Book Publishers Seeking Tighter Control: New Development

If you remember my lengthy report on the odd miscellany of movements by publisher Simon & Schuster in recent months, you'll know what I'm talking about. Otherwise, you can read the series or take my word that S&S appears to be seeking to wrest control over the distribution of books into their own hands (as opposed to those of bookstores).

One of S&S's most interesting moves was the change in their author-publisher contract that granted them publication rights for the full length of a book's copyright.

Recently, I've received an anonymous tip suggesting that at least two other major publishers may be following suit--in this case by sticking clauses in their boilerplate contracts allowing them to register copyrights to books in the name of the publisher instead of the author. This would essentially grant them the same power--placing publication rights under their control for enough time not to have to worry about anyone else grabbing the rights back.

I don't know who the publishers are (though I have my suspicions), but it seems the clauses were picked up very recently in contracts received by literary agents.

Given this new information, I'm definitely increasing in my conviction that the return system is not long for this world. Here's why:

Let's say it happened tomorrow. At least three publishers--being Simon & Schuster plus our Publishers X and Y--one day tell bookstores, "Hey, guess what: you can't return books anymore." The first thing that happens is that bookstores stop buying books from them and change their business plan to compensate (possibly by opening their doors to used books, which would be a way to keep bestselling authors on their shelves). This is short-term, and hopefully that's all there is to it; after a little while, the bookstores cave and the publishers get their way.

But what happens if that's not all there is to it? What if the bookstores continue to fight it and refuse to carry non-returnable books? It's certainly a possibility that other publishers might exploit the situation by continuing to accept returns. If that happened, then authors frustrated by falling sales in the care of non-returnable publishers might jump ship as soon as they could. If the non-returnables lost enough revenue sources this way, they might end up being driven out of business; not exactly the desired outcome.

The best way avoid this would be to ensure that the authors published under non-returnable imprints stay that way. Scribner and Pocket Books are both S&S imprints; what happens when Stephen King books are no longer available from bookstore that refuse to buy non-returnable?

Granted, that itself is an unlikely scenario; authors that generate sales as high as King can frankly have whatever kind of contract they want, but the industry isn't sustained by bestsellers--contrary to popular belief, the real way for publishers to keep things moving is to generate enough books that earn out on their investment; not spectacular sellers, but reliable ones, are the bread and butter. It's much more likely that publishers would be able to hang onto mid-list and newer authors who can generate that kind of product.

I've talked to a lot of publishing professionals, and I feel confident guessing that if you ranked their top ten biggest wishes, the end of the return system would be one of them. One thing you don't often hear them consider is what kind of sacrifices--temporary or permanent--that kind of change would incur. These contract changes by publishers initially struck me as completely author-unfriendly and malicious, but right now I'm honestly on the fence about them. Considering what they could mean for the industry, is it worth it to have nasty contract clauses thrown in?