academic vs. commercial publishing outlets
There's a lot of action in the blogosphere about ex-DEA agent Paul Doyle's book deal with a university press. The gist is, the book didn't do well because of lack of marketing, and he made very little money. Authors who blog are saying he is at fault because he didn't hire a lawyer to read the contract.
Excuse me, but that's really beside the point. The guy wrote a book and submitted it on his own to a University Press. University presses do most of their work with professors and researchers. I know a lot of university professors, as I was one for twelve years, and I published a lot when I was one of them, so a few facts:
1. University professors and researchers almost never have agents or other representation. They work directly with a university press editor. Because...
2. Advances are minimal, or non-existant. Because...
3. The idea is not to make money off of academic work (although nobody would object -- they just don't expect it to happen) but to disseminate the work. Because...
4. Publishing is crucial to an academic career. When they are talking to a University Press about a new book, academics are most concerned about the prominence of the press. Academics live off their salaries (or try to) and not off of royalties. Marketing and other such real-world issues are secondary or non existant. An agent would raise those questions, but agents don't come into this situation because...
5. Agents only make money if the author makes money. Which isn't the case with a University Press.
So Paul Doyle's error wasn't his failure to consult a lawyer about a contract with a university press. If he had, he would have paid the lawyer a lot of money and then taken a list of demands to the press. And what then? The press passes. Because there are thousands of academics with books out there and they need to publish to keep their jobs and their salaries.
Edited to add: talking here about academic work, not textbooks. textbooks = proverbial different kettle of fish.
Paul Doyle did make some big mistakes:
1. He wrote a commercial book and took it to a University Press. The University Press was probably thrilled. A chance for real sales! Of course they weren't prepared to treat it like a commercial book; that's not what they do.
2. He did this without an agent. An agent would have submitted to commercial presses. If that agent got him an offer, and if that agent was good, he or she would have gone over the contract carefully and negotiated with the publisher. That's what a good agent does: first she sells the book, then she makes sure you get the best deal possible.
Really, it makes no sense to try to villanize the University Press. If you order organic sprouts and tofu on whole wheat bread, you can't complain that it's not the steak with bernaise sauce you would rather have had.
