A new book publisher with an unusual business modelI知 not sure what to think ab

[APP]

I知 not sure what to think about this endeavor. Personally, I like being independent. However, some writers might prefer this option.

A new book publisher with an unusual business model, a small footprint and an outsize pedigree that includes some of the biggest names in publishing launched on Tuesday.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/05/books/publisher-authors-equity.html

[Bill Hiatt]

Well, with their background, at least they aren't scammers.

It's hard to tell much from their website, which is basically just a skeleton. If they take unagented submissions, I might give them a whirl and see what happens. (It's hard to see how agents would like this model because their commission would be spread out in the same way the author's payout is.)

Being retired and not depending on writing for my income, the financial model would work better for me than many others.

[TimothyEllis]

That link is behind a paywall.

What's the link to the actual site?

[Bill Hiatt]

https://authorsequity.com/

It's not yet that informative, but it does cover most of what's in the NYT article. The only thing I don't think it mentions directly is the publishing backgrounds of the team members. It does give you an idea of what their business model is. But they don't seem to be open to submissions yet.

If I were in your position and made a living at writing, I doubt I'd take the jump. But for someone like me who isn't making much, maybe their model is worth considering. We'll know more when they make it clear how they accept submissions.

[TimothyEllis]

That site says nothing at all.

It's marketing hype with no substance.

And from the sound of it, there is definitely a price tag involved when you get to the fine print.

[Bill Hiatt]

I didn't get the price tag part out of it, but as I said in my first post, the site is skeletal at the moment. I'm waiting to see how it gets fleshed out.

[TimothyEllis]

I didn't get the price tag part out of it, but as I said in my first post, the site is skeletal at the moment. I'm waiting to see how it gets fleshed out.

It was just the way some of it was phrased. It came across like how a Vanity would explain themselves at the high level.

[Bill Hiatt]

The phrasing could be better. I think the fact that so many of them have backgrounds with major publishers makes me willing to give them a chance. I've never seen a vanity press with anything approaching that pedigree. (Random-Penguin, Macmillan, Simon and Schuster)

The NYT article included fairly extensive interview quotes that nowhere even hinted at authors paying anything. Authors don't get an advance but start getting a share of the profits from day one. And while there was discussion of authors having a say in the makeup of their creative team (editor, cover designer, etc.), there was no reference to authors paying. In fact, I just reread it to be sure. And the people involved know more than enough to not want to be involved with vanity publishing. (Five of the investors are NYT bestselling authors.)

The no advance model is a way to start a publisher without needing a backlist to support current endeavors. But it also means the publisher can take more risks. It already has to lay out standard production expenses (assuming my interpretation is correct). Adding an advance to that, especially a decent-sized one, increases the initial outlay considerably and thus makes the publisher more risk-averse. Removing the advance enables the publisher to take a chance on an unconventional novel--or a newcomer. Giving the author "the lion's share" of the profits allows them to position themselves as offering "more profits than legacy publishing and better distribution than self-publishing." (This would be true at least for books that would have earned out on their advance under the old model.) Profits should theoretically bigger because of the company's lower overhead--no big Manhattan office building, small staff. Printing is outsourced, no doubt. The publisher already has an agreement to use Simon and Schuster's distribution, no doubt for a cut, but that does save on having to develop their own contacts and infrastructure.

The founders expect the model to appeal to big authors who know their books will sell. But they also want to work with authors at all stages of their careers, including newcomers.

So yeah, I guess the NYT article has a lot more info than the site after all.

I also remember a line from the NYT article about the publisher

[Jan Hurst-Nicholson]

This sounds interesting. I wonder how it will work with children's books that need illustrations. Illustrations can be very expensive for a self-publisher.

[LilyBLily]

Publishers Weekly also covered it, ladling on praise for the founders. But isn't this model close to what Entangled does? Unless they've changed it, theirs also is no advance, and everybody involved with the book editorially gets a royalty share, and the books are chosen for their trope / best seller quotient.

Plus, Entangled just brought on a batch of indie writers who already sell big in ebooks, with the plan to give them physical bookstore distribution. The dream of many a successful indie: "Look, Ma, I'm on the shelf at Barnes & Noble!"

[TimothyEllis]

Plus, Entangled just brought on a batch of indie writers who already sell big in ebooks, with the plan to give them physical bookstore distribution. The dream of many a successful indie: "Look, Ma, I'm on the shelf at Barnes & Noble!"

That gets my interest.

[Bill Hiatt]

Publishers Weekly also covered it, ladling on praise for the founders. But isn't this model close to what Entangled does? Unless they've changed it, theirs also is no advance, and everybody involved with the book editorially gets a royalty share, and the books are chosen for their trope / best seller quotient.

Plus, Entangled just brought on a batch of indie writers who already sell big in ebooks, with the plan to give them physical bookstore distribution. The dream of many a successful indie: "Look, Ma, I'm on the shelf at Barnes & Noble!"

The model is not exactly the same. From what you say, Entangled gives everyone a royalty share (sort of like Book Trope used to do). Authors Equity hires freelancers (more upfront cost than royalty share, less than having all those people on permanent staff, and more flexibility to hire people based on the nature of the project).

Both seem to have distribution deals. Authors' Equity has Simon and Schuster; Entangled has Macmillan.

In looking at the two, Entangled has been around, has a track record and a fully developed website. I'd be inclined to go with them first--except that their emphasis is on romance. They have twelve imprints dedicated to some kind of romance, from YA to erotica. One imprint is dedicated to fantasy and science fiction...romance. That leaves one imprint for picture books, one imprint for YA in various genres (though a romantic subplot is required), and one for mainstream thrillers and women's fiction (an odd combo, but I'm kind of betting they want to see romance in both). Some of the imprints also mention feminism and female empowerment.

In other words, some writers would be a good fit, but a lot wouldn't. Most of the time, I have romantic subplots (bot not always HEA). I have a variety of female characters, most of them strong. Nonetheless, I'm inclined to think I'm not a good fit.

I also noticed that most of the author names are female or indeterminate. This needn't reflect on the publisher's selection process. A romance imprint is probably going to get a lot more female submissions.

For someone who writes in a genre that fits well, Entangled looks like a great place to submit. Its books look appealing, and it publishes frequently. I only checked one of the books to see how it was doing. It was a 2019 book that still has good Amazon ratings (and a ton of reviews). The cover is beautiful (as they pretty much all are), and the interior looks professional (though the paragraph indents look a little small to my eye). The book is available in ebook, paperback, and audiobook. It's both in KU and available at Barnes and Noble, Apple, and Kobo. (That alone is worth the price of admission, no doubt a perk of being distributed by Macmillan.)   

[The Bass Bagwhan]

Loosely explained (by me) it seems to be a publisher aiming at already successful indie authors who might lured by the prospect of said publisher taking on the brunt of the non-writing roles (social media, promos) without also taking the lion's share of the royalties. A more symbiotic business relationship than a low-percentage royalty.
They won't gamble on new writers, or writers below a certain threshold of success. But it could game-change the industry by redesigning the agent/publisher/author interaction. It becomes a team, rather than a single creative whose writing prompts supporting roles.
Some of PJ Post's concepts may be coming to life.

[Bill Hiatt]

In the NYT interview, one of the execs specifically said they want to work with people at all stages of their careers, including newcomers.

That said, of course, a newcomer would have to have quality material.  And maybe an agent. That part isn't 100% clear.