David Hendley on fri 11 jan 02
Re: Lark Books' Call for Slides: 500 Bowls
I have been thinking about this while working for the last 2 days,
and, frankly, am really tired of hearing about how publishing
is not a high-profit business.
As if being a potter is.
(Note to new Clayart readers): My low level of tolerance is left
over from the last time this issue was intensely discussed, less
than one year ago.
Artists who grant permission to publish their materials should
get more than a chance to buy a book at a reduced price. They
should be paid.
I'm sure the publishers pay their printers, paper companies,
designers, editorial staffs, secretaries, truck drivers, shipping clerks,
landlords, utility companies, local taxing authorities, and so on.
Yet they don't feel the need to pay the people who provide them
with the only real product that will motivate people to buy a book
so they can pay the secretaries, clerks, etc.
This is a pretty amazing situation.
This would be like the movie production company for "Men in
Black" paying all the drivers, lighting personnel, riggers, etc., but
not paying Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith.
(Watch for MIB II this summer).
It wouldn't take much to pay for such material. Let's take the "500
What Will People Pay To See" series, since, at 500 photos, it has
more photos than most books.
Let's pay $25 for each photo used. This is the rate that Ceramics
Monthly pays for use of a photo in the magazine.
$25 times 500 photos equals $12,500, divided by 10,000 copies of
the book, equals $1.25.
It would only cost $1.25 per book to pay the artists for their work!
If the book went into a second printing it would not cost any more!
$1.25 wholesale increases to $2.50 retail. Pretty insignificant.
So the book sells for $32.50 instead of $29.95, hardly enough to
deter interested buyers.
In fact, the book would end up being better because it would
include submissions from artists who, while they like to show
off their work, refuse to give it away.
So, to each their own. If you want to pay for a photographer
(or buy all the equipment to do it yourself), film, and processing
and then give the results of your investment to someone so they
can sell it for a profit, go ahead.
This reminds me of subsidy publishing, popular with poets
and novelists, who want to see their work in print, and pay to
have it published. It IS cool to see your work in a book.
David Hendley
Maydelle, Texas
hendley@tyler.net
http://www.farmpots.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Orchard Valley Ceramic Arts Guild"
To:
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: Lark Books' Call for Slides: 500 Bowls
> Tony,
>
> I have never been a book publisher, but I have owned a CD-ROM
> publishing company, and we used lots of contributed materials
> on our disks. Let me tell you, publishing is NOT a high-profit business,
> especially for a small publisher. The reason most publications don't
> pay for contributions of photos is simply that they can't afford to.
>
> My suggestion is that anyone who wants to see their work included
> send in submissions. If you don't want to be included unless you're
> paid in some way, then don't submit.
>
>
>
> >On behalf of the artist's whose work makes it into this book, I think we
> >should all consider requesting a free/discounted copy of the book for our
> >contribution:
> >
> >--we made the work
> >--we either photographed it or had it photographed and thus incurred
> >expenses
> >
> >What do all you folks think?
> >
> >T.
> >
Kate Johnson on sat 12 jan 02
Hi, David--
I understand your frustration--I've been on both sides of the equation,
though, so maybe I can add a little food for thought. I've had my work,
both writing and illustrations (not pots, yet) appear in various books
and magazines, sometimes for pay (a decent amount to a small honorarium,
depending on the publisher. And yes, sometimes for nothing more than a free
copy of the book, again depending on the publisher and if I wanted to
support the cause--that is if it aligned with one of mine and I thought it
was important.)
I'm also a writer who has included other peoples's work in her books, and a
publisher (a teeny, tiny small one) who has had permissions to deal with.
I have no idea how big a company Lark is or how well their books sell, but
at least I can speak to some of the issues from a variety of viewpoints.
> Re: Lark Books' Call for Slides: 500 Bowls
> I have been thinking about this while working for the last 2 days,
> and, frankly, am really tired of hearing about how publishing
> is not a high-profit business.
> As if being a potter is.
No, it's pretty tough to make a living ANY way, unfortunately! You're dead
right! If I were expecting my paintings to make my living I would be one
hungry chickie--I've sold three in the last year. (And ok, granted I haven't
done the gallery thing for a long time--just recently giving that another
whirl. Not whining, it's my own fault.) It takes luck and determination
and hard work and marketing savvy and an eager market for your wares, a
niche.
BIG publishing is a high-profit business, but that generally means those
houses that put out the blockbusters, and have the heavy-duty stable of
writers. John Grisham, for instance. Some of the romance novelists (sorry,
don't read 'em, don't know the names.) The reality of the publishing
business as I know it--even the big houses, which I've had several books
with, is that many books in the mid-list, as they're called (i.e., my
stuff), have a very small run--as low as a thousand books or less for a
first run. If they don't take off in the first six months, poof, they're
gone, they're "remaindered." (BTDT) Off to the discount tables at Barnes &
Noble and the writer, bless 'em, gets nada for those books.
> (Note to new Clayart readers): My low level of tolerance is left
> over from the last time this issue was intensely discussed, less
> than one year ago.
I'll check the archives, but still wanted to offer some thoughts. Guess
you're beginning to figure that's how I am...
>
> Artists who grant permission to publish their materials should
> get more than a chance to buy a book at a reduced price. They
> should be paid.
Yes, they should, in the best of all possible worlds. As an artist I agree
wholeheartedly. But as a small publisher as well as a writer/illustrator for
other publishers, sometimes I gotta admit that's not possible. Publishing a
book is a huge gamble. It costs, a LOT. Unless you do it all yourself
(which on my personal scale at Graphics/Fine Arts Press, I do), you have to
pay designers, photographers, typesetters, printers, binders...costs a
bunch. My stuff STILL costs what feels like an arm and a leg to a tiny
publishing house, even with me doing all the prep work for the
printer--printing and binding gets more expensive all the time. Paper costs
alone have soared the last few years.
And then there's another issue that very few people realize. And again I
have no idea how Lark Books works here...this is probably an in-house
project, but at North Light books, which publishes my how-to art stuff, they
do some books like that (to save money, I'm sure), but most often they
contract with a writer or writer/artist combination to produce their books,
at least up to the design/typeset/printing stage. Their policies are the
same as Van Nostrand Rheinhold, Tab Books, Sierra Club, Penguin, or any of
the other better known publishers with whom I've worked, though...
What many people don't know is that that writer is responsible for the
illustrations that appear in that book. Not only for procuring
them--finding the great pictures of pots, or paintings, or engravings or
whatever--but for getting permission to use them, AND PAYING FOR THEM.
Yep. The poor writer, who is already putting a year, give or take, of his
or her life into writing this book also has to pay anyone else whose work
appears. NOT the publisher with the presumably big bucks. The writer.
I was amazed to find that out when I wrote _Drawing and Painting from
Nature_, my first art book years ago (originally for VNR but published by
Tab Books, in the end.) It was part of my job to procure and pay for these
images. (I also had to do all the photography, pay for all the film and
developing. THERE was a shock!)
You also, as the writer, have to pay all the museum permissions and
one-time-use photo fees to illustrate your book. It mounts up.
All well and good if you are a big name who is sure of wonderful sales.
Then it's just a gamble you know will pay off. If you're small time, as I
am...ouch. BIG gamble.
Yep, looked at as a whole, I lost money on that book. It helped open the
door for me to do all my subsequent books, having earned a track record for
myself, but it cost me a lot, beyond the time I spent writing and
illustrating it.
The other side of the coin is that I produced a book that--I hope--helped
the cause of Art and the appreciation of nature. And it got the artists'
names out there. It looked good on their resume'. It helped to give them
credibility. It got them some attention.
Is that enough? I don't know. It was all I had to offer, and I clearly
spelled that out.
> I'm sure the publishers pay their printers, paper companies,
> designers, editorial staffs, secretaries, truck drivers, shipping clerks,
> landlords, utility companies, local taxing authorities, and so on.
Yup...their end has its expenses, too...
>
> Yet they don't feel the need to pay the people who provide them
> with the only real product that will motivate people to buy a book
> so they can pay the secretaries, clerks, etc.
> This is a pretty amazing situation.
Yes, it is, and I wish I had an answer.
> It wouldn't take much to pay for such material. Let's take the "500
> What Will People Pay To See" series, since, at 500 photos, it has
> more photos than most books.
> Let's pay $25 for each photo used. This is the rate that Ceramics
> Monthly pays for use of a photo in the magazine.
> $25 times 500 photos equals $12,500, divided by 10,000 copies of
> the book, equals $1.25.
> It would only cost $1.25 per book to pay the artists for their work!
> If the book went into a second printing it would not cost any more!
You're right, logically, and since I'm unfamiliar with the example you give,
I can't speak to that. There are many, many books that never have 10,000
copies printed in the first place, and many fewer still that SELL that many.
Sad but true. That alters the financial equation substantially...
My how-to art books generally do pretty well, for North Light (and the two I
did for Sierra Club, as Alan Scott of this list would no doubt remind
me)and for me, and thank God for 'em! That's what makes the bulk of my
modest living.
But the natural history books that I LOVE to do (but no longer can afford
to)...? Ha. They often had a press run of 1500 to 3000 books, still cost
me if I used anyone else's work in the illustrations, and sold, let me tell
you, DISMALLY. Never even made back the small advance.
I'm not Annie Dillard or Barry Lopez, alas...but it still took a year, more
or less, of my life to produce them and cost me if I used anyone else's
work, unless they were so kind as to grant permission in exchange for the
(I'm afraid dubious) prestige of being in one of my ever-so-modestly-selling
efforts.
Publishing IS a tough business! Sorry...that's one I know from both ends...
>
> $1.25 wholesale increases to $2.50 retail. Pretty insignificant.
> So the book sells for $32.50 instead of $29.95, hardly enough to
> deter interested buyers.
But if they printed fewer and sold less...? That's a lot of ifs, there...
> In fact, the book would end up being better because it would
> include submissions from artists who, while they like to show
> off their work, refuse to give it away.
I know you're right, in theory, _BUT_. My first art book (the one I used a
lot of other people's work in as well) had some excellent, excellent,
wonderful, glorious artists who just hadn't been "discovered" yet (and yes,
a few of the Old Masters and well known artists I had to pay museums to
use...). I hope it did these artists some good, opened doors for them, got
them a bit of the attention they deserved. It was gorgeous, _quality_ work.
>
> So, to each their own. If you want to pay for a photographer
> (or buy all the equipment to do it yourself), film, and processing
> and then give the results of your investment to someone so they
> can sell it for a profit, go ahead.
I'd only amend that to say "possible profit." Of course we all WANT to hit
it big and make a huge profit, but the fact is that most books don't. The
blockbusters carry the midlist, and a lot of publishers are opting not to
even DO the ones below that range or use them as a tax writeoff. Bleah!
> This reminds me of subsidy publishing, popular with poets
> and novelists, who want to see their work in print, and pay to
> have it published. It IS cool to see your work in a book.
And if it is not a known vanity press (and even that's fine to give your
work the respect it deserves, to print it and bind it nicely...besides it
makes great Christmas presents), it DOES look good on your resume' to be
in a beautiful book among your peers. It's nice to be able to put a copy of
the book, propped open to your page, in the gallery where you sell your
work. It impresses people...
Just as a related illustration of my point...my eldest godchild is a
professional photographer with an incredible, wondrous imagination and much
skill. (See http://annbrownphotography.com/ !!) She has let her photos be
used in a huge magazine that features creative work, many times. They
didn't pay, they just "featured" her work. Same sort of a deal, and it may
sound less than good to you--but clients look at that book, and now her work
has been on the covers of magazines, in ads, in other books, and she has
gotten some FABULOUS assignments. I think it was worth it to her...
...but from my perspective I just wanted to say, publishing IS a tough,
expensive business that's not always big profit. There are always behind
the scenes expenses and unforeseen happenings, something as unrelated to our
work or its merit as it's possible to be. To use another example--two of my
books are with a publisher that had an unfortunate _distributorship_
contract. Nothing to do with me or my work. But my royalties dropped to
$150, last year. Yep, that's one hundred and fifty dollars, for two books,
for 12 months. My publisher didn't do much better with them. Thank GOD
there's a new distributor relationship now...
Anyway...just a thought. There are a lot of variables, from the cost of
paper to the whims of the market, in publishing. Been there, done that.
So I'd have to say it was up to the individual potter and what they want and
expect. If they want to take the gamble...I would certainly not put them
down or make them feel as though they were cheapening their work by allowing
it to be used. IF you can get paid what it's worth, then oh, God yes, DO
it. If you can't and you still think you could benefit, bottom line, from
the exposure (it's NOT just the ego boost, I don't think)--then go for it.
And good luck!
Best--
Kate
tomsawyer on sat 12 jan 02
David & Kate,
The discussion revolves about the following"
"Artists who grant permission to publish their materials should get more
than a chance to buy a book at a reduced price. They should be paid."
I disagree with the SHOULD. If you grant permission, you only have the right
to what you've agreed. To paraphrase an earlier respondent who stated that
if you don't like the temperature of the water don't get in. What I am
interested in if as an editor, you start paying artists for submission of
pictures, what do you do when someone then complaints "my bowl is nicer than
their, I should be paid more". For certain the book will contain some
beauties and some not so beauties; there will be the best and the ugliest;
should the editor pay everyone the same. I think not. What a quagmire; I
can't imagine any editor going there. This thread has me thinking that I'm
going to make a sensational bowl to submit.
Tom Sawyer
tsawyer@cfl.rr.com
| |
|
