Sentences with phrase «author royalties means»

Not exact matches

I think the author meant «ascended» to the THRONE — as in seat of royalty, not «thrown» as in past tense of «to throw».

As an indie author myself, I'd prefer people pay enough for my books that I get a decent royalties, that means I control the pricing on my books.

Sounds good, but this means that you, as an author, will earn much less in royalty fees as both the retailer and the aggregator may (not always, it depends on their pricing model) take their cut.

This means that indie authors can't determine in advance what their royalty rates will be under KU.

What this means is that an author who opts into the service is locking a book into it for 90 days, during which they agree to give up any royalties they might have received through other sources.

Since most books never become bestsellers, this means most authors never see any royalties at all.

Recently, breakout author Hugh Howey got a print publishing deal and was able to keep his digital rights, which means he will continue to collect larger royalties on his e-books (up to 70 % for Kindle sales) than most traditionally published authors receive.

Furthermore, sales through HarperCollins» website are likely to make up only a very small percentage of an author's total book sales, meaning the royalty increase wouldn't necessarily account to much.

I wonder what a one - year return policy would mean for author royalty pay outs?

Koehler Books pays author royalties based on the net proceeds of the book, meaning the money left over after all expenses have been paid to the distributor and the book has been sold to a wholesale bookseller, library or other distributor.

Meaning, the author keeps all her royalties.

Publishers will try to hold the line on their 25 % net ebook royalty structures, which means big authors will see their royalties suffer as prices drop and as the unit sales advantage of low prices decreases, and as the disadvantage of high prices increases.

Essentially, BookBaby, has found that charging legitimate authors an upfront fee to process and distribute their ebooks may cause some to ultimately opt for one of the sites that makes its profit out of royalties rather than pay an initial investment; however, this same business model means that spam and piracy can be kept to a minimum as get - rich - quick scammers are loathe to shell out the upfront cost.

What this means is that even though the author and narrator may split audiobook royalties 50/50, the author gets a better return for advertising than the narrator ever could; because some people who are sold by an audiobook ad will buy the print or ebook instead.

Book royalties and book advances are the means by which publishers pay authors for their work.

Statistically speaking, most published authors can't live on advances and royalties alone, but that doesn't mean you won't be able to make it.

This means that the author gets their regular royalty, and you get a piece of our cut.

And that production cost is why a 100 % royalty for a $ 14.95 book doesn't mean the author receives $ 14.95 every time the book sells.

CS has been wide open about the terms of this closure, and what it will mean for authors who are accustomed to those higher royalties:

The email to authors also said they can earn UP TO 60 % royalties on their print editions — again, it's those words «up to» that don't mean a lot — and that they can eventually have access to list their books in expanded distribution to bookstores, something they've been able to do all along through CS.

The «deep discount,» no - royalty - to - author practice you describe, if widespread among traditional publishers, would mean our graphs are overstating the earnings of traditionally - published authors.

In other words: if, because of a publisher's underpayment of royalties, an author is only fully paid through (example) March 2013, receiving royalty checks in Jan - Sep 2014 does not mean those checks were for the periods Jan - Sep 2014 even if the accompanying royalty statement claims that is the case.

This means that the net royalty received minus the author share is what is reported on income statements.

That is a win - win for me as an author because it means I have found a new fan, I have received royalties from the KU program and then from the sale.

This means your purchase is supporting the entity that published the book, namely the publisher, and authors are making a profit (albeit small) every time you buy because the publisher is paying an author royalty for each sale.

I mean, will siding with the publishers in this and subsequent (there will be at least one more, just until Amazon proves it's dead serious) fights get all SFWA authors an extra 5 % of their royalties?

Others of us are more careful: when beloved - brand authors can tweet to their readers the fact that ebook royalties remain at only 25 percent, it's by no means clear yet that those readers won't care.

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simon & Schuster because S&S is reporting those purchases as «sales», which mean a lower royalty rate for authors, instead of as «licenses».

If a contract lets the publisher deduct the costs of editing, publishing, and distribution of the work before calculating the author's royalty share, that means the author is paying some of the publishing costs.

In this contract, an unsuspecting author is offered a «traditional publishing deal» — meaning the publisher pays the publishing costs and offers industry - standard royalties on sales — but the contract contains a «mandatory marketing agreement» (or addendum) that requires the author to pay the publisher (or an affiliated marketing company) thousands of dollars to market and advertise the author's book.

The publishing contracts with HS had a clause giving 50 % royalties for things like e-books to the authors, but the license with HE gave HS only 6 - 8 % of cover price, meaning the authors only got 3 - 4 % (50 % of 6 - 8 %).

This results in cheaper «author» copies and means we can either charge less or take a larger royalty.

For me as an author, this would mean that they stop using contracts with incredibly onerous terms, such as owning the rights for the life of the copyright with no hope of reversion, no - compete clauses, option clauses, and most especially the infamous 25 % royalty rate.

That means that for customers who want to spend 15 $ in books, in the second case 2 $ will go to the author (one single sale), while in the first one, the author'll get 10 $... With such a royalty rate, if the author sells as many books when self - published as when publisher - published, why have the customer pay 13 $ more?

Also, I mean... I'm not a professional author, but I've heard many, many horror stories about the unreliability of royalty payments and the questionable accounting practices that are sometimes involved.

The conditions that make this platform an attractive alternative to KDP include: EPUB upload and document converstion, 70 % royalties of the sale price (meaning that if a book is sold for 2.49 euros, the author gets 1.46 euros with Tolino, but only 73 Cents if selling with Amazon) and distribution via all Tolino bookselling partners, making each title available in over a 1,000 online bookshops.

Scribd and Oyster continue to pay on a full royalty model, meaning authors receive the same royalty for a borrow as they do a sale.

That's why we publicly backed Macmillan when Amazon tried to use its online print book dominance to enforce its preferred e-book sales terms, even though Apple's agency model also meant lower royalties for authors.

I mean when I found out how much royalty you get as a traditionally published author I was just appalled.

We've been in direct touch with Data Guy to confirm one thing not in the report: In terms of working out what the sales data scraped for these reports means in terms of earning power, Author Earnings now has the cooperation of some 50 authors who share their royalty information with the project.

It's by no means unknown for publishers of heavily illustrated books to require authors to pay for photos or line art, or to find an illustrator who will work for part of the royalties.

Like most POD authors I sell very few copies, this means that Amazon can withhold my royalties for months, or possibly never pay them.

The standard economics of KDP apply with the new EDU publishing arm, meaning authors earn royalties ranging up to 70 percent depending on options, and keep control of the rights related to their content.

Here is the chart that means the most to us as authors, and we see that self - published authors now command more daily income from digital royalties than all Big 5 published authors, combined.

When a reader buys a self - published book, Amazon keeps 30 percent of the royalties and gives the rest to the authors — meaning the company makes money whether the book is plagiarized or not.

This means these authors get $ 0 in additional royalties on sales.

That means most publishers pay more to authors than what prevailing royalty rates might indicate, though there are reports that advances are declining.

That means Amazon must be paying trad publishers (or Macmillan at least) 70 % royalties at all price levels rather than the tiered structure on offer to indie authors through KDP.

The new borrow rate of $ 1.40 (I've rounded up the figure from the actual outturn of $ 1.39 1/2) means all Kindle authors with books priced in the 35 % royalty range will gain from borrows compared with sales, but authors in the 70 % royalty range will lose out even at the minimum of $ 2.99 where a sale would net $ 2.09.

Although sales of print books are less profitable than ebook sales, authors receive a much higher royalty rate from print (which may explain some of their pique at Amazon's tactics), and print bookstores are an effective means of helping readers discover new books.