EREC
Friday, July 13, 2007
Attempting a List of Dropped Publishers
Re: publishers no long qualifying for "official publisher participation" at RWA cons [proxy recognition]. If you have news, please share.
* Ellora's Cave (from Jane, Dearauthor.com, unofficial, and I am only guessing what this terse message means?--also see here)
* Samhain (from Angela, Samhain, posted here unofficial in that it is not confirmed by RWA)
* June Editor Paula Juran suggests that St. Martin's would not qualify.
There are various rumours about the 'vanity' definition and whether it will be applied as literally described. The $1000 advance requirement, however, seems firm. Quite coincidentally ebooks tend to earn only through royalties. Of course I would like to hear whether this is affecting formerly recognised print presses that pay lower advances than this.
Here, for reference, is the list of recognised publishers:
Avalon Books
Avon Books
Baker Book House
Ballantine/Ivy
Bantam Dell Publishing Group
Barbour Publishing, Inc. & Heartsong Pocket Books
BelleBooks [?]
Berkley/Jove
Bethany House
Brilliance Audio
Broadman & Holman
Cook Communications Ministries
Crossings Book Club
Dorchester Publishing
Ellora's Cave [?]
Grand Central Publishing (formerly Warner Books)
Granite Publishing
Harlequin Enterprises
HarperCollins/HarperCollins Children's Books
Harvest House
Hodder Headline Publishing Group
Howard Publishing
Hyperion Books for Children
Kensington Publishing Corp.
Kregel Publications
Llewellyn Worldwide
Loose Id, LLC
Loveland Press
Macmillan
Medallion Press
Multnomah Publishers (Random House)
New American Library (NAL)
Premium Press America
Red Sage Publishing
Revell
Samhain Publishing [?]
Severn House
Sourcebooks, Inc.
St. Martin's Press [?]
Thomas Nelson
Tor/Forge
Triskelion Publishing
Tyndale House Publishers
Virgin Books Ltd.
Zondervan
p.s. on the issue of: "After extensive discussion, the Board decided not to add an erotic romance category to the contests due in part to the inherently indefinable nature of erotic romance."
It's a romance with sex scenes. Love + HEA + fornication. Now was that so hard?
This post at AbsoulteWrite is gold.
Re: publishers no long qualifying for "official publisher participation" at RWA cons [proxy recognition]. If you have news, please share.
* Ellora's Cave (from Jane, Dearauthor.com, unofficial, and I am only guessing what this terse message means?--also see here)
* Samhain (from Angela, Samhain, posted here unofficial in that it is not confirmed by RWA)
* June Editor Paula Juran suggests that St. Martin's would not qualify.
There are various rumours about the 'vanity' definition and whether it will be applied as literally described. The $1000 advance requirement, however, seems firm. Quite coincidentally ebooks tend to earn only through royalties. Of course I would like to hear whether this is affecting formerly recognised print presses that pay lower advances than this.
Here, for reference, is the list of recognised publishers:
Avalon Books
Avon Books
Baker Book House
Ballantine/Ivy
Bantam Dell Publishing Group
Barbour Publishing, Inc. & Heartsong Pocket Books
BelleBooks [?]
Berkley/Jove
Bethany House
Brilliance Audio
Broadman & Holman
Cook Communications Ministries
Crossings Book Club
Dorchester Publishing
Ellora's Cave [?]
Grand Central Publishing (formerly Warner Books)
Granite Publishing
Harlequin Enterprises
HarperCollins/HarperCollins Children's Books
Harvest House
Hodder Headline Publishing Group
Howard Publishing
Hyperion Books for Children
Kensington Publishing Corp.
Kregel Publications
Llewellyn Worldwide
Loose Id, LLC
Loveland Press
Macmillan
Medallion Press
Multnomah Publishers (Random House)
New American Library (NAL)
Premium Press America
Red Sage Publishing
Revell
Samhain Publishing [?]
Severn House
Sourcebooks, Inc.
St. Martin's Press [?]
Thomas Nelson
Tor/Forge
Triskelion Publishing
Tyndale House Publishers
Virgin Books Ltd.
Zondervan
p.s. on the issue of: "After extensive discussion, the Board decided not to add an erotic romance category to the contests due in part to the inherently indefinable nature of erotic romance."
It's a romance with sex scenes. Love + HEA + fornication. Now was that so hard?
This post at AbsoulteWrite is gold.
Labels: Ellora's Cave, RWA, Samhain
¶ posted at 3:11 PM by Emily Veinglory 3 Comments
Saturday, June 23, 2007
RWA legal advice re Triskelion
Dear Author has put up a copy of RWA's legal advice to the authors caught up in the Triskelion bankruptcy.
http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2007/06/23/triskelion-update-rwa-responds-to-triskelion-closing/
http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2007/06/23/triskelion-update-rwa-responds-to-triskelion-closing/
Labels: bankruptcy, RWA, Triskelion
¶ posted at 4:25 PM by Jules Jones 1 Comments
Friday, May 25, 2007
Tinker, tinker, tinker, poke, poke, poke -- goes the RWA
GLOSSARY:
RWA - Romance Writers of America
RWR - Romance Writers' Report
PAN - Published Authors' Network
"Our proposal: Rather than having all members who write for particular publishers automatically become PAN-eligible, we are proposing that authors who can prove they have earned $2000.00 - in advance, in royalties, or a combination of the two - on one romance novel from any non-vanity, non-subsidy publisher shall be PAN-eligible."
So a piece in the latest RWR is apparently suggesting (not yet clear that this is fate accomplis) that ebook writers should prove they made $2000 from one title or lose PAN status. Currently you need only write for a recognised publisher but as soon as four epublishers made that list things started getting very busy in the back rooms, hmmm? Some "fair" (i.e. offset press-centric) changes in the wind, again.
Many ebook writers have made that, heck, make it every year. But it is the nature of the beast that this money is often made across several titles often at novella lengths (or one title over a pretty extended period). Ergo, new ebook writers will be disadvantaged, offset writers that haven't typed a word since the eighties will be fine. Perhaps a counter proposal would be that every PAN member would have to demonstrated they made $2000 from writing every year.
If you are going to stir, what is bad for the goose...
If the whole goal is to not endorse publishers that mostly pay peanuts this seems upside down. They should (if the must) change recognition and leave PAN alone.
For specific writers' comments see: Shades of Suspense : Creating Trouble in Paradise
RWA - Romance Writers of America
RWR - Romance Writers' Report
PAN - Published Authors' Network
"Our proposal: Rather than having all members who write for particular publishers automatically become PAN-eligible, we are proposing that authors who can prove they have earned $2000.00 - in advance, in royalties, or a combination of the two - on one romance novel from any non-vanity, non-subsidy publisher shall be PAN-eligible."
So a piece in the latest RWR is apparently suggesting (not yet clear that this is fate accomplis) that ebook writers should prove they made $2000 from one title or lose PAN status. Currently you need only write for a recognised publisher but as soon as four epublishers made that list things started getting very busy in the back rooms, hmmm? Some "fair" (i.e. offset press-centric) changes in the wind, again.
Many ebook writers have made that, heck, make it every year. But it is the nature of the beast that this money is often made across several titles often at novella lengths (or one title over a pretty extended period). Ergo, new ebook writers will be disadvantaged, offset writers that haven't typed a word since the eighties will be fine. Perhaps a counter proposal would be that every PAN member would have to demonstrated they made $2000 from writing every year.
If you are going to stir, what is bad for the goose...
If the whole goal is to not endorse publishers that mostly pay peanuts this seems upside down. They should (if the must) change recognition and leave PAN alone.
For specific writers' comments see: Shades of Suspense : Creating Trouble in Paradise
Labels: RWA
¶ posted at 3:44 PM by Emily Veinglory 2 Comments
Saturday, March 24, 2007
RWA, DearAuthor.com and THE AWARD THAT SHALL NOT BE NAMED
Dear Author is far from the only blog to pass comment on how the RWA gives out book awards based entirely on "peer"-judging rather than anything to do with readers, often leading to.... interesting choices. Some authors are also given to scolding readers who (not coincidentally) tend to not know about said award, or not give a toss about it. But apparently naming the award in a negative way and showing a picture of it can get one seriously told off (Bad Blogger, no cookie!). As you can now see in Dear Author's adjusted right column space where THE AWARD THAT SHALL NOT BE NAMED is no no longer named. When it comes to the RWA, I'm still not feeling the love.
edited 24 March to add: DA tells more here.
Dear Author is far from the only blog to pass comment on how the RWA gives out book awards based entirely on "peer"-judging rather than anything to do with readers, often leading to.... interesting choices. Some authors are also given to scolding readers who (not coincidentally) tend to not know about said award, or not give a toss about it. But apparently naming the award in a negative way and showing a picture of it can get one seriously told off (Bad Blogger, no cookie!). As you can now see in Dear Author's adjusted right column space where THE AWARD THAT SHALL NOT BE NAMED is no no longer named. When it comes to the RWA, I'm still not feeling the love.edited 24 March to add: DA tells more here.
Labels: RWA, THE AWARD THAT SHALL NOT BE NAMED
¶ posted at 12:56 PM by Emily Veinglory 2 Comments
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
[NEWS] FROM THE RWA: Information regarding Publisher Recognition
FROM RWAalert. Permission to forward is granted.
RWA standards for publisher recognition determine which publishers will be allowed to attend RWA's annual conference and listed in RWA's Market Update to solicit works written by RWA members. Unfortunately, the standard has been construed as a "stamp of approval" by RWA. That was never the purpose in setting the standard.
A publisher's recognition by RWA is not a guarantee of an author's publishing success. RWA's standards merely indicate that the publisher pays royalties, is not a subsidy or vanity press, has been in business a minimum length of time (1 year) and has sold a minimum number of copies of one romance title (1500 hardcover or trade paperback or 5,000 in any other format). Each author must evaluate the company, carefully read the individual publisher's contract and decide if they are willing to accept the conditions put forth in the contract.* (Please read Trish Milburn's informative article which begins on page 30 in the February 2007 issue of the RWR.)
RWA standards are something the Board must review regularly because of the ever-changing industry. Over the years, RWA has received complaints about the inequities of current standards but also many complaints against the business practices of small presses. In order to learn more about current publishing practices, two Board Members, Diane Pershing and Nicole Burnham, and Executive Director Allison Kelley attended a conference sponsored by Book Industry Study Group in March 2006. (This was reported on page 37 in the July 2006 RWR.) In light of information gained from the BISG conference and input from RWA members, a task force was appointed at the July 2006 board meeting. The motion stated:
Motion regarding a Publisher Recognition Task Force:Kelly moved and Grant seconded that a task force be formed to analyze RWA's publisher recognition standards and procedures in light of current industry practices.
Rationale: Publisher recognition procedures need to be examined to see if they are: (a) aligned definitionally with industry standards**, and (b) procedurally efficient and enforceable.
The motion was unanimously adopted by general consent. The task force has received input from literary attorneys, other writers groups, the Small Press Center, PMA--The Independent Book Publishers Association, authors and owners of small presses. A report was delivered to the board at the March 2007 board meeting. The Board is still looking into the issue and will continue to discuss it at the July Board meeting so nothing has been decided yet.
The fact that RWA is reviewing the standards has been reported to members repeatedly in the RWR, Hot Sheets, and minutes which are posted on RWA's website. As always, members are welcome to come to Board meeting and listen to the Board's discussions. Board meeting will be held at the conference hotel July 8 and 9. Members who wish to contact a member of the Board can find contact info in every issue of the RWR.
The RWA Board
* italics added by me. On this point I am strongly in agreement with the RWA. Their recognition and its firm connection to sales figures for top sellers is a valuable service that they provide to all writers--members and non-members alike. But writers have to also do their own research. No short cuts, no excuses. But given this assertion why do they go on to mention the business practises of (specifically) small presses as a reason for re-evaluating recognition criteria?
** I give the RWA their due, but the fears of ebook authors that being "aligned definitionally" may be an experience akin to defenestration is not entirely irrational given RWA's history. This explanation is vague to the point of coyness about just what "industry standards" the current criterion might not be aligning with (and whose industry, exactly). Those who put 'rocking the boat' on the agenda shouldn't be surprised by the consternation of the passengers.
FROM RWAalert. Permission to forward is granted.
RWA standards for publisher recognition determine which publishers will be allowed to attend RWA's annual conference and listed in RWA's Market Update to solicit works written by RWA members. Unfortunately, the standard has been construed as a "stamp of approval" by RWA. That was never the purpose in setting the standard.
A publisher's recognition by RWA is not a guarantee of an author's publishing success. RWA's standards merely indicate that the publisher pays royalties, is not a subsidy or vanity press, has been in business a minimum length of time (1 year) and has sold a minimum number of copies of one romance title (1500 hardcover or trade paperback or 5,000 in any other format). Each author must evaluate the company, carefully read the individual publisher's contract and decide if they are willing to accept the conditions put forth in the contract.* (Please read Trish Milburn's informative article which begins on page 30 in the February 2007 issue of the RWR.)
RWA standards are something the Board must review regularly because of the ever-changing industry. Over the years, RWA has received complaints about the inequities of current standards but also many complaints against the business practices of small presses. In order to learn more about current publishing practices, two Board Members, Diane Pershing and Nicole Burnham, and Executive Director Allison Kelley attended a conference sponsored by Book Industry Study Group in March 2006. (This was reported on page 37 in the July 2006 RWR.) In light of information gained from the BISG conference and input from RWA members, a task force was appointed at the July 2006 board meeting. The motion stated:
Motion regarding a Publisher Recognition Task Force:Kelly moved and Grant seconded that a task force be formed to analyze RWA's publisher recognition standards and procedures in light of current industry practices.
Rationale: Publisher recognition procedures need to be examined to see if they are: (a) aligned definitionally with industry standards**, and (b) procedurally efficient and enforceable.
The motion was unanimously adopted by general consent. The task force has received input from literary attorneys, other writers groups, the Small Press Center, PMA--The Independent Book Publishers Association, authors and owners of small presses. A report was delivered to the board at the March 2007 board meeting. The Board is still looking into the issue and will continue to discuss it at the July Board meeting so nothing has been decided yet.
The fact that RWA is reviewing the standards has been reported to members repeatedly in the RWR, Hot Sheets, and minutes which are posted on RWA's website. As always, members are welcome to come to Board meeting and listen to the Board's discussions. Board meeting will be held at the conference hotel July 8 and 9. Members who wish to contact a member of the Board can find contact info in every issue of the RWR.
The RWA Board
* italics added by me. On this point I am strongly in agreement with the RWA. Their recognition and its firm connection to sales figures for top sellers is a valuable service that they provide to all writers--members and non-members alike. But writers have to also do their own research. No short cuts, no excuses. But given this assertion why do they go on to mention the business practises of (specifically) small presses as a reason for re-evaluating recognition criteria?
** I give the RWA their due, but the fears of ebook authors that being "aligned definitionally" may be an experience akin to defenestration is not entirely irrational given RWA's history. This explanation is vague to the point of coyness about just what "industry standards" the current criterion might not be aligning with (and whose industry, exactly). Those who put 'rocking the boat' on the agenda shouldn't be surprised by the consternation of the passengers.
Labels: RWA, RWA recognition
¶ posted at 10:19 AM by Emily Veinglory 1 Comments
Thursday, March 15, 2007
[NEWS] Samhain RWA recognized
This just in, add Samhain to the ranks of RWA recognized romance epublishers. :)
[March 17] Apparently RWA are now going to "review" the conditions for recognition. Quell surprise. ¶ posted at 5:06 PM by Emily Veinglory 2 Comments
[March 17] Apparently RWA are now going to "review" the conditions for recognition. Quell surprise. ¶ posted at 5:06 PM by Emily Veinglory 2 Comments
