next »

[rebelgirl]

Dear Forumites,

I searched for info on "royalties" (very enlightening!), but didn't see anything re: my question.  My co-editor and I have been offered a contract on an anthology of articles on a special subtopic in our humanities field. We're being offered 15% royalties on the press's income from sales after the first 500 copies sold (from reading posts on this forum, I see that the after 500 copies language is pretty standard). I was thrilled, but my co-editor, who has been to workshops on publishing in fiction, checked with a publishing attorney, who advised us to seek royalties based on "the list or 'cover' price of the book." 

The attorney is versed in standard trade publishing.  My sense is that unless we're talking about a textbook likely to have major sales, in academic publishing, it is reasonable for publishers to offer royalties based on their profits rather than their gross sales.  After all, they are taking on the cost and risk of producing and marketing the book.  Like posters on other publication threads, we're doing this for our academic reputations and to get the ideas out there--not with the expectation of making lots of bucks.  Does this seem reasonable, or should we push for royalties based on list price?  My co-editor is concerned that we should negotiate the best terms we can, and I agree with her that we don't want to be taken advantage of.  Is the press taking advantage, do you think?

Other thing:  they are only offering 4 desk copies, but we have 14 contributors (who are not getting royalties).  If we're going to push for anything, I'd like to push for desk copies for our contributors. . . . or is that pie in the sky with so many?

Any advice gratefully read!

[ucprof]

I am assuming you are not expecting to make much money off the book. In this case I'd go with the publisher who is most likely to get people to read the book.  This means making it accessible to libraries, getting people to buy it, and publicizing it appropriately.  You want it for your CV/career rather than for immediate financial gain.

Of course if you are publishing it to make money off of royalties then by all means maximize the contract for that purpose. 

That said, the two situations are not mutually exclusive. 

[cranefly]

Yes, it sounds like the lawyer is versed in trade books, not academic books.
My experience with a collection on a *very* hot topic: had 5% overall royalty (on profit, not on list price). They printed 500 copies. Copies sold out in less than a year. They decided not to reprint (didn't sell out "fast enough"). The book is done. My royalties, overall, added up to about $400.

However, yes, each contributor should get a book--that is very standard.

And, if you think you can push it, you could even ask for an honorarium for the writers. It's rare, but I've contributed to a few published by OUP and they gave all the contributors $200.

[tee_bee]

Depending on rank, perhaps, the value of most scholarly books comes in their value on your CV--and this varies greatly by discipline, of course. And then there's textbooks, which can earn money,  but detract from other research, and, in many disciplines, count for little. There's lots of variables here.