There's a bit of a row going on at the moment of the arcane variety that only authors (and their publishers) can truly appreciate. Not necessarily understand - that might take some accountants, but it's the kind of thing that happens/is happening in publishing that drives everyone involved a bit mad.
Facts: In March, 2010, Wiley and Bloomberg announced a new line, "Bloomberg Press, a Wiley imprint," naming Wiley as the new global publisher and distributor of Bloomberg's books.
We've been Wiley authors for 15 years so have some appreciation for the power of the brand (disclosure: we know and respect a lot of people at Wiley, some of whom are very old friends). Of course, like all authors, we've had our share of complaints but what author can really gripe about receiving regular royalties on a book with multiple translations that came out ten years ago (Virtual Teams)? Wiley is a very reputable house that's managed to weather the downturn in publishing better than most if not all. Search the stock price and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Now for the dust-up. Some weeks ago Wiley sent a letter to Bloomberg authors explaining the way in which royalty calculations would be done going forward, a change for about 20% of the authors, according to Wiley's press release issued after The Authors Guild took issue with the new arrangement.
To excavate the depth of the disagreement, please read the material from both sides. In brief, there are two principal ways in which royalties, the money paid out to authors, are calculated: 1. on the basis of list price (the price that you see discounted at say, Amazon - here's ours for Virtual Teams (a 35% discount off list); and 2. on the basis of "net proceeds," meaning whatever the publisher receives after everyone in the supply chain takes their cuts. Royalty percentages vary depending on which method is used to calculate royalties -- lower for list (because it's a larger amount); higher for net proceeds (because it's smaller). We have a net proceeds agreement for Virtual Teams and a list price agreement for The TeamNet Factor. Apparently, all Bloomberg authors are being shifted to the net proceeds agreement.
Or, I should say, we would have that agreement if our books were still in regular distribution, which brings us to the next thing that The Authors Guild has pointed out. Like so many other authors whose books still sell in sufficient quantities for publishers to want to keep them on their lists, both of these books of ours are only available now as print-on-demand, POD in the lingo, meaning the publisher doesn't maintain inventory but prints individual copies as they're ordered, likely a somewhat expensive process for the publisher (I don't know the figures at all), which drives the price up (Virtual Teams listed at $29.95 when it first came out in regular distribution; POD lists for $52.50).
Royalty agreements for POD are quite low, which means although the list price is much higher, the percentage for each book sold is low. For the author, this means that fewer books are sold (because market resistance is greater at higher prices) and those that are sold generate a smaller payout. In our case, we're just lucky that Virtual Teams is still in demand. Not true for most authors.
In the case of the Bloomberg authors that The Authors Guild is concerned about, a number (I don't have a precise figure but maybe Authors Guild does and certainly Wiley knows) DID NOT HAVE POD AGREEMENTS in their original contracts. Thus, ex post facto, Wiley is adding contract terms without negotiation. While Wiley may be absolutely right that this will in most cases generate better payouts to authors, the process seems less than ideal.
Blockbuster author Scott Turow is concerned enough that he issued a very quotable statement ("Wiley should knock it off and do the right thing") and I've received a number of emails about this from author organizations that I belong to and from other friends.
I encourage my friends at Wiley to work this through as quickly as possible, sitting down (virtually of course) with each of the affected authors, then making as transparent a statement as possible to the public. The number of authors impacted is very small but the effect on Wiley's reputation could be outsized in proportion.
