The Word Cloud

I realise this subject has come up before but wouldn't mind a bit of clarification. Is a two-book deal the norm?

Not the norm, I would say, but certainly common. Or was. Whether publishers are being more cautious these days, I don't know - it's a much longer commitment for them.

More common, I'd say, in genres that tend come in series - detective, for instance. And you'd have to get your head round the publishers wanting something which they can market at the same constituency.

Emma

Thanks very much for getting back to me, Emma.

The rationale of the two-book deal from the publisher's point of view is that it's worth putting a bit more oomph and money into launching the writer, because the writer won't be waltzing off to another publisher with all the kudos of the first book behind them: writers are one of the few freelancers where your brand is your own, after all. Reversed, that's why writers often like them: the publisher's more likely to put money and effort into the debut if they've got two books to give them a chance of earning it back. (We also like them because it's a bit more secure, as well as more money up front, because you sign the contract for both books at the beginning. On the other hand, if it's rubbish money, then you're locked into rubbish money for ages with a 2-booker.)

They're unlikely to make much real money on a one-booker, but then 90% of books published make a loss anyway, and at least they're not too exposed by having paid over the odds for book two. It costs anything up to £100,000 for a mainstream publisher to launch a book in a smallish way, and a two-book deal commits them to doing that whatever for book two, long before they can know if it'll pay off. So that's a risk they may not want to take. Sometimes that's not because they think One is a weak book, but may be simply because it's an odd book - they love it, but it's one that's really hard to predict, and could bomb, or be the next Curious Incident.

There are agents who basically don't think 2-book deals are a good idea, because of this problem: if One does brilliantly, then they could have got more money for Two, and if One does badly, then the publisher's fed up for having paid 'too much' for Two.

Aaaah. Thanks for this, Emma. From what you say, there are obvious advantages (and disadvantages) to both types of deal, and this would be true for everybody concerned. Until now I hadn't considered what the ubiquity of the two-book deal might actually mean, and wondered if perhaps the one-book-deal was a rarity, or simply not done at all, whereas (if I understand you correctly) this isn't the case.

I gather that with some genres - crime, for example - publishers are even trying for three and four book deals, in an effort to be sure they'll get something back on their investment. Even longer, when they want to hang on to an established name.

One thing to remember is that if it's a two-booker, you'll probably hear about it because on the whole it gets trumpeted: the publisher's that keen on the writer, so they may look more ubiquitous than they are. On the other hand, when you're being impressed (or not) by the quoted size of the advance, it's obviously crucial to know what it's based on.

Emma

I agree with everything Emma has said, but would like to add a caveat for any author who is offered a two-book deal. You must, as far as possible, know that you'll be happy with the publisher. Of course, this is easiest if you've already been published by them so you have some idea of how they behave when it comes to the things they are contractually obliged to do, such as sending out full royalty statements when they're due (and not months later, with a flimsy excuse for the delay or with sketchy information), paying money when it's due (instead of being very late in paying the advance due on signature of the contract while still expecting the author to break their neck meeting a tight deadline for the delivery), and being competent/pleasant to deal with/you name it. If you go into a two-book deal blind, it's a bit like an arranged marriage and you just have to hope that you'll live happily ever after.

Fascinating and very informative, I had wondered about the rationale behind book deal structures. Thanks for the info.

Thanks for your input, Spangles.

You're very welcome. And I look forward to hearing about your own two-book deal - which will be accompanied by many noughts on the cheque!

Don't hold your breath....

I did notice recently on the Macmillan New Writing website that they have the option to publish your second novel under the same terms as the first, if they accept it of course, so straight away you know you're getting 20% royalty on your first two books with them and no advance. I guess it's basically giving them first refusal, but beyond the 2nd book they would have to renegotiate.

That's interesting, Steve. Who does the option rest with? Is it entirely their decision or do you have some say in the matter? Because, of course, if your first book is a huge smash, you would be able to negotiate a massive advance for the second if you were free to take it to another publisher.

Unless things have changed with MNW, it's 20% of cover price - in return for the fact that you don't get an advance. And yes, you are contractually obliged to give them first refusal on the second book on the same terms. (More usually, a book contract will ask that the publisher gets a first look at a new MS, and any offer will be 'on terms to be agreed'). With a clause like MNW's, if you want to get out of it you have to write a 'contract breaker' - a book which you know they'll refuse. The general idea is that after that you're a free agent after that, though obviously PanMac proper might well be interested.

The first refusal option, and the lack of an advance, was the reason the agents were horrified when MNW were set up, and they do have a point (as well as an interest in the advance, of course): it's the kind of disadvantageous deal that they and the Society of Authors and Writers Guild spent 50 years trying to eradicate. But in the event, it does seem to have worked out rather well - I think because it was set up by a publishing professional with a background in production, not a bunch of passionate literary fiction fans who are convinced that the world at large only needs to have their books put them in front of them.

What's nice, too, is that the MNW authors have made friends with each other, and shared info about promoting their work, because that's even more down to you as an MNW author than it normally is.

Emma

Fascinating, thanks for clarifying Emma. I had considered submitting to MNW, and may still in the future, but want to see what happens first at the Festival and consider any feedback first.

Steve