer of legitimacy on top of a horrible deal, knowing it'll fool people into parting with their cash.

If 1000 people give their money to Harlequin & ASI for this deal, 990 of them will not make a profit. History has shown us repeatedly that this is so. There's absolutely no reason to think this deal will be any different.
DeadlyAccurate
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:20:50 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
*****But in comparison to what's happening now, with Harlequin, you could say the response to Thomas Nelson was benevolent resignation. I'm still waiting for someone to logically explain to me why the two situations are different from each other (while not, in the process, denigrating Christian writers or the Christian market)…*****

I can only speak for myself, but for my part, I wasn't upset about Thomas Nelson/West Bow Press because I didn't hear about it, and the reason I didn't hear about it is because it's not a genre I'm passionate about. I'm sure a science fiction publisher could pull the same shenanigans as TN/WBP and I wouldn't know about that, either. But just because one such instance manages to fly under the radar doesn't mean it's a low-risk model that every publisher and author should take advantage of, or that Harlequin's tactics weren't unethical or deceptive. And it doesn't mean there aren't significant differences between the two endeavors, either. While Harlequin's business model is similar, in my opinion, it overstepped some serious boundaries by:

- branding the vanity publishing imprint as part of the Harlequin brand

- not being forthcoming about the services offered on the Harlequin Horizons website

- misleading the writer customer into thinking the books coming from Harlequin Horizons would be published by Harlequin Horizons (according to Malle Vallik, the Harlequin Horizons "brand" would be author-facing only and that the publisher would show as Author Solutions; Author Solutions is not mentioned anywhere on the Harlequin Horizons site), that books would be available in stores and online, and that by paying to have a book published by Harlequin Horizons was a good way to beat the Harlequin slush pile.

I do believe publishing will continue to evolve, and as it does, more options for writers will emerge. But I fail to see how the vanity press model will be the future of publishing, since it has a years-long track record of being profitable only for the publisher who has no monetary interest in the products they produce, and therefore no incentive to market and sell them. The average Author Solutions book sells 75 copies. The base Harlequin Horizons package costs $599. Someone on another blog (sorry, I don't have a link) did the math and came up with a royalty amount of $0.52 per trade paperback sold. That means the average customer stands to lose $500+ for every book published using this model. I'm no expert, but I can guarantee that wherever the future of publishing goes, it won't be to a place where authors lose 145% more money than they earn. Authors, like businesses, can't afford that kind of risk. Not when they can upload it to Kindle for free, guarantee online distribution, and make a small profit. What Author Solutions, and its partners, are offering is a stacked deck, and if self-publishing is, indeed, the wave of the future, I can guarantee that it will be the authors who set the terms, not the publishers. Which, now that I think about it, is probably why they're so eager to make as much money as they can, while they can.


*****1. For any other company with an ancillary service to offer, this move would be considered smart marketing. In the writing world, this is considered predatory, unethical, and possibly fraudulent.*****

There are similar set-ups in any industry, from companies who want artists to pay to have their work displayed, to companies who want singer/songwriters to pay to have their music recorded or set to music, to companies who want aspiring models to pay to have their portfolio professionally done, to companies who wish to sell "herbal supplements" with "proven fat-burning powers" to those trying to lose a few pounds "naturally", and they're never looked upon in a good light. None of these are illegal, but all of them do a disservice to their customers, and because of this, are frowned upon. (Watch an episode of America's Next Top Model, and you'll understand--Tyra is adamant about making sure people know that if a modeling agency asks you for money, it's a scam, whether they do their part in taking pictures or not.)


*****Is it possible, in the future, that a Horizons author could end up bringing in more revenue or more profit than a traditional Harlequin author?*****

Anything is possible, but I don't think it's likely. Like I said before, this model isn't a new one. It's been around for almost as long as I have. If it were truly meant to be the future of publishing, it wouldn't have the stigma it has now.

*****What if the revenue/profit from Horizons made it possible for Harlequin to better support its entire business, and they were able to do a better job with traditional authors?*****

Two things, one cynical, one not:

NOT CYNICAL: I'm not a Harlequin author, nor do I ever plan to be. But I would not be comfortable making money from a company knowing it came from deceptive practices. Bad things done for the best of intentions are still bad things.

CYNICAL: If I make more money selling rotten oranges than ripe apples, I'm going to spend more of my time harvesting rotten oranges. Therefore, if a publisher is making more money off imprint A than off imprint B, they will be less likely to use that money to improve imprint B, not more. Why would they keep people like editors on the payroll if they make the most money off those who don't use them?


Elizabeth
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 4:35:23 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
Sean Cummings said, "MONEY FLOWS FROM THE PUBLISHER TO THE AUTHOR - NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND."

But the author can _be_ the publisher, and then money flows both inward and outward.

Ben Franklin spent money to buy printing equipment, ink and paper; and then he collected money when he sold what he wrote and published.

In 2008 (after having several books published by traditional publishers), I formed Silver Sands Books with the intention of publishing one book. I am now working on number-seven. I pay money for editing, designing, photography, printing and publicity, and I collect money when my books are sold.

My only objections to the Harlequin program is their use of the term "self-publishing" for vanity publishing, and lying about providing "free" books to writers who have invested hundreds or thousands of dollars.

Michael N. Marcus
author of Become a Real Self-Publisher, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0981661742

http://BookMakingBlog.blogspot.com
http://www.SilverSandsBooks.com
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 7:40:10 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
It's interesting to me that so many people act surprised by RWA's response to Harlequin. You don't even mention MWA's or SFWA's response. Even Harlequin says they were "stunned" and that RWA should have consulted them prior to taking action.

RWA and the other writers' organizations simply enforced their own rules. These groups work for the writers, not the publishers. It is not their job to act as diplomats and negotiate terms or consult with publishers, it is their job to follow the rules they have established as being in the best interests of their members.

Harlequin has known about these rules for years--the same rules that have caused other, smaller publishers to lose their eligibility as well. It galls me as a writer that they felt they were above the rules and that Harlequin should be given special treatment--and worse, then act surprised that RWA would "bite the hand that feeds them" to use the words of a Harlequin editor in response to RWA's enforcing of their established rules.

I agree that they made a business decision--and I can totally understand why enticing writers to pay them for publishing may be a very profitable business decision.

But Harlequin and others choosing this business model can not have it both ways--and have no right to dictate how writer organizations should respond to their new business ventures.

Only the members of these organizations can decide what is in their best interests as professional writers and if they need to change the bylaws of their professional associations in the future.

But don't condemn these writing organizations for following their own rules here and now. Instead applaud them for bringing the issue into the public spotlight and allowing open, honest debate from all sides.

CJ Lyons
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 9:35:35 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
Fabulous commentary, Jane.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:59:13 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
I am the co-founder of a Canadian association called The Word Guild, which is for Canadian writers and editors who are Christian. We have over 350 members. I'm also an author in both the mainstream and Christian areas.

In Canada, there are very few Christian publishing options (partly due to the many books flooding us from the US). Consequently, many people are self-publishing. Some are vanity published (and think they are then "published"); others are what I call independent publishers, meaning they own the ISBN, hire layout people and editors, etc. etc.

Over the last few years, we have become very concerned about the rush to get books published by any means whatsoever - often vanity of course. We are trying to educate people, and we have several levels of membership and have instituted a screening process for books.

I was horrified by what Thomas Nelson did. And now Harlequin. All I can say is Author Solutions must have an amazing sales team.

I think there are two factors that need to be addressed.

One is that many people here have simply given up on ever getting published by the traditional publishing industry. It's a bit of a maze - way too hard to make inroads and get known.

Secondly, we live in an instant society. Getting a book published in traditional ways can take years. A vanity press can get you a book in two or three months. The primary concern is "I want it now."

Someone asked re Christian writers. I'd say that in general, many of them are more gullible because they are doing this more as a ministry than a business venture. I've signed at least one horrendous contract myself. And I have independently published 8 books, including the Canadian bestseller, Hot Apple Cider.

I don't know what the answers are. As an author myself, I don't even feel I know what to do next. Or why. As someone trying to lead others, I feel very frustrated. It's all murky and kind of dismal.

But one thing I believe, and that is that it's time the good authors stopped simply following the system and started working together to create a new system.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:01:07 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
"I think Harlequin totally botched the pitch..."

What Guy said!!

As I recall, (and please God, someone correct me if I'm wrong) when T-N made the announcement, it wasn't accompanied by a website filled with what amounted to a sleazy come-on. It was tactful and dare I say, to the point (going from my swiss-cheese memory here), with no frills etc.

When Harlequin announced Carina press I was thrilled (as an e- and print published author) to see a NY house kinda thinking outside the box.

But even before it was mentioned that rejected authors would (maybe?) be refered to HHz, it almost felt as if Hqn was using its name to prey on people's dreams--again, I'm going to chalk it up to the HHz website and how its content was delivered. I'm not saying this well at all *sigh* ... but like us writers are told time and time again--It's All In The Execution and Hqn IMO executed poorly which is why they got Auto-Rejected by Internet-Writer-Landia.
Amie Stuart
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:49:40 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
@Joel - Thanks for adding your two cents. I think the key word you used is *cooperative*. My hope is that writers of the future will be even more savvy & educated than they are today, and will look for (and demand) opportunities and cooperative arrangements that really make an impact on their career.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:53:46 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
@DeadlyAccurate - I would go even further and say that 999 of 1000 will not make a profit on their self-publishing venture. But many writers using these services don't expect a profit, but want the satisfaction of their book in their hands. There are many motivations to self-publish aside from making money.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 2:01:24 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
@Elizabeth - I think if the major writers organizations are going to take Harlequin to task as they did, how can they be justified in ignoring Thomas Nelson? If their objection is to be on behalf of writers everywhere, they should remove Thomas Nelson from recognized publishers as well.

I agree Harlequin has been confusing in its messaging about exactly what will happen with Horizons titles, but those who are very familiar with services such as ASI know exactly what will happen to a Horizons book: it will end up for order in online stores/retailers, be available for order via any bricks-and-mortar, but not be physically shelved (as with all print-on-demand products).

I would never say that vanity or self-publishing will be the entire universe or totality of the new model, but we do have to acknowledge it will play a part for those writers who are willing to risk a loss on it—just as most publishers take a loss or break even on more than half (maybe even 75%+) of books they traditionally publish.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 2:04:16 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
@Michael Marcus - Thanks for your comment. I prefer to define self-publishing as anytime when an author pays to publish (whether paying a middleman/service or not), but I understand why people (especially those who establish small presses) want to draw a line.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 2:05:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
Kudos to Elizabeth for her excellent post. I especially liked this: "There are similar set-ups in any industry, from companies who want artists to pay to have their work displayed, to companies who want singer/songwriters to pay to have their music recorded or set to music, to companies who want aspiring models to pay to have their portfolio professionally done, to companies who wish to sell "herbal supplements" with "proven fat-burning powers" to those trying to lose a few pounds "naturally", and they're never looked upon in a good light."

IOW, Harlequin's new venture is on a par with magic fat-burning pills.

So thanks, Elizabeth. Now I don't have to respond myself, and can get back to writing.
Eileen
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 2:11:08 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
@CJ - Certainly agree that the writers organizations serve writers, and they should fight for their interests. However, I don't know of any organization or company (or gov't) that didn't benefit from diplomatic behavior.

What concerns me more, though, is that writers organizations are in danger of becoming an anachronism. Being steadfastly loyal to a set of principles, without question or reflection on how the industry is changing, may do more harm than good. I don't seem them engaging in a debate as much as digging their heels into the sand. Maybe it's a good first response/reaction, and good protection for writers/members, but I doubt it will work as a long-term strategy when the publishing industry is evolving by the day.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 2:15:41 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
@NJ - I couldn't have said it better myself: "We live in an instant society." And thank you for adding much needed background on the Christian writing/publishing market.

You mention that it's time the good authors stopped simply following the system and started working together.

I'm now seeing examples of this -- writers' collectives -- that are banding together. Take a look at the SFF one (Ursula K LeGuin related), Year Zero Writers, and others. Very inspiring, and a glimpse at how things might work in the future.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 2:17:27 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
@Amie - Thanks for adding your comment. Good insight. For Harlequin's sake, I hope they can patch things up. Not sure how, but I hope they do.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 2:23:13 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
@Eileen - I think it all boils down to whether a service delivers on its promise, and if it is clear about what it can and cannot do for a customer.

If it is transparent and upfront (e.g., Lulu is a great example), then objections to the marketing/sales of these services equal elitism and/or moralizing.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 2:40:36 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
In all this is the glossing over of the fraudulent intent of this business-model. What value does HQN add to the services already offered to authors by Author Solutions? Their name. Their brand. And a big fat lie.

They told prospective customers that using the HQN brand would be an advantage in marketing their books. Then they told their authors that they wouldn't really let these new writers use their brand. It was only 'author-facing'.

Next, they told prospective customers that using up their first publications rights and having a bound copy would be an advantage in getting an agent. That's a complete lie.

Furthermore, they told would-be customers on the phone that they could be just like J.K. Rowling, who self-published. Another lie.

The fundamental problem with this enterprise was not that it was rolled out badly. It's that it was a deceptive and predatory business practice. People who are arguing that this has something to do with the self-publishing model are ignoring the elephant in the room.
You forgot about the lying
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 2:46:59 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
To the comment just previous to this one: I tend to distrust comments from those who won't self-identify. (And I think you've inserted your own lie into the conversation with the JK Rowling comment.)

Harlequin has made a number of missteps and confused the issue, but your comment would take this as malicious intent. I disagree.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 3:13:23 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
Jane wrote:
"What concerns me more, though, is that writers organizations are in danger of becoming an anachronism. Being steadfastly loyal to a set of principles, without question or reflection on how the industry is changing, may do more harm than good."

Now there's an interesting assumption--that if writers' organizations are committed to a model in which writers are paid for our work, they are failing to question or reflect on what's happening in the industry.

Put me down on the "anachronism" side of the debate, if you like. I'm commercially published. I hope to remain commercially published. It's how I pay the bills and buy my groceries. From my perspective, the publishing industry isn't so much "evolving by the day" as floundering in confusion. Calling it evolution implies a certain Darwinian progression--forward movement, advancement.

So far, that's not what I see happening. And the notion that a vanity press is a groundbreaking new idea, part of the wave of the future, is just sad. The basic purpose of commercial publishing is to partner with writers to get good books into the hands of readers. The basic purpose of vanity publishing is to make money off writers. Why would any organization formed by professional writers be in favor of that?

I see that you've used Lulu as an example of up-front marketing. It's a great example. I know people who've used Lulu to get lovely, bound copies of family histories or recipes. Lulu offers a genuine service, and they're clear about what they provide. In contrast, Harlequin's Horizon website suggests that writers might want to use their service so they'll have a "bound copy" to send an agent. The implication here--as with so much about Horizons--is that using their service may help an author become published in the traditional way that so many here are busily disparaging.

Harlequin knows better.
Eileen
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 4:59:39 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
@Eileen - As I commented in my post, the old adage that money flows TO the writer, rather than AWAY from the writer, is something that all of us have repeated from time to time.

While future models will certainly continue to compensate writers for their work, it may only be one aspect of the business a publisher engages in -- and it's folly to think that, in a time when 60,000 media jobs have been lost in NY in the past year, that if publishers can't earn the same $$ for what they've always done, that writers (and their orgs) can continue exactly as they have before.

If writers want to continue to get paid for their work, like publishers they'll have to change what they do to earn the same amount. Or otherwise find their work becoming irrelevant/disappearing (see: newspapers).
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 5:17:41 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
Daily, I read a free version of something called "Publishers Lunch." I'm consistently struck by what Eileen mentions: "...the publishing industry isn't so much 'evolving by the day' as floundering in confusion. Calling it evolution implies a certain Darwinian progression--forward movement, advancement."

Now, I'm from the business side--and not the business of publishing. To an outsider, looking in, a couple of things are striking.

First, one has to wonder if Harlequin "botched their delivery on this one" (Jane Friedman) because it came from the parent Torstar, and the people at Harlequin itself were embarrassed to be associated with it, and would rather it went away.

Second, someone else cleverly noted another business reality, that Harlequin, though extremely profitable itself, possibly couldn't afford to bake it (a vanity press that would be better than the alternatives and targeted at the romance/women's fiction market specifically) from scratch. Torstar wants those profits that could otherwise be used to build new business models/divisions, to prop up Torstar's bottom line. Dilute Torstar's red ink into a sickly pale pink colour--puce?

"If 1000 people give their money to Harlequin & ASI for this deal, 990 of them will not make a profit. History has shown us repeatedly that this is so. There's absolutely no reason to think this deal will be any different." (DeadlyAccurate)

Publishers have been taking these odds, and now there's an expectation that each individual writer will take on the odds, not just in terms of "feelings" and "success" (the traditional publishing model of yesteryear) but in terms of the bottom line. This can be fine, in a marketplace of perfect information--totally savvy sellers and buyers. But in a marketplaces where the sellers are really the buyers, and they're your grandma who'd really like to get published before she kicks the bucket, there's something sleazy in that economic model. Fine, if gran only wants to hold that book in her aged hands. Fine, if the kids and grandkids pay to propagate a myth that makes gran happy. But let's not pretend gran might get picked up by Harlequin itself, and be the next Janet Daily. Oh, I forgot. She kicked before she learned of her potential!

(Part of the foregoing is a true story. The kids didn't have any delusions, gran suffered from Alzheimer's but still knew what a book was, and could still understand that her name was on the spine and it was her work. However, no one told gran Harlequin was calling with a contract for a two-book deal as a result of her vanity-published work.)
lpking
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 5:34:32 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
@lpking - Thanks so much for your comments. As far as Harlequin offering Horizons authors a traditional book deal, I think it's about just as likely as any other self-pub author who can prove they've had some commercial success on their own without meaningful distribution (which is tough to accomplish - and why it's so notable). Presumably, Horizons would make sales information and analysis readily available to the traditional side of Harlequin about what's working on the self-pub side specifically for romance.

Harlequin (and others) shouldn't dangle out false hopes -- and I'm not convinced they really are -- but it's true that they (like other traditional publishers and literary agents) do pick up self-published titles.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 6:09:06 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
This situation is so similar to the "modeling" agencies that give you a flyer at the mall, have you gone in and fill a questionnaire, and then tell you you could make a great model if you would have some professional pictures and took some modeling classes, which they offer through their very own talent school.

Of course, they are not planning to make money off you the way working models make money (by finding clients and getting a commission off your work), but through the classes and photographs. Thus you send large amounts of needless photos and classes which don't really earn you jobs.

The modeling agency/talent school combo has made money for people for years and years. It doesn't mean it isn't sleazy or that professional models would be associated with it. Which explains the whole Harlequin trouble: one morning, we woke up and Harlequin was the equivalent of a sleazy modeling agency instead of Ford or Elite.
silvia
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 8:11:49 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
Major about face: type "harlequin horizons" into a search engine. Mine gives a redirection page that stays up for 15 seconds, long enough to imprint that small-h-large-H logo into your visual memory. At the bottom, it says Harlequin Horizons is now DellArte Press, www.dellartepress.com .
lpking
Wednesday, November 25, 2009 2:21:12 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
@silvia - I think your analogy is best suited to literary agents who are pay-to-play. They represent you only if you pay, and what you get in return may be questionable. In the case of Horizons and services like it, you get something in return: a self-published book. The people who call this sleazy place no value (even negative value) on a self-published work. But many, many people do place value on it. And some writers have made it a valuable move.

@lpking - Undoubtedly, the situation is still developing, dust hasn't even settled on this issue.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009 3:23:58 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
Jane said "The people who call this sleazy place no value (even negative value) on a self-published work. But many, many people do place value on it. And some writers have made it a valuable move."

I know of many books that have been self-published (i. e. independently published with the author taking control) and are very good. I've published eight of them myself. But I also know firsthand of many books that were vanity published with authors who had no clue what they were doing, and the books are not good and are usually way over-priced.

That's what bothers me. They believed they were being "published" and that their product would compete with other books out there. The reality is that they don't. Not with the best, at least. (and not say I haven't seen some poorly written/edited books published by large presses. Threw one of those across the room this morning. :))

A self-published book can compete in every way and get reviews and do well, but only if the author knows what publishing is, and treats their efforts as business (marketing plan, etc.) There are lots of books on self-publishing. You can talk to other authors. But lots of people don't want to do the homework, or they accept every word they hear from sales people who work for the vanity houses. Far too many authors - even royalty-published authors - have little understanding of the publishing process, how much a book ought to cost, how to get an ISBN or bar code, etc. etc.

i have a ton of info on my blog www.writewithexcellence.com if anyone is looking for more food for thought.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009 3:47:06 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
@NJ - Thanks so much for mentioning your site as a resource. I agree too many people want to avoid the homework and education process, which leads to much of the grumbling and criticism over the self-pub services -- AND the people who use them to their own detriment.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009 4:37:44 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
"The people who call this sleazy place no value (even negative value) on a self-published work."

I place value on a self-published book. I do not place value on a company that intends to data-mine their rejection pile to obtain customers. That would be the equivalent of being rejected for a job, then getting a phone call and being asked if I want to buy a t-shirt of theirs.
silvia
Wednesday, November 25, 2009 4:43:36 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
@silvia - So by that rationale, it would be OK for Horizons to market their services everywhere and to everyone EXCEPT writers who express interest in working with Harlequin?
Wednesday, November 25, 2009 4:45:45 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
Oh, and the final reason why I don't consider this self-publishing? Please see the comment by Malle Valik, Harlequin's Digital Director. Look at comment 18 that he posted on dearauthor.com:

2. Will Harlequin Horizons hold the ISBNs and pay out royalties from the sales, if any? How does this differ from the “vanity press” model? How does it compare to the “self-publishing” model, in which the author holds the ISBNs and keeps all money from any sales?

Malle: The content is completely owned by the author. Royalties are 50% net from both eBooks and print.

Source:

http://blog.writersdigest.com/norules/2009/11/23/HarlequinsSelfPublishingVentureIsItTheFutureOfPublishing.aspx

50 per cent? Did I miss something? How is this not sleazy? We are not talking Lulu.com here.

silvia
Wednesday, November 25, 2009 4:58:02 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
It is never OK to data mine a slush pile. If I, for example, enter a contest, Canon should not be contacting me about selling me a camera unless I have given specific authorization to be contacted. There are such things a opt-in laws, which vary by country, determining the extent to which a consumer can be contacted by a company.

In general, before you can use personal data for marketing, you must tell customers or potential customers that you intend to use their data for this purpose and give them an opportunity to refuse such use.
silvia
Wednesday, November 25, 2009 5:00:53 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
@Silvia - I'm not sure I understand your objection. The terms that Malle (a woman) outlines is the pretty much identical for all print-on-demand publishing services, and has been for 10 years. Why is it suddenly sleazy? Also, ownership of ISBN is a non-issue when it concerns author rights. Copyright is all that matters.

To see more on this issue, read my post today (11/25) on the 3 self-publishing paths. You have to expect to pay more when the service is NOT turnkey (and Lulu is turnkey - meaning they do not touch you, the book, or the process; it's totally hands-off, which is why it's free and offers a better split).
Wednesday, November 25, 2009 5:03:46 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
@silvia - Regarding data mining: If someone submits their work to Harlequin, and receives a rejection that mentions/markets Horizons, then no law has been broken. Harlequin was approached first.

I haven't seen any statements that indicate Harlequin is saving contact information from writers who submit, but let me know if you've seen statements showing otherwise.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009 5:26:08 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
My issue is mainly with the marketing. The copy on the website does not spells the split of earning up front, which is an important factor when choosing a printing company. The copy of the whole website, in general (I think it was changed yesterday?) was not well done.

As a potential book publisher things such as how much piece of pie I can have are extremely important. Autor House does mention pricing in their website and states "We pay you a royalty fee which can range from 5 to 20 percent on retail sales and between 5 and 50 percent on books sold on the AuthorHouse online bookstore." I could not find a similar statement at HH. (And if indeed, the split is 50 per cent as Malle states, then this is worse than doing it through AutorHouse, which is part of the Author Solutions family).

The marketing of this venture was poorly thought out, everything from the name (using the Harlequin name), to some of the way the copy was presented and information at the website.
silvia
Wednesday, November 25, 2009 5:44:47 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
Sorry, I meant this is "no worse," which brings in the questions of did it have a unique marketing proposition anyway? Probably not, except for the name of Harlequin attached to it. You would have gone in, done your publishing because of the Harlequin connection only to discover that, nay, it's not really like that. It's just regular Author Solutions, but we've painted it pink, put Harlequin in front of it and hoped that would draw you in.

silvia
Wednesday, November 25, 2009 8:36:33 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
Yesterday evening, I combed the pages accessed off the "Write" link at the bottom of eHarlequin.com webpages. I didn't notice any remaining mentions of, or links to, the vanity publishing arm. It remains to be seen whether they'll push this option in their rejection letters.

Not being an affected author probably influences my analysis of the situation. However, I do now understand--after reading this blog and several others--how people not intimately familiar with the publishing business and its history could think they're doing the writers of slush-pile manuscripts a favour by recommending another service (Harlequin Horizons now known as DellArte Press) that might possibly meet their needs. Is the fact that it's a highly priced service--in some regards--unethical though plainly not illegal? (Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Harlequin will mention its involvement and financial interest in the venture when it markets the service.)

The published authors, and those hoping to be traditionally published, seem to suggest that it is unethical. The strongest arguments against it seem to be as follows:

(1) It holds out hope of a highly improbable dream coming true, as marketing ploy;

(2) It requires that an author or aspiring author invest in aspects of the production and marketing of the book that have traditionally been financed by the publisher;

(3) It's unethical to profit from the slush pile, which is a rule followed by professional agents, though not explicitly submitted to by publishers who accept unagented submissions;

(4) It devalues the work of existing Harlequin--and other romance--authors by tacitly encouraging vanity published authors to claim "published romance writer" status, and possibly to spread the uninformed rumour that Harlequin has somehow endorsed their work.

All these objections are predicated on the current market structure, and favour those currently ensconced in the currently-profitable strata of authordom. But what about the complaint that the big dollar advances given to stars steal editorial and promotional resources from authors who would, with a little more help from the publisher, manage to position their works unequivocally on that continuum of profitability? Isn't that part of the same issue? Can we foresee a time when it's next to impossible to achieve even the minor profitability that RWA upholds as a condition of membership, because of market forces?

So, though I agree with the amorality of (1) above, I can't see that (2) is ridiculous, nor can I see the error of (3) with the caveat of proper disclosure, and (4) protects only entrenched participants in the market. In fact, (4) is almost a case of holding out the kind of hope that the ballyhooed (1) holds out. (Okay, few authors and no writers' associations say that their success was easy, and wish fulfilment is only a matter of, say, the price of a membership!)


Finally, it occurred to me that Harlequin could save itself a lot of grief by simply ceasing to accept unagented submissions. A possible new twist in the romance publishing industry might be a low-cost, high volume "slush-pile harvester" business that doesn't require Harlequin to cover a payroll, and permanent employees. Obviously, this is the same tactic many businesses are now forced to adopt, with the rationale that they can't compete with overseas jurisdictions with low wages and non existent benefits. I'm not aware that any mass market publishers have outsourced to India, etc. After looking at the prices of the now discontinued Harlequin Manuscript Critique service, though, I'm wondering. :P
lpking
Wednesday, November 25, 2009 8:39:16 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
"Being steadfastly loyal to a set of principles, without question or reflection on how the industry is changing, may do more harm than good. I don't seem them engaging in a debate as much as digging their heels into the sand."

Jane....great point and as a former RWA meember, I can say this has ALWAYS been an issue for them. Case in point the kerfuffel earlier this year over the president's letter re: epublishing (along with all the previous ones about the same or similar topics).
Friday, November 27, 2009 8:03:41 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
@lpking - Love your thoughts here, appreciate the time you took in preparing them. One of the more insightful breakdowns I've seen to date! And intrigued by radical proposal of not accepting agented work.

@Amie - Thanks for the added insight into RWA!
Monday, November 30, 2009 8:38:26 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
"Michael N. Marcus wrote:

“In 2008 (after having several books published by traditional publishers), I formed Silver Sands Books with the intention of publishing one book. I am now working on number-seven. I pay money for editing, designing, photography, printing and publicity, and I collect money when my books are sold.

My only objections to the Harlequin program is their use of the term "self-publishing" for vanity publishing, and lying about providing "free" books to writers who have invested hundreds or thousands of dollars.”

As Mr. Marcus, points out, there is a difference between self-publishing and vanity publishing, just as there is a difference between printing a book (in pixels or ink) and publishing one. A large part of our mission at Independent Book Publishers Association is to teach our more than 3000 members that publishing is a BUSINESS, and, just like any business, in order to succeed one needs to learn that business from the ground up. The goal of the education we provide is to arm potential publishers with the tools to create an enterprise, just as Mr. Marcus has, that meets or exceeds the industry standards required to produce quality books. Those tools include ISBN ownership, editorial, design, promotion, sales, marketing and business planning. The self publisher takes financial responsibility for all of those facets—the vanity publisher pays another to act as “publisher,” often with results ranging from disappointing to financially catastrophic.

Rather than wring our hands over the alleged “lowering” of publishing industry standards due to the “barbarians at the gate”, we as an industry would be better served to support and educate this new category of “author-publisher” by both managing their expectations through transparency, as Ms. Friedman points out, and teaching them the basics of the book business.
Comments are closed.


Google Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links