Why I'm not laughing at Stephen Colbert this week

Local news outlets, as usual, missed the real news story this week as they waxed amused at Stephen Colbert, who claimed during a recent show that Powell's Books owed him $8 for selling his new book at a 30% discount.  In a similar amused vein, they uniformly quoted a Powell's spokesperson who said that they'd sent Colbert the $8.  (They didn't, he said, plan to send any more than that for additional sales.)

The real story?  Colbert out-and-out lied on national television -- and if he cashes that $8 check, one might argue that he successfully committed extortion.

Now for most pro authors, the next paragraph is basic publishing knowledge, but it's important in context, so bear with me.

The truth is that Colbert, like any other author with a book contract, gets royalties from his publisher for each retail sale of his book, amounting (going by general industry standard) to 10%-15% of cover price for trade hardcovers.  On a $26.99 hardback, that's about $2.70 to $4.05, which the publisher will either credit against his advance (if the book hasn't earned out yet) or pay out in his first royalty check (if the book has earned out).  Moreover, what consumers don't always realize is that most of the time, bookstore discounts don't affect the author's royalty; the author gets his or her percentage on the cover price, whether the book is discounted or not.  [There are exceptions, and some publishers now try to key royalties to net price, but generally speaking, percentage of cover price is still the standard.]

Now I'm reasonably confident that Stephen Colbert knows how publishing works, so he should know very well that his publishers will, in fact, pay him the $2.70-$4.05 royalty they owe him on that copy of his book he caught Powell's selling for $18.89 -- just as they will pay him that same figure for a copy sold for $26.99 up the street at 23rd Avenue Books, and for a copy sold for $16.19 on Amazon.  He didn't lose a penny on that Powell's sale, and Powell's did not and does not owe him $8 (strictly, $8.10) for selling the book at a discount.

But he said they did, and that makes him a liar.

Now having said that, I should add that I'm actually less offended by Colbert's riff than I am by the local media coverage and by the fact that Powell's caved so easily.  Colbert is, after all, a comedian, and you can make a case that what I'm calling a lie is justifiable comic exaggeration.  (I'd disagree with such a case, but I can understand it.)

OTOH, I think it's ethically wrong and journalistically irresponsible for the local media to support and perpetuate the lie.  Consumers are already confused enough about how authors get paid; this was a chance for media outlets to educate folks on How Publishing Works, and to point out that Colbert was engaging in a Foghorn Leghorn moment (i.e. "That's a joke, son!").  Instead, they covered the joke as if it were a true statement, and thereby did their readers and viewers a disservice.  And Powell's, I'd think, would have gotten even better PR value by pointing out that Colbert is probably making more on each sale than they are, and thus Powell's is arguably even more patriotic and civic-minded than Colbert himself.

But I suppose that expecting that much brain out of the mainstream media is an exercise in wishful thinking....

Why I'm not laughing at Stephen Colbert this week

Local news outlets, as usual, missed the real news story this week as they waxed amused at Stephen Colbert, who claimed during a recent show that Powell's Books owed him $8 for selling his new book at a 30% discount.  In a similar amused vein, they uniformly quoted a Powell's spokesperson who said that they'd sent Colbert the $8.  (They didn't, he said, plan to send any more than that for additional sales.)

The real story?  Colbert out-and-out lied on national television -- and if he cashes that $8 check, one might argue that he successfully committed extortion.

Now for most pro authors, the next paragraph is basic publishing knowledge, but it's important in context, so bear with me.

The truth is that Colbert, like any other author with a book contract, gets royalties from his publisher for each retail sale of his book, amounting (going by general industry standard) to 10%-15% of cover price for trade hardcovers.  On a $26.99 hardback, that's about $2.70 to $4.05, which the publisher will either credit against his advance (if the book hasn't earned out yet) or pay out in his first royalty check (if the book has earned out).  Moreover, what consumers don't always realize is that most of the time, bookstore discounts don't affect the author's royalty; the author gets his or her percentage on the cover price, whether the book is discounted or not.  [There are exceptions, and some publishers now try to key royalties to net price, but generally speaking, percentage of cover price is still the standard.]

Now I'm reasonably confident that Stephen Colbert knows how publishing works, so he should know very well that his publishers will, in fact, pay him the $2.70-$4.05 royalty they owe him on that copy of his book he caught Powell's selling for $18.89 -- just as they will pay him that same figure for a copy sold for $26.99 up the street at 23rd Avenue Books, and for a copy sold for $16.19 on Amazon.  He didn't lose a penny on that Powell's sale, and Powell's did not and does not owe him $8 (strictly, $8.10) for selling the book at a discount.

But he said they did, and that makes him a liar.

Now having said that, I should add that I'm actually less offended by Colbert's riff than I am by the local media coverage and by the fact that Powell's caved so easily.  Colbert is, after all, a comedian, and you can make a case that what I'm calling a lie is justifiable comic exaggeration.  (I'd disagree with such a case, but I can understand it.)

OTOH, I think it's ethically wrong and journalistically irresponsible for the local media to support and perpetuate the lie.  Consumers are already confused enough about how authors get paid; this was a chance for media outlets to educate folks on How Publishing Works, and to point out that Colbert was engaging in a Foghorn Leghorn moment (i.e. "That's a joke, son!").  Instead, they covered the joke as if it were a true statement, and thereby did their readers and viewers a disservice.  And Powell's, I'd think, would have gotten even better PR value by pointing out that Colbert is probably making more on each sale than they are, and thus Powell's is arguably even more patriotic and civic-minded than Colbert himself.

But I suppose that expecting that much brain out of the mainstream media is an exercise in wishful thinking....