What's the Deal with GriefCom?

[thedungeondelver]

Fixed.

 

[Barak]

Yes, it is, if that is indeed the case. If the authors are getting shafted due to WotC's discount policies to online retailers, then by buying from those retailers, you're driving down author compensation. By driving down author compensation, you'll drive those authors to other companies- or possibly even out of the RPG/RPG fiction business- where they will be compensated more fairly. Those who stay behind will be the relative novices- who, while they may be good, will make novice mistakes. By and large, you'd expect to see a drop in quality, the number of releases (since editing will take more time), or both.

A classic example of this is Palladium- infamous for having internal squabbles about compensating or even properly crediting its creative crew...several of the fan favorites not only left the company, but actively steer other would-be contributors away with their horror stories.

Don't get me wrong- I like the Internet and online retailers as a distribution method: its theoretically very good for the bottom line of companies and consumers alike (esp. those without a convenient FLGS)- but those who engage in it have to compensate those who create the content fairly, or we all lose out.

I disagree with this line of thinking.

In this particular example (I understand other people have other beefs), Amazon isn't doing anything wrong. WotC is, -using- Amazon, and screwing authors. Thing is, in that case, WotC is the one in the wrong. By not buying from Amazon -because of that-, I punish the wrong entity, one that had nothing to do with the problem.

Also, seems to me that it's happening (if indeed it's the case) because someone is signing sucky contracts. That's not my problem, as a consumer.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In this particular example (I understand other people have other beefs), Amazon isn't doing anything wrong. WotC is, -using- Amazon, and screwing authors. Thing is, in that case, WotC is the one in the wrong. By not buying from Amazon -because of that-, I punish the wrong entity, one that had nothing to do with the problem.

I'm not saying that Amazon is doing anything wrong. I'm saying that if WotC's discount policy to online retailers is screwing authors, you should avoid those retailers because you help screw the authors.

Its the same rationale, though not as egregious, for not buying merchandise from manufacturers who use child labor or sweatshops.

By not supporting an unethical practice (again, if it is indeed the case), you force WotC to use fair pricing practices. Could this mean that you'd pay prices more like those in a FLGS? Yes. But you pay one way or another- either you pay a fair price for the content, or the content quality (or quantity) drops to match the price- economic equivalents.

Yes, Amazon is only the conduit- probably not even a knowing conduit- but they're still part of the problem because their discount sales would be part of what delays or prevents royalty payments. The most effective way a consumer can affect a corporation is by voting with his wallet. If Amazon sees its sales of WotC product slipping in favor of retailers who AREN'T part of the problem because of allegations of improper conduct on WotC's part, they'll let WotC know there are only 2 outcomes- rectify the problem or watch your product get dropped.

Also, seems to me that it's happening (if indeed it's the case) because someone is signing sucky contracts. That's not my problem, as a consumer.

Its true that the contracts or the implementation may be sucky, but it does affect you as a consumer, if for no other reason than it sets a standard that other contracts can use.

Remember, you're not just a consumer, you're an employee/laborer of some kind.

I don't know what business you're in, but if you're in one where you get a bonus based on total annual sales (calculated in US$)...but your company routinely discounts 30% of its production in order to get market share (or some such), your bonus gets cut.

...Or you don't get a raise next year because company profits were lower than expected.

Etc.

 

[ephemeron]

It may not have the official banner, but between "Ravenoloft" and "Sword & Sorcery" are the words "Dungeons and Dragons Campaign Setting." They couldn't say that without either some kind of agreement or risking a lawsuit.

There may have been a change in the terms of the Ravenloft license somewhere along the way -- the covers I've seen have WW's "Sword and Sorcery" logo and "v. 3.5 Core Campaign Setting", with "Dungeons and Dragons" nowhere obvious. Maybe it has something to do with the changes to the d20 license after the Book of Erotic Fantasy had "requires the use of the" and "Player's Handbook", etc. in small print and "Dungeons and Dragons" in big print on the cover?

 

[The_Universe]

That's dungeonDELVER nitwit.

Fixed, with apologies!

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I'm not saying that Amazon is doing anything wrong. I'm saying that if WotC's discount policy to online retailers is screwing authors, you should avoid those retailers because you help screw the authors.

No, Wizards should stop screwing the authors. Why should I pay 10 bucks more, so the store and wholesalers get 5 extra dollars out of me, Wizards earns 4 more, and the Author gets a lousy one dollar more?

 

[Bardsandsages]

Can I speak as a publisher who actually has books for sale on Amazon?

The price that Amazon pays for a book has ZERO to do with the royalty payment to an author. Royalty payments are calculated based on a set price as defined in the contract. In fiction, this is normally a percentage of the actual retail price. Another means of calculating royalties is a flat rate per product, such as $1 per unit. Regardless, once these royalties are set, they don't change (unless the author was an idiot and signed a contract that lets the publisher change royalties at a whim).

All retailers receive discounts off the retail price of between 40-65% of the retail price, depending on volume purchased. The amount of that discount, however, is factored already into the calculated retail price and has no bearing on the royalties.

Where authors CAN get screwed on royalties, however, is that royalties generally are paid on NET sales. While generally in the RPG industry books are non-returnable, most other retailers are allowed to return unsold books. An RPG company that wants to stock their books in a brick and mortar Borders or Barnes and Noble, for example, needs to be willing to allow returns. In general, booksellers reserve the right to return unsold books sometimes up to 3-6 MONTHS after the fact, and they are often not returned in resaleable condition. Because these are not considered "net" sales, there is no royalty paid.

So let's say WoTC releases a new fiction book for the FR setting. The other books have been very successful, so bookstores advance order a lot of copies. WoTC sends out orders totaling 100,000 copies to bookstores.

Now here is where it gets complicated. Bestseller lists are calculated based off of sales to BOOKSTORES, not consumers. With 100,000 copies sold, this new FR book makes it onto the fantasy bestseller lists. The author sees he has a bestseller and is expecting a huge royalty.

Unfortunately, up to 40% of books sold to booksellers are returned unsold. So of those 100,000 copies sold, 40,000 are returned. The author gets royalties based on 60,000 copies. He now thinks he is being screwed out of money.

As none of us know the specifics of the original contracts, It's hard to say whay really is going on. But I just provide this information to offer a little context.

 

[Bardsandsages]

No, Wizards should stop screwing the authors. Why should I pay 10 bucks more, so the store and wholesalers get 5 extra dollars out of me, Wizards earns 4 more, and the Author gets a lousy one dollar more?

How about because Wizards is also paying copy editors, proof readers, illustrators, warehouse employees, truck drivers, office support staff, marketing people, sales people, and dozens of others. And let's not forget that the book sellers have clerks and staff that need to get paid. And oh, there is the overhead involved in leasing the building, paying electricity, licenses, taxes....

There is a mark up on EVERYTHING that you buy. The typical mark up for a fountain soda os almost almost 700x the actual cost of the syrup and seltzer to make it. But that mark up includes money to actual pay people. Unless, of course, everyone should work for free...but then nobody would have money to buy anything.

 

[Barak]

I'm not saying that Amazon is doing anything wrong. I'm saying that if WotC's discount policy to online retailers is screwing authors, you should avoid those retailers because you help screw the authors.

Its the same rationale, though not as egregious, for not buying merchandise from manufacturers who use child labor or sweatshops.

By not supporting an unethical practice (again, if it is indeed the case), you force WotC to use fair pricing practices. Could this mean that you'd pay prices more like those in a FLGS? Yes. But you pay one way or another- either you pay a fair price for the content, or the content quality (or quantity) drops to match the price- economic equivalents.

Yes, Amazon is only the conduit- probably not even a knowing conduit- but they're still part of the problem because their discount sales would be part of what delays or prevents royalty payments. The most effective way a consumer can affect a corporation is by voting with his wallet. If Amazon sees its sales of WotC product slipping in favor of retailers who AREN'T part of the problem because of allegations of improper conduct on WotC's part, they'll let WotC know there are only 2 outcomes- rectify the problem or watch your product get dropped.

Well, I don't even have a LGS, much less a FLGS, so it's not even an option anyway. And I'm not sure how not buying books anymore would -help- authors, since it sure as heck wouldn't make their royalties check go up. That's why there's a legal system there, if someone is getting screwed, they need to get together and sue to get the situation rectified, and if they are getting -legally- screwed, well, I dunno what to say. They need to get a better agent/lawyer/something.

Its true that the contracts or the implementation may be sucky, but it does affect you as a consumer, if for no other reason than it sets a standard that other contracts can use.

Remember, you're not just a consumer, you're an employee/laborer of some kind.

I don't know what business you're in, but if you're in one where you get a bonus based on total annual sales (calculated in US$)...but your company routinely discounts 30% of its production in order to get market share (or some such), your bonus gets cut.

...Or you don't get a raise next year because company profits were lower than expected.

Etc.

But see, bonuses are good because it ties the successes of the company more closely to me, and encourages me to work better, so the company gets better, etc. It does assume that the company is in the business of making profit. Yes, if they discount 30% of it's production, my bonus gets cut as well.. But if it -does- increase it's market share, that means that the next year, my bonus will be higher. I didn't get a big Xmas bonus one year because my company heavily invested in new Real Estate (buying the buildings they used to rent), and absorbed some other smaller companies in the same field at high costs.. Yeah, that sucked. But the next year, my Xmas bonuses was more than double the "usual" one, because the company made record profit.

 

[Garnfellow]

Can I speak as a publisher who actually has books for sale on Amazon?

[SNIP]

As none of us know the specifics of the original contracts, It's hard to say whay really is going on. But I just provide this information to offer a little context.

Thanks for providing some real insight into this thread -- that was a very informative post.