When is an epublisher not an epublisher--veinglory

Teresa Wayne started Mardi Gras which closed in a cloud of enmity and non-payment. Then she started LA Media which promptly went underground. The publisher has no website per se although Teresa is still using the domain as her own site. However LA Media still exists to the extent that it is the correct publisher of record for those few new books and listed as a publisher of these books at fictionwise.

Now some books previously sold by Mardi Gras are now listed on Barnes and Noble with LA Media as the publisher (e.g. Premonitions). This has lead to a rumor that these books are being sold or will be re-released by LA Media, when neither Mardi Gras nor LA Media has the rights to them any more. For what it is worth I don't see it. The listings are all for 'out of stock' books and the books are not for sale. I am thinking that Teresa changed her profile's publisher name and this automatically changed the vestigial listings of these books. She needs to correct this immediately.

I certainly understand not giving Teresa much benefit of the doubt. But at the same time I think authors should understand that if a book has every been listed, that old listing tends to stay up on distributor and review sites indefinitely. This is for archival purposes and to allow vendors to list and sell used copies at places like Amazon. There is an old saying that you should never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity. I would add that you can't even blame human stupidity when an automatic computer process is the likely culprit.

Now I don't think even expired books that were once with Mardi Gras should be listed with LA Media as the publisher--that should be changed. But I don't think this is part of a great malicious plan to sell books that are no longer contracted to Teresa at either press. Of course if she really is up to something like that, boy will I look dumb. But I really doubt it so now I am going with the simplest explanation of simple carelessness.

UDATE FROM TERESA AT KAREN'S BLOG: "ALL Mardi Gras Publishing books have been listed as out of print with Bowkers. L.A. Media has aquired the remaining un-used numbers. Unfortunately, Bowkers does not allow to bust up a log. So all numbers were switched in ownership, although, NO books are being sold out of contract."

Auntie Emily’s Guide to Compassionate Complaining

The recent troubles at Silk’s Vault and Mardi Gras have brought back the issue of author complaints: 1) should you ever make them and 2) if so when. My suggestions would be:

1) Yes. This is on the simple basis that publishers’ interests and writers’ interests are somewhat the same and somewhat different. We have duties to both but in some cases out duty to our fellow writers is greater than to a publisher—especially if the publisher is incompetent or dishonest.

2a) True and Unusual Gripes
If a publisher does something you find unhelpful I don’t think it hurts to mention it to your peers on a purely factual basis even if it is a fairly minor point. It is probably wise to raise it with your editor or the publisher directly by email first to give them a chance to justify or correct the issue. There may in fact be a good reason for it that is to the writer’s benefit. But if they don’t respond well (especially if they a defensive, abusive or utterly unresponsive) IMHO the matter than is up for discussion unless there really is a compelling reason for it to be considered secret. If the press thinks the practise is acceptable and you still don’t, wider discussion in the industry is probably warranted.

Even minor issues can be discussed in appropriate forums so long as they are clearly matters of fact approached by a person with sincere and dispassionate interest in making their books a great success for themselves and the publisher. Often this is the quickest way to discover whether your complaint is in any way legit, significant and widely condemned. It may also lead to the press actually making changes to better serve their writers. Those that don’t ask, don’t get!

However if this practise, no matter how unhelpful, is very widespread in the industry then there is less of case for mentioning one specific press that is ‘guilty’ of it. In fact, it would be more helpful to point out the examples of otherwise equivalent or superior presses not perpetuating that particular nuisance. In this category might be charging for POD, calculating royalties on net, not having effective payment methods for foreign writers, not creating stable editor-writer collaborations and terrible cover art.

2b) Substantial and Persistent Problems
Another clear case is when there is a really serious problem, and repeated direct attempts to seek a solution have been unsuccessful. There is that sinking moment when you realise that the press is unlikely to rectify the situation and probably isn’t even trying. Bridges are burning in the rear view mirror. Being quiet and polite hasn’t done you a blind bit of good and leaves other authors submitting to the press unawares. In this category would be severely incompetent editing, non-payment of royalties, inaccurate reporting of sales, severely inappropriate conduct such as threats and deliberate spreading of damaging and inaccurate rumors about the author (when the author has not indulged in any such tantrums themselves). At this point a specific publisher really should be publicly named as a service to one’s peers and to set the record straight. If you are still in doubt, email a few other authors with that same press, severe problems are almost never isolated to one author.

My final point is that complaints should always be factual, with a minimum of emotion and a maximum of documentation. It pays to keep all contracts, unedited manuscripts, royalty reports, sales information from other sources, and all emails (although email should be considered private except in extraordinary cases it can be useful to document to the senior staff at the publisher just how long your were ignored and any contradictory information or abusive conduct from their staff). If in doubt, keep a record. If you don’t want to complain publicly this evidence can be forwarded to agencies like Writer Beware who will handle them in confidence and give greatest weight and credence to solid proof, over unsupported accusations.

Finally, do keep an eye out for things your publishers do well, especially things they do that other presses don’t. Failings should not be kept conspiratorially secret but presses should also get public credit whenever they do that little bit more for their authors—especially when they do things that are good for their authors and not entirely a matter of self interest. In this category might be: providing concrete marketing advice, giving prompt and detailed statement, having flexible payment methods, having a flexible house style that accommodates the author’s style, allowing cross-publisher promotions on their lists and forums and, of course, having high sales. If you have an editor, cover artist or other professional you particularly enjoy working with, let them know! If most of what you say is positive, then any complaints you make will carry more weight.

The bottom line is that authors talking about e-publishers should be a good thing because e-publisher should be a good thing. Good presses should see their achievements being praised, and so encourage this kind of free promotion. Indifferent presses should see their practises scrutinised and have every opportunity to address any accidental oversights or gaps in their expertise—and bad presses should have their abuses exposed. Only by this process will industry practises develop and improve over time and e-publishing become something we can all be proud of.

Smoke, Meet Fire

It appears that Mardi Gras may not be with us very much longer with talk of complete loss of communication and perhaps bankruptcy. PLEASE NOTE: authors are requesting that nobody should buy their Mardi Gras books in the interim as they are not receiving payment for these sales.

This inevitably brings up sweeping statements about the nature of e-publishing in general. My first reaction is that one or even a dozen failing companies should not reflect on the format. After all there is absolutely no shortage of amateur and exploitative print publishers and this doesn't make people turn up their noses at everyone trying to sell paperbacks.

However, I must admit that e-books are new and many people do not really distinguish between presses. One bad book quickly leads readers to make sweeping statements about the quality of ebooks per se. One bad company leads to similar statement about the worth of submitting to epresses at all. At this early stage of e-publishing many commentators tend to lump everyone together, when almost nobody would mention PublishAmerica in the same breath as Harlequin or Baen.

But what can be done about it? Nothing. E-publishers are easy to start and hard to make viable, and harder to make truly profitable for the owners let alone their authors. Readers who read e-books quickly find which presses make a good product. And readers who don't use e-books--well what relevance do their opinions have? Many will eventually convert to the e-book product but developing a sense of discrimination is part and parcel of that process just like consuming any product produced on the open market. The world is full of bad books, bad publishers, bad coffee, slow racehorses, ugly dresses and every other kind of disappointment. But all you need to do to separate good from bad, is know the difference between the two--there is simply no substitute for good judgement and good taste.

Perhaps this is all a little laissez faire but in the end little can be done to stop people writing terrible books or publishers not paying their writers. Both the reader and the writer must exercise judgement. Smoke has been hovering over Mardi Gras for some time and now it seems the party is over. They are not the first and will not be the last. But other presses were there before them and will be there after them. Other presses not only write checks on time but put larger numbers on them.

Let the writer beware... and if you make a mistake move on and learn from it. There are some great, honest e-publishers and print publishers out there actively looking for new authors. Nor is honesty in business practices necessarily enough of a reason to submit. If you want a book to be read and to earn money there choices in epublishing are in fact very limited--I wouldn't think more than ten will reliably hit $1000 on a single title within two years. Time to start aiming higher?

Edited to add: apparently release of contracts and declaration of bankruptcy is imminent.

Publishers Behaving Badly

Complaints are emerging about Silk’s Vault, their accounting practices and delayed or missing royalty payments. In replies I see Mardi Gras is also mentioned as a ‘publisher behaving badly’. I would be interesting in hearing more about Silk’s Vault and remind you that Mardi Gras, along with ABCD Webmasters (which has several imprints) and Ocean’s Mist are also not recommended at this time. I have concerns and would like to hear more about Sybaritic Press and Genesis Press and will probably add them to the not recommended list soon. Several others have received mixed reports and more input would be appreciated. At this time I do not approach publishers before listing or changing their listing status but if they wish to contact me to provide counter-evidence, context or information relevant to any complaints made I am very open to this.

‘She said/she said’ situations (clearly evident at sites like Piers Anthony) provide only a general indication of friction, what is more useful are factual statements about publisher behavior—especially relating to accounting and payments but including any professional duty. Suspicions about sales figures are common; it is easy to assume one should be selling better but the facts are that sales at poor publisher are poor, no matter who you are. However, empirical inconsistencies between fictionwise and publisher sales reporting is rock solid and irrefutable proof of shoddy accounting at the very least.

‘Not Recommended’ status is currently purely a judgement on my part based on a preponderance of evidence with an emphasis on reports that are public, or private and confidential but specific, substantial and not anonymous. I would also draw to your attention that comments may also be made to this blog anonymously. At this point the mandate of the blog to allow authors to share information supports communication even at the risk that this may sometimes allow personal attacks or unsupported rumors. I credit authors with the ability to treat isolated, spiteful or unreasonable accusations skeptically. There are already many influences out there that lead to silence on the down side of e-publishing and I hope to provide some balance to information authors and prospective authors have to draw upon.

So, if you have had a bad experience with an e-publisher please do let me know—or at least cc me what you send to Piers ;)

Updates

[AVOID]

You may, like me, have received an email that begins: "Dear Writer, Canadian Aid Charity invites you to participate in the 2007 ANNUAL CANADIAN AID LITERARY AWARD CONTEST."

Here is some commentary from some respectable sources:

"Is something fishy going on? I have no idea. But the raffle information is worded to encourage people to assume that Canadian Aid Charity and BookLand Press have no connection other than their cooperation in this fundraising venture--and to my mind, that's deceptive." Victoria Strauss

"Charges fee. Conflict of interest. Not recommended." Preditors and Editors

---

[GRAND OPENING]

Total-e-bound: July 2nd.

---

[LIVEJOURNAL]

The great 'strikethrough' event is still not properly resolved.

---

[S&S]

Simon & Schuster have backed down on their rights grab and agreed a sales threshold below which a book would be considered out of print. They blame the kerfuffle on a "miscommunication"--yeah, right.

---

[MARDI GRAS]

Mardi Gras have recently amended their terms to allow unspecified publisher costs to be deducted from the author's royalties [bold added]: "We pay quarterly royalties of 40% on ebooks on retail sales from those sales originating from our web site, minus costs. We pay 15% royalties on retail sales minus distribution costs for those sales which originate from various distribution channels we utilize."

I continue to be interested in hearing author's experiences with this house. I have received reports from three authors of negative experiences of various kinds.