You said: "But we could create a better deal: These organizations could invest in artists rather than owning them outright." Do you have a vision for what these could be? New platforms perhaps using new models? Have you thought about starting one by attracting investors?
Yes, I think there are some visions. Aethon Books, for example, specializes in publishing self-published serials online and splitting the earnings with authors 50/50. In the traditional world, Author’s Equity is making a play at changing the equity equation, but I don’t know exactly what their equation is. I’m not starting one myself.
I wonder if anyone has ever experimented with the incubator model for creatives? The market cap for media in the US is huge, besides tech it's one of our biggest products, and like you covered in a previous article, we should be experimenting with seed/angel investors in creative endeavors. But there's more to success in an early venture than just getting the capital, I'd even argue that the money isn't even the biggest part.
When you look at the tech startup world,investor-incubators like Y Combinator are so successful because of all of the other support they give companies to succeed, besides the money. An intensive three month program with peers, access to mentorship, a big social media brand, deals from vendors, and a ton of moral support, legal and government affairs help, access to a community of other successful founders, and more. I wonder what it would look like if there were similar programs for creatives, with the end goal being getting something published? E.g., 30 creatives each get a seed investment of ~30k, they all fly out to the same physical location for three months where there's a group of other successful creatives mentoring them and holding them accountable, they learn a bunch of tactics for focusing and doing great work, they get resources like designers, social media experts, legal, whatever, and then at the end of the 3 months they publish/release something (and maybe do a pre-sale, or early access, or get another round of funding depending on how far along they are.)
I think that was kind of the model of the Substack Fellowship, and also for the Roots of Progress fellowship. I also applied for the O'Shaughnessy Fellowship which does it too, though I didn't get in. All of these programs invest heavily in getting creatives launched, but I definitely see the advantage of something even more immersive and specific than that. For example, I would kill to have some support in expanding to video, etc. It's hard to do it all on my own. Maybe one day I'll start something like that, but I don't have the funds/bandwidth at the moment. In the meantime, I'll apply to everything I can that will provide something like that!
There seems to be some confusion regarding the `discount` - Michael J Sullivan speaks of the discount that the publisher gives the retailer, and you of the discount that the retailer gives the customer. There is a meaning disconnect on those paragraphs:
`If we look at a $28 hardcover with a 56 percent discount rate, looks what happens when they change the amount they pay the retailer from 55 percent to 56 percent`. The 55% percent discount rate is the rate that the publisher gives the retailer. But then, after this you say `by selling the book at a discount, the retailer makes more, the publisher makes way more, and the author makes way less.` Here you talk about the discount the retailers give the customers and the conclusion is not true - by selling at a discount, the retailer and the publisher loses, the author and the end customer do not. Every publisher stipulates in the contract that the royalty percentage is calculated at the full shelf price (customary in the market I work in - somewhere in the EU) - discounts to retailers or retailers discounts to customers will not affect the revenue of the author, unless is to get rid of unsold stock.
The mathematics used by the fantasy author escapes me. I can't really see how that would be possible.
After your last article about no one buys books, industry professionals came to weigh in on your arguments and numbers.
I want to see the same folks respond to this.
I remember Natalie Merchant feuding with her label. Prince, too, obviously. And I recall a story about someone reaching out to REM to ask permission to use a song lyric in their project. Michael Stipe said, Sounds good but you'll have to ask the label.
I've also heard stories of labels paying a band a quarter million dollars for their new album but then charging them for studio time to record and master it. And guess how much it just so happens to cost?
To be quite honest, I had no idea about the "real" economics of the creative issue, and I was equally ignorant of some of these disputes about contracts, other than the fact that I had heard some bit about Taylor Swift re recording her songs. I definitely do think that Substack and similar platforms provide a great alternative, but I also think that you lightly touched on such an important concept as one of the main challenges. Receiving a "traditional" book deal, seeing your book in an airport book store or a Barnes & Noble, is such as externally validating signal, for the incredibly challenging endeavor of creative work, that that validation and signalling to the exterior world may be as rewarding as the money and book deal itself. Fortunately, I am just a small, unknown writer, so these discussions are mostly academic for me.
One solution is to get a good entertainment lawyer. But the reality is that the average person (whether a postal worker, a CEO, or whatever) hates artists. Very few friends and family members are supportive (or knowledgable) of creative people. Like the industries you described, they come in when you “succeed”.
The lesson is that creativity is a dangerous undertaking, and that other creative people (themselves insecure) are often no help.
I remember once in the late 90s I went into a bar, after I had spent the whole day working on a short story. I ordered a whiskey and announced, "I need a patron!" (There were no takers.) But I remember even then thinking that it would be so nice to be supported while swimming through the mud of making something. I love the idea of a minimum wage for artists. And I love the idea of an investor! Thank you for writing this piece. I am now inspired to imagine what an artist investor ask might look like. How would we write that proposal? Here's what I'm offering....
Here's what I'm asking....
Here's the benefit....
I'm just curious about what the fill in those blanks would look like.
Doesn't it? I had a friend once just give me money. She said, "I like the way you live. It's brave and I respect your choices and I want to help you." And she wrote me a check. A fountain of joy exploded in my heart. I left and sat down in a park and cried. I could not believe it. I didn't have to ask or pitch or beg or prove myself, it was just a gift. I spent the next few months radiating joy and gratitude and hope and love. It was so powerful, not to have to justify the work I do. I think if more artists had this kind of support, the heart of the world would grow like the Grinch's. Nothing makes a creative person happier than being appreciated and supported and allowed to connect to their soul and make what they want. I really appreciate you writing this piece!
Absolutely needed and refreshing thank you! I am new in writing spaces, but as someone who was first an artist in painting and drawing, this still resonates.
Love this excellent piece. From conversations with other authors and writers the thing that intimidates them most about self publishing is handling the marketing and promotion. However from what we hear the big publishers do very little of that for new authors anyway.
It's building this community to help our stories thrive has slowed down our release of new tales. After reading this piece we feel it's a better path than trying to 'get picked' by a publisher.
Superb blog. In the UK we have consumer protection laws that render unfair contract terms null and void, primarily because of fixed terms and conditions plus imbalance of bargaining power. But they only apply to consumers contracting with businesses. Something similar needs to be considered for creative artists because they are particularly vulnerable, as we know from the (very) long history of their exploitation.
Record contracts and publishing contracts have traditionally been notoriously bad for the artists who created the art. The publishers will argue that they have to do that to make money because they lose money on so many projects. But now they are unwilling to take chances on anything or give artist time to develop. They want “proof of audience” before signing a deal, which as you stated is nothing more than a loan that the artist has to pay back before making any money. And if an artist has built a large audience themselves, why should they sign away the rights and creative control of their art for a meager percentage? That’s foolishness.
Investors is an interesting idea, but it is a long-shot bet that most investors probably would not want to make. It would require a strong belief in the artist. Which some record labels used to have. I think the future is small. Independent artists or small labels/publishers that put art first. The big publishers are broken and stagnant. Relying on formulas and past artist. That can’t last.
So disheartening. That’s why when I heard Taylor Swift fought back against her original producers who tried to wrench her ownership of early songs, recordings and outfoxed them, I was so glad . It’s not often you hear of a happy ending with creatives.
And I read that she produced the Eras Tour herself AND got the movie version made herself AND negotiated with AMC to get it into theaters. The next several decades will see her continue to do stuff like this as well help other artists succeed. Imagine if she came on here and charged two bucks a month for weekly stories about all the wild stuff she's been through. She'd have 50 million people paying her $100 million a month.
I'm grateful to have found a hybrid publisher. Seemed to be the best of both worlds. 100% owned rights, they help connect me to legit editors, cover designers, marketers, etc and help me upload to Ingram spark, Amazon, etc so I don't mess it up... and all royalties are mine (with standard deals for bookstores buying at 55% etc) Better financial deal than traditional, and more support than self publishing.
You said: "But we could create a better deal: These organizations could invest in artists rather than owning them outright." Do you have a vision for what these could be? New platforms perhaps using new models? Have you thought about starting one by attracting investors?
Yes, I think there are some visions. Aethon Books, for example, specializes in publishing self-published serials online and splitting the earnings with authors 50/50. In the traditional world, Author’s Equity is making a play at changing the equity equation, but I don’t know exactly what their equation is. I’m not starting one myself.
I wonder if anyone has ever experimented with the incubator model for creatives? The market cap for media in the US is huge, besides tech it's one of our biggest products, and like you covered in a previous article, we should be experimenting with seed/angel investors in creative endeavors. But there's more to success in an early venture than just getting the capital, I'd even argue that the money isn't even the biggest part.
When you look at the tech startup world,investor-incubators like Y Combinator are so successful because of all of the other support they give companies to succeed, besides the money. An intensive three month program with peers, access to mentorship, a big social media brand, deals from vendors, and a ton of moral support, legal and government affairs help, access to a community of other successful founders, and more. I wonder what it would look like if there were similar programs for creatives, with the end goal being getting something published? E.g., 30 creatives each get a seed investment of ~30k, they all fly out to the same physical location for three months where there's a group of other successful creatives mentoring them and holding them accountable, they learn a bunch of tactics for focusing and doing great work, they get resources like designers, social media experts, legal, whatever, and then at the end of the 3 months they publish/release something (and maybe do a pre-sale, or early access, or get another round of funding depending on how far along they are.)
I think that was kind of the model of the Substack Fellowship, and also for the Roots of Progress fellowship. I also applied for the O'Shaughnessy Fellowship which does it too, though I didn't get in. All of these programs invest heavily in getting creatives launched, but I definitely see the advantage of something even more immersive and specific than that. For example, I would kill to have some support in expanding to video, etc. It's hard to do it all on my own. Maybe one day I'll start something like that, but I don't have the funds/bandwidth at the moment. In the meantime, I'll apply to everything I can that will provide something like that!
There seems to be some confusion regarding the `discount` - Michael J Sullivan speaks of the discount that the publisher gives the retailer, and you of the discount that the retailer gives the customer. There is a meaning disconnect on those paragraphs:
`If we look at a $28 hardcover with a 56 percent discount rate, looks what happens when they change the amount they pay the retailer from 55 percent to 56 percent`. The 55% percent discount rate is the rate that the publisher gives the retailer. But then, after this you say `by selling the book at a discount, the retailer makes more, the publisher makes way more, and the author makes way less.` Here you talk about the discount the retailers give the customers and the conclusion is not true - by selling at a discount, the retailer and the publisher loses, the author and the end customer do not. Every publisher stipulates in the contract that the royalty percentage is calculated at the full shelf price (customary in the market I work in - somewhere in the EU) - discounts to retailers or retailers discounts to customers will not affect the revenue of the author, unless is to get rid of unsold stock.
The mathematics used by the fantasy author escapes me. I can't really see how that would be possible.
After your last article about no one buys books, industry professionals came to weigh in on your arguments and numbers.
I want to see the same folks respond to this.
I remember Natalie Merchant feuding with her label. Prince, too, obviously. And I recall a story about someone reaching out to REM to ask permission to use a song lyric in their project. Michael Stipe said, Sounds good but you'll have to ask the label.
I've also heard stories of labels paying a band a quarter million dollars for their new album but then charging them for studio time to record and master it. And guess how much it just so happens to cost?
To be quite honest, I had no idea about the "real" economics of the creative issue, and I was equally ignorant of some of these disputes about contracts, other than the fact that I had heard some bit about Taylor Swift re recording her songs. I definitely do think that Substack and similar platforms provide a great alternative, but I also think that you lightly touched on such an important concept as one of the main challenges. Receiving a "traditional" book deal, seeing your book in an airport book store or a Barnes & Noble, is such as externally validating signal, for the incredibly challenging endeavor of creative work, that that validation and signalling to the exterior world may be as rewarding as the money and book deal itself. Fortunately, I am just a small, unknown writer, so these discussions are mostly academic for me.
Goo choice!
One solution is to get a good entertainment lawyer. But the reality is that the average person (whether a postal worker, a CEO, or whatever) hates artists. Very few friends and family members are supportive (or knowledgable) of creative people. Like the industries you described, they come in when you “succeed”.
The lesson is that creativity is a dangerous undertaking, and that other creative people (themselves insecure) are often no help.
I work better under pressure, so the contract would be awesome. :)
I remember once in the late 90s I went into a bar, after I had spent the whole day working on a short story. I ordered a whiskey and announced, "I need a patron!" (There were no takers.) But I remember even then thinking that it would be so nice to be supported while swimming through the mud of making something. I love the idea of a minimum wage for artists. And I love the idea of an investor! Thank you for writing this piece. I am now inspired to imagine what an artist investor ask might look like. How would we write that proposal? Here's what I'm offering....
Here's what I'm asking....
Here's the benefit....
I'm just curious about what the fill in those blanks would look like.
Great post!!
Personally, I would love to be an art investor one day. Sounds fun!
Doesn't it? I had a friend once just give me money. She said, "I like the way you live. It's brave and I respect your choices and I want to help you." And she wrote me a check. A fountain of joy exploded in my heart. I left and sat down in a park and cried. I could not believe it. I didn't have to ask or pitch or beg or prove myself, it was just a gift. I spent the next few months radiating joy and gratitude and hope and love. It was so powerful, not to have to justify the work I do. I think if more artists had this kind of support, the heart of the world would grow like the Grinch's. Nothing makes a creative person happier than being appreciated and supported and allowed to connect to their soul and make what they want. I really appreciate you writing this piece!
Absolutely needed and refreshing thank you! I am new in writing spaces, but as someone who was first an artist in painting and drawing, this still resonates.
Love this excellent piece. From conversations with other authors and writers the thing that intimidates them most about self publishing is handling the marketing and promotion. However from what we hear the big publishers do very little of that for new authors anyway.
It's building this community to help our stories thrive has slowed down our release of new tales. After reading this piece we feel it's a better path than trying to 'get picked' by a publisher.
Exactly!
Superb blog. In the UK we have consumer protection laws that render unfair contract terms null and void, primarily because of fixed terms and conditions plus imbalance of bargaining power. But they only apply to consumers contracting with businesses. Something similar needs to be considered for creative artists because they are particularly vulnerable, as we know from the (very) long history of their exploitation.
Record contracts and publishing contracts have traditionally been notoriously bad for the artists who created the art. The publishers will argue that they have to do that to make money because they lose money on so many projects. But now they are unwilling to take chances on anything or give artist time to develop. They want “proof of audience” before signing a deal, which as you stated is nothing more than a loan that the artist has to pay back before making any money. And if an artist has built a large audience themselves, why should they sign away the rights and creative control of their art for a meager percentage? That’s foolishness.
Investors is an interesting idea, but it is a long-shot bet that most investors probably would not want to make. It would require a strong belief in the artist. Which some record labels used to have. I think the future is small. Independent artists or small labels/publishers that put art first. The big publishers are broken and stagnant. Relying on formulas and past artist. That can’t last.
I love the idea of the future being small.
So disheartening. That’s why when I heard Taylor Swift fought back against her original producers who tried to wrench her ownership of early songs, recordings and outfoxed them, I was so glad . It’s not often you hear of a happy ending with creatives.
She's killing it.
And I read that she produced the Eras Tour herself AND got the movie version made herself AND negotiated with AMC to get it into theaters. The next several decades will see her continue to do stuff like this as well help other artists succeed. Imagine if she came on here and charged two bucks a month for weekly stories about all the wild stuff she's been through. She'd have 50 million people paying her $100 million a month.
Let’s all do more than talk about the problems let’s work together to fix them. Donate Today.
I'm grateful to have found a hybrid publisher. Seemed to be the best of both worlds. 100% owned rights, they help connect me to legit editors, cover designers, marketers, etc and help me upload to Ingram spark, Amazon, etc so I don't mess it up... and all royalties are mine (with standard deals for bookstores buying at 55% etc) Better financial deal than traditional, and more support than self publishing.