Let's talk about the best ways to support authors, indie publishers, and the literary community in general, rather than just big retailers.
I made this blog post talking about platforms and royalties. Have a look. Please tell me where I'm wrong or what I missed!
Feel free to reply to me on here or in the comments on the blog post—you can sign up for free, your info remains private, you won't be spammed. I promise that I care about privacy!
That's one reason Google is on my own don't-buy-here list.
Authors, lend me your spreadsheets. Readers, lend me your receipts.
Someone in the Sapphic writers' Discord server that I'm on asked about
Very interesting breakdown on how much an artist (who owns their masters) stands to make when their songs are covered by another artist.
x
Her points (around 1:35) about an artist covering a song on tour were particularly interesting to me as fees are paid by the venue. And it seems the fee amount is dependent on the size of the artist, the size of the tour, and the size of the venue (bigger = more money).
Across several platforms, I see a lot of discussions about whether it is ethical to stream shows by problematic creators because it might give them direct revenue.
I think some of this is down to the fact that many people don’t know how remuneration of writers by streaming services works. It’s not a “they get paid per view”-thing. Or even a, “If I stream this, the writer will definitely get more money”-thing. (All of this obviously excludes other considerations, like giving people exposure/promotion etc).
The moment a show hits the screen, credited writers have basically already been paid. Whether you watch or not makes no material difference to that fact whatsoever—with one caveat:
For the big streamers, this usually only applies to the first 90 days. Because this is the time period that’s covered by what’s called the initial compensation period (for really small streamers, that period is usually a year).
After this, you enter the stage of residuals and exhibition years. So for every year the show stays on a streaming platform, credited writers will receive residuals. These usually drop year after year (so the longer your show airs, the fewer residuals you will get in terms of percentage).
What Does This Mean?
Watching a big budget show within the first 90 days doesn’t make a difference to a credited writer’s bank balance (I’ll get to the exception in a sec). Watching thereafter is also not tied to a “payment per view”, but simply to a formula per year the show gets streamed. You can find this more neatly explained on the WGA website:
Residuals for High-Budget Subscription Video on Demand (HBSVOD) Programs
Streamers usually also don’t take a show/old episodes off their platform after 90 days or a year just because viewer numbers naturally fall with time (it’s usually a pre-negotiated license period of 3+years), although that sometimes happens (if you have a look through Amazon’s and Netflix’s catalogue, you’ll find lots of older shows on there that probably hardly anyone watches).
So whether people stream or not usually matters most when it comes to renewals and cancellations, because that’s where a streamer makes or loses money (production costs vs overall new subscriptions etc).
For a show that’s finishing or already cancelled, the implications are far less material. And the first 90 days do not matter at all in this context (they only matter for a renewal, but in terms of residuals, they’re basically out of the equation).
This obviously doesn’t mean that a boycott can’t be a consideration for many other reasons. But if it is financial compensation via residuals that’s the main ick, it really doesn’t matter as much as people think.
This isn’t to tell people to do one thing over the other, but I see so much misinformation about the basic nuts and bolts of this on a daily basis that I think it’s maybe worth looking into it a bit more closely for many people.
What About Libraries?
As a little addendum (because that’s also something people frequently misunderstand): Not every country has a PLR scheme that remunerates writers for library loans. And the ones that do have a cap. So if you are worried about giving a writer royalties if you borrow their books from a library, first have a look if your country actually has a PLR scheme, and how it operates (you can do this here). As examples:
The UK has a PLR scheme, so secondhand is generally preferable over libraries because authors get royalties up to a cap (which, generally speaking, is a good thing, but it’s obviously worth considering if the author is a vile human being). It also needs to be said though that they, or their estate, need to be a resident or have a principal home in the EEA to qualify, but that just as an aside.
The US don’t have a PLR scheme, so the author gets diddly squat per loan.
Again, there are other, legitimate considerations as to why secondhand is preferable over borrowing (or vice versa), but if we are talking about royalties, that’s how it works…
