Ian Fleming Publishing turning Indie

[alhawke]

Just this. Got the news on Hidden Gems this morning. Thought it was an interesting sign of our times.

https://www.hiddengemsbooks.com/ian-fleming-publications-revolutionizes-the-pub-industry/

[Crystal]

They won't really be operating like a typical indie, though. More like a small press. Or maybe even a Big 5 imprint, moneywise.

[TimothyEllis]

They won't really be operating like a typical indie, though. More like a small press. Or maybe even a Big 5 imprint, moneywise.

Why do you say that?

Fleming only wrote 17 books. That's hardly a small press.

Sure, Fleming will suddenly become a 7 figure Indie author, but that doesn't make it a small press.

[LilyBLily]

A royalty rate for a long-term top seller from a trad pub would be more like 12.5% at least, especially anything that smacks of a sweetheart deal, such as the hardcover company also publishing the paperback.

Tim, this is a small press by definition, especially because it's publishing just one author. As you know, there are lots of small presses in the sf/fantasy world. The big issue--not mentioned in the article, I believe--is whether or how this new publisher will be able to get bricks-and-mortar bookstore distribution. The reason so many copies sell every year is they are in physical bookstores. If the Fleming estate can get into them--possibly by signing a distribution deal with a trad pub--they'll continue to make bank. If they don't, woe is them.

There's also the issue that the most recent publisher apparently did not make a good enough counteroffer. That suggests the Fleming oeuvre is not selling as well as it did in the past. Could be an uphill climb to reap a significantly larger profit from "self-publishing" these titles.

I don't think this is revolutionary as such. Numerous classic books have had their rights returned and been ebooks for a while now, usually published by a--wait for it--small press.

[TimothyEllis]

Tim, this is a small press by definition, especially because it's publishing just one author.

Explain then why I'm not a small press.

A royalty rate for a long-term top seller from a trad pub would be more like 12.5% at least,

12.5% of 70% or more likely, 35%. For eBooks anyway.

The big issue--not mentioned in the article, I believe--is whether or how this new publisher will be able to get bricks-and-mortar bookstore distribution. The reason so many copies sell every year is they are in physical bookstores. If the Fleming estate can get into them--possibly by signing a distribution deal with a trad pub--they'll continue to make bank. If they don't, woe is them.

Not necessarily.

It probably means the estate thinks the eBook is the future, and Trad publishers are not doing eBooks right.

There are whole generations now who read on their phones, who never pick up a paperback in their lives. And those are the ones the estate probably wants to market to.

But Trads still put the eBook as an afterthought.

Interestingly, most of the Adam Hall Quiller books were released as eBooks. I picked them all up as soon as I found them. And discovered I'd only seen less than half of them.

So the Bond books following suit is not unexpected.

[alhawke]

But Trads still put the eBook as an afterthought.

There are books I'd love to buy but I haven't gotten around to it, like the Crystal Cave series by Mary Stewart. I loved that series years ago, but I haven't gotten around to buying it lately because it's not available at the click of a button. So, yeah, I think ebooks are a neglected market in the trad world. And I'm not sure why. They're easier to put together than paperback/hardcover.

The big issue--not mentioned in the article, I believe--is whether or how this new publisher will be able to get bricks-and-mortar bookstore

I think this is why Bond can do this, though. For most books, you need marketing distribution and the trad can still help for bricks-and-mortar. But for Bond, can't they just contact the retailers, like B&N, and provide them copies direct? I mean, it's Bond. It's gonna sell.

[TimothyEllis]

I think this is why Bond can do this, though. For most books, you need marketing distribution and the trad can still help for bricks-and-mortar. But for Bond, can't they just contact the retailers, like B&N, and provide them copies direct? I mean, it's Bond. It's gonna sell.

They just need to put the paperbacks up on B&N.

Bond sells, so B&N would be stupid not to put them in stores.

[Jeff Tanyard]

Now, they’ll be publishing the eBooks themselves – priced at £3.99 each – and publishing paperback editions with yet-to-be-revealed covers priced at £9.99.

Competitive pricing.  Good for them.   

I expect they'll pick up the pace of releases, too.  At least one new Bond novel per year, and perhaps three or four per year, depending on how many ghostwriters and editors they plan to employ.  The Bond franchise is a license to kill print money, so as long as they stick to the Fleming version of the character and don't screw around with the formula, they'll make bank.

[notthatamanda]

I just got up, but I can't see anything in the link about new books?

[Jeff Tanyard]

I just got up, but I can't see anything in the link about new books?

I'm assuming they'll keep producing new books just as they have been.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_novels_and_short_stories

As you can see from the list, the Fleming estate has been using multiple authors and publishing houses to crank out Bond books.  The pace has been a bit haphazard--multiple books in some years and zero books in other years--so self-publishing should allow them to settle into a more regular schedule if that's what they'd prefer.

[TimothyEllis]

I'm assuming they'll keep producing new books just as they have been.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_novels_and_short_stories

As you can see from the list, the Fleming estate has been using multiple authors and publishing houses to crank out Bond books.  The pace has been a bit haphazard--multiple books in some years and zero books in other years--so self-publishing should allow them to settle into a more regular schedule if that's what they'd prefer.

I had no idea.

Obviously none of them have come to Australia at all.

I was wondering if they did any movie adaptions, but only 3? That surprises me. I would have thought they'd have done all of them. Maybe they will now.

But with that many books out, going Indie makes a lot of sense. They get to reorganize how they're presented, and get them out for the whole world to see.

Just having a series slider with all the ones people don't know about following after the ones they do? Major.

[notthatamanda]

I was wondering if they did any movie adaptions, but only 3? That surprises me. I would have thought they'd have done all of them. Maybe they will now.

Aren't the rights to the movie stories owned by the studio not the original publisher of the books?

[TimothyEllis]

I was wondering if they did any movie adaptions, but only 3? That surprises me. I would have thought they'd have done all of them. Maybe they will now.

Aren't the rights to the movie stories owned by the studio not the original publisher of the books?

Yeah. But often the origin of the story gets the rights to the novelized version as well.

There were novelized versions of all the Star Wars movies for example.

It would come down to whatever contract was in force for each movie and the use of the IP.

And presumably in this case, the ultimate license holder should be able to negotiate novelization rights. Especially when they publish novels already.

Makes sense for the movie studio as well to have the novels out there.

[alhawke]

I was wondering if they did any movie adaptions, but only 3? That surprises me. I would have thought they'd have done all of them. Maybe they will now.

As a fan of both the movies and books, I'll tell you that one of the problems for marketing them together is that the novels are used for different movies.
Different sections of books are in different films. It's a bit of a haphazard hodge-podge. The Spy Who Loved Me novel, for instance, is completely different than the film. So I think movie adaptations haven't been done in order to avoid confusion. ??

[TimothyEllis]

I was wondering if they did any movie adaptions, but only 3? That surprises me. I would have thought they'd have done all of them. Maybe they will now.

As a fan of both the movies and books, I'll tell you that one of the problems for marketing them together is that the novels are used for different movies.
Different sections of books are in different films. It's a bit of a haphazard hodge-podge. The Spy Who Loved Me novel, for instance, is completely different than the film. So I think movie adaptations haven't been done in order to avoid confusion. ??

That's fairly simple to overcome. You create a separate series for the movie novelizations called exactly that. Bond Movie Novelizations, book 1.

That's a long series on it's own.

[Bill Hiatt]

As far as whether or not this enterprise is a small press or a self-publishing effort, I'd say both, but more the latter.

Prior to self-publishing, I don't imagine there were many small presses that only handled one author. In any case, a "small press" that only distributes one author if run by that author, that author's family, or that author's estate, is self publishing under another name. A rose by any other name...

[Crystal]

There's also the issue that the most recent publisher apparently did not make a good enough counteroffer. That suggests the Fleming oeuvre is not selling as well as it did in the past. Could be an uphill climb to reap a significantly larger profit from "self-publishing" these titles.

I don't think this is revolutionary as such. Numerous classic books have had their rights returned and been ebooks for a while now, usually published by a--wait for it--small press.

In recent years, there have been discussions about whether or not the James Bond franchise bring on a female Bond. There's a strong argument against the idea--Bond is a masculine fantasy. A cool dude with cool gadgets and sexy babes.

Only (to the best of my knowledge, as a non Bond fan), that's not really true anymore in the films. It's my understanding the Craig films are all about how much it sucks to be Bond. He's a lonely alcoholic.

But... did this actually work to bring a new audience to Bond? The old school Bond fans are, well, older. The Fleming estate needs to worry about what happens when the old school fans die off. IMO, the current model of Bond doesn't really appeal to younger people. Unless their parents imbued them with a love of Bond (the way my dad shared Star Wars with me, when I was young), younger people don't have an attachment to any of the old school cool of Bond. (Speaking in generalities).

So, really, to attract a new audience, the estate should do something drastic... like bringing on a female Bond. IMO, it's a genius creative move. A simple swap that changes all the narrative and power dynamics. What a breath of fresh air for the franchise. But maybe it's too far for the old fans / not enough for the new fans.

Explain then why I'm not a small press.

You aren't a small press because you're not distributing books yourself. You are distributing books via Amazon (and possibly other retailers). A small press has deals with their distributers (including Amazon) and manufactures and distributes their own paperbacks.

Now? Does that mean the authors who are raising money for hardbacks on TikToks are small presses? Not exactly but kinda sorta... there isn't a firm line. But, assuming you are allowing Amazon to do the vast majority of customer service and distribution, you are an indie author. If you start taking over that work, acting as a publisher in other capacities (negotiating contracts with bookstores, for example), then you start moving to small press.

There's also the total volume of sales / money. I don't have any idea how many books the Fleming estate moves, but I imagine it's enough that paperbacks are a big logistical issue.

[alhawke]

So, really, to attract a new audience, the estate should do something drastic... like bringing on a female Bond. IMO, it's a genius creative move. A simple swap that changes all the narrative and power dynamics. What a breath of fresh air for the franchise. But maybe it's too far for the old fans / not enough for the new fans.

This is an old article so you never know about this stuff. Hollywood can make all sorts of plans that never pan out (I was once excited that Nicholas Cage was going to play Superman.  ).

https://www.vogue.fr/fashion-culture/article/the-next-james-bond-could-be-played-by-a-woman

As a fan, I have no problem with a female MC in the Bond franchise. Just as long as she's a distinctive separate character. I wouldn't like it if they copied James Bond into Jamie Bond, or something unoriginal like that. Please be "original" in adaptations, Hollywood.

[LilyBLily]

The female James Bond was Modesty Blaise. As usual, with a tame male assistant; one can name several more of these from the 1960s on. It would be interesting to see a female Bond who doesn't have a chaperone.

The gadgetry, the fast cars, the chase scenes, and the bigger-than-life storylines in major worldwide cities appeal to any age and gender, IMO. Ever since Connery and his brutal, self-interested masculinity left the franchise, it's not been about sexy babes as much. Craig played Bond as tragically sincere when in love.

[Crystal]

The female James Bond was Modesty Blaise. As usual, with a tame male assistant; one can name several more of these from the 1960s on. It would be interesting to see a female Bond who doesn't have a chaperone.

The gadgetry, the fast cars, the chase scenes, and the bigger-than-life storylines in major worldwide cities appeal to any age and gender, IMO. Ever since Connery and his brutal, self-interested masculinity left the franchise, it's not been about sexy babes as much. Craig played Bond as tragically sincere when in love.

But I don't think non-fans know that. I know, cause I'm interested in what happens to the franchise, as a writer/ creative. But my friends who don't already have an interest in Bond don't know. They still see Bond as the idea of a womanizing too-cool for school spy. I don't have hard data, but I'd bet good money most people still have that view of the Bond franchise. Hell, I bet a lot of people my age have a stronger association with Austen Powers than they do with the actual Bond films.

And I don't agree those things appeal to everyone, or to all groups. As with all tropes and archetypes, some people like them and some don't. (Gadgets don't really excite me. Nor do chase scenes, as a general rule, but I still enjoy action more than, say, my sister, who has absolutely no interest). In general, action is more appealing to men than women.

[Bill Hiatt]

You aren't a small press because you're not distributing books yourself. You are distributing books via Amazon (and possibly other retailers). A small press has deals with their distributers (including Amazon) and manufactures and distributes their own paperbacks.

Now? Does that mean the authors who are raising money for hardbacks on TikToks are small presses? Not exactly but kinda sorta... there isn't a firm line. But, assuming you are allowing Amazon to do the vast majority of customer service and distribution, you are an indie author. If you start taking over that work, acting as a publisher in other capacities (negotiating contracts with bookstores, for example), then you start moving to small press.

There's also the total volume of sales / money. I don't have any idea how many books the Fleming estate moves, but I imagine it's enough that paperbacks are a big logistical issue.

Though self-publishing isn't that new anymore, the industry terminology still hasn't fully adjusted.

Distribution is an interesting criterion, but I've seen some publishers I'm pretty sure were small presses use Amazon as a distributor. These days, with brick-and-mortar bookstores becoming less common and with the chains among those who remain catering mostly to Big Five output, there isn't as much reason for a small press to go to the extra expense of printing their own books. Whether they use Amazon, Ingram, or both to do the job, that to me doesn't mean they are no longer small presses.

As for making deals with bookstores, I actually negotiated arrangements with two early in my publishing career, but I wouldn't for a minute have thought that made me a small press. I think a lot of self published authors in areas with receptive book store owners or managers make arrangements for book store distribution.

I'm still inclined to think that it's the number of authors involved that makes the difference. If you publish your own work, you are by definition self-publishing. I suppose that doesn't mean you can't also be considered a small press. But does having a business license or organizing in some other way make a difference. A lot of self-published authors have set up businesses, which I suppose makes them small presses in at least some senses. I guess I would say they are both self-publishers and small presses. If they are publishing the works of others, they are definitely small presses. If they are being published by a small press not under their own control, then they are small press but not self-published.

[LilyBLily]

<snip>
In general, action is more appealing to men than women.

If you say so. I don't really know, having always been a tomboy. I enjoyed the Bourne action series probably more than the older Bond movies, but except for a couple I've seen them all. And I love Die Hard. Which reminds me; it's almost the time of year to watch it again.

[Anarchist]

... And I love Die Hard. Which reminds me; it's almost the time of year to watch it again.

One of my favorite Christmas season movies.

[Lorri Moulton]

IMHO, Sean Connery is the best Bond.  I've seen the others but not all their movies.  Timothy Dalton was interesting, but he was no Connery.

[Crystal]

If you say so. I don't really know, having always been a tomboy. I enjoyed the Bourne action series probably more than the older Bond movies, but except for a couple I've seen them all. And I love Die Hard. Which reminds me; it's almost the time of year to watch it again.

Yes, that's why I said "in general." And not, "only men like action". Or "no women like action". Do you actually debate the general rule that "men, on average, are more likely to watch action movies than women are"?

Aren't we here as authors and marketers, to talk about trends in taste and preferences? There are men who read romance, but I don't make an effort to find them, because it's not worth my time as a marketer.

[Post-Crisis D]

I'm usually in the minority but I favor Roger Moore.  I think the first Bond movie I saw was one of his, so that's probably an influence there.  Kind of like Doctor Who where many times your first Doctor ends up as your favorite.

I had high hopes for Pierce Brosnan but I think he got weighed down by scripts that weren't as compelling, IMHO (at least the ones I watched).

[alhawke]

I'm usually in the minority but I favor Roger Moore.  I think the first Bond movie I saw was one of his, so that's probably an influence there.  Kind of like Doctor Who where many times your first Doctor ends up as your favorite.

I'm with you. Roger Moore was greatest to me too.  But... I like Daniel Craig and Sean Connery is classic.
For Dr. Who, I say Tom Baker all the way.

[Jeff Tanyard]

Favorite movie's probably Goldfinger, though I was never really a huge fan of Bond movies.  I watched them as a kid because Ted Turner liked them and would air them on his channel all the time.  They were a bit too cheesy for me to really love them, but they were fun enough and I liked the gadgetry, so I watched anyway and enjoyed them for what they were.

I'm from Gen X, so it shouldn't surprise anyone to discover my favorite Bond theme song is Chris Cornell's.  Man, the music channels used to play the "Black Hole Sun" video almost nonstop back in the day.  Soundgarden was huge for the short while that grudge was the going thing.

[Anarchist]

I always liked Brosnan's Bond. He epitomized debonair. Dalton was good, too.

Casino Royale was a terrific film with a kick-ass theme song. And I like Craig. But during his tenure, the scripts made Bond seem miserable.

[Jeff Tanyard]

I always liked Brosnan's Bond. He epitomized debonair. Dalton was good, too.

Casino Royale was a terrific film with a kick-ass theme song. And I like Craig. But during his tenure, the scripts made Bond seem miserable.

I haven't even seen the last few movies, and it's precisely because I could tell which way the wind was blowing in the manner you described.  I sort of blame the Battlestar Galactica reboot, frankly.  That was a success, so Hollywood jumped on the bleak nihilist bandwagon, or so it seems to me, at least.