Pay on Publication Needs to Die: A Rant

[Josh Hilden]

*NOTE: I did not write this (Obviously)

Pay on Publication Needs to Die: A Rant
link


David Hill has a lot to say about the realities of the freelancer life and getting paid over on Google+ from his perspective as a freelancer.



This is me talking from the publisher perspective.



Pay on Publication contracts need to die a fiery death, folks. These are contracts that say to a writer, editor, artist, graphic designer, or other creative worker on a game project that they won’t get paid until the project they’re working on sees publication.



This is utter crap.



As a publisher, there are a few things you’re bringing to the picture:

Overall vision

Implementation coordination

Connections and clout for publication and distribution

Sales and marketing

Funding

All of those go into the activity of actual publication. They are your goddamn responsibility.



The creative folk you hire to do work that fits your vision do not carry any of this. Their job is to produce components to spec that you can get assembled into a final sellable thing. Once that work gets into your hands, they’ve done 100% of what you’ve asked them to do.



If, in the face of that, you ask them to wait to get paid until publication, you’re asking them to wait to get paid until you can get your shit together. They have no control over your actual ability to get to that publication date. You’re asking them to trust that you can do so at best possible speed. You’re asking them to extend you a loan (think about how ridiculous that is) equal to the full value of their work at 0% interest for an indeterminate amount of time.



This is an incredibly dishonest and shifty way to do the work of being a publisher. It’s also, frankly, just bad business. It gives you a chance to fail in a way that affects folks’ livelihoods. Those failures, even if they happen for good reasons, become a reputation. If you’re eager to make a lifestyle out of publishing, your reputation is your make or break asset. While there will always be new, fresh, gullible talent to come around to accept these sorts of terms from folks like you, you’re going to end up hurting the experienced folks (which hurts all of us, as it can end up ejecting them from the talent pool for good) and perpetually saddling yourself only with inexerpienced talent. And worst of all, you’ll be their first impression of how the industry operates.



Bottom line: If as a publisher you don’t have the money already to pay someone for work when they finish doing it, you should not be hiring them in the first place.



Publishing can be a juggling act but your funding should not be. See the list of bullets up at the top of this post. It’s your wheelhouse. It’s your responsibility. It’s your burden. It’s the service you’re providing to creative folk. You shouldn’t provide those folks less value than they can provide themselves as self-publishers. Those bullets are how you offer added value and none of them are optional.



At Evil Hat we pay on the accepted delivery of the work. Because that’s the end of the freelancer’s responsibility. Where there’s wiggle room, it’s in how that “accepted delivery” gets defined. Maybe it means a writer doesn’t get paid until after the editing and revision cycle is completed. That’s fair: the editor can be seen as your mechanism for determining the acceptability of the supplied work.



But however you define it, it sure as shit shouldn’t be “until you get off your ass and get the thing published”.

[Jaymz]

Interesting read Josh. Thanks for sharing that.

[yilbber]

That's why people like KS get roasted... They are not up on the digital age. but that's why they pay per piece a flat rate..
to avoid claims of no compensation.

[Shini]

There are plenty of people that have not gotten compensated by KS or have had to wait an ungodly amount of time to get paid.

[Josh Hilden]

Or have to threaten legal action.

[joshuagoliath]

*gives Josh a one armed bro-hug* It's ok. Most of us appreciate you. And Bill.

[MacrossMike]

I've seen some weird stuff working as an outside contractor in technology development, but that's one messed-up business model.

[joshuagoliath]

It's (yet another) reason that more and more of established authors are starting to publish (at least digitally) themselves. That, and they manage to keep more of the profits from each book.

Michael Stackpole actually wrote a piece on it, and encouraged other authors to do the same. They keep the digital and paper rights for their books apart, and publish digitally themselves.

Of course, he also ripped the publishing industry because they're doing less and less to justify their expenses and costs.

Think about it- when was the last time you saw a publisher actually pushing a book, except for some of the big names? That's supposed to be part of their job. When was the last time you heard about a new author, except by word of mouth (or "reader ratings", or something similar)? Again, that's supposed to be part of their job. That's supposed to be why they get the (rather large) percentages that they do.

[Josh Hilden]

Yep, mainstream publishers are making us do more of the work yet still keeping the same or even a greater level of the profits.

[joshuagoliath]

The following is said as a consumer, outside "the business". I am an avid reader.

I think the way the mainstream publishers are acting is hurting literature. Now, by "literature", I don't just mean "fine art" writings, but books in general.

1) New, beginning authors fight to try to get into the business
2) They end up tied to a publisher through a contract
3) They realize how screwed they are, with the publisher doing very little, but getting the lion's share of the money
4) The author gets discouraged, and doesn't keep writing

Now, there are some who only go digital, and they self-publish. However, those books usually aren't in the obvious places for people to look, so they get overlooked. (Also, a lot of those books seem to be literotica, and not that well written)

SOME manage to get in there, make a name, and WOOHOO! However, if they want a physical copy of their book, they either have to get the money together to be able to print themselves, and convince a bookstore to stock it, or, they get tied to a publishing companies. Rarely are the new (or even relatively new) able to get a contract that separates their physical and digital publishing, so the publisher gets the money no matter what.

And really, it's been said by a few authors that I know of- the authors are doing more self-promotion than their publisher is doing anymore

[writersblock]

When I first started writing back in the 80's, TONS of the stuff I did was pay on publish. On the other hand, a lot of it was for magazines and periodicals, so that was no big wait.

In my mind, if a publisher wants to wait to actually look over what you submit, under contract, before paying you that's fine. They want to make sure what you pitched to them is what you provided, and that the quality is up tho their expectations. There are limits though...

Pay on Pub for places like book publishers, or game companies like Pally, seems a bit shifty to me. On the other hand, Pally had my book for like almost three years before they sent it to an editor...so...