5th funniest self publishing contractual clause

For a while now I’ve been examining the top ten funniest self-publishing contractual clauses from competitors and dissecting what the legalese means and why it’s “funny.” Last week I looked at the 10th, 9th, and 8th funniest contractual clauses. So far this week I’ve looked at #7 and #6… We’re half way done.

5th Funniest Clause from the Competitor’s Contract – Accordingly, for each of your written Titles you hereby grant us permission, on a nonexclusive, perpetual basis, to (x) reproduce and store the entirety of each Title in digital form on one or more computer facilities of or under the control of us or our affiliates or our independent contractors;

What it means: They can keep (and reproduce at will) the entire contents of your book’s copyright-protected material on their website (and other ambiguous “affiliate or independent contractors”) computers and servers forever, even after after you terminate the contract with them.

Why it’s funny: You’re basically relinquishing all control over your book’s materials to this other publisher.

Wouldn’t you rather keep 100% of your rights and 100% of the control by publishing a book with Outskirts Press?

Next time, #4…

6th funniest self publishing contract clause

For the last several posts I have been examining the top ten funniest self-publishing contractual clauses from competitors and dissecting what the legalese means and why it’s “funny.” Last week I looked at the 10th, 9th, and 8th funniest contractual clauses. Yesterday I looked at #7.

6th Funniest Clause from the Competitor’s Contract – Our use of the Descriptive Materials may become integral to us throughout the term of this Agreement and will continue beyond the term of this Agreement even though we will no longer produce or sell new Units after the term of this Agreement. Therefore, notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, for Descriptive Materials and Promotional Clips, the license you grant us will be perpetual and royalty-free.

What it means: They can display information about your book on their website forever without paying you, even after they stop selling it or after you terminate the contract with them.

Why it’s funny: In most cases, authors terminate their publishing relationship with their publisher for one of two reasons. 1) They’ve either gotten a contract from another publisher and need to pull the “old version” of the book from availability or, 2) They have irreconcilable differences with the publisher and wish to cut all ties.    This contractual clause from this competitor prevents its authors from doing either.

Next time, #5…

7th funniest self-publishing contract clause

All this week I’ve been examining the top ten funniest self-publishing contractual clauses from competitors and dissecting what the legalese means and why it’s “funny.” I did the 10th, 9th, and 8th last week. And of course, it goes without saying that this topic of contractual clauses around Christmas is very punny. Here’s #7:

7th Funniest Clause from the Competitor’s Contract – All statements and other accountings will be conclusive, final and binding, unless you give us written notice stating the specific basis for objection within one year after the date the payment was rendered. You will not maintain any action or proceeding against us or our affiliates in respect of any disputed statement unless you commence that action or suit against us within 6 months following the date that you provide us with the written notice referred to in the immediately preceding sentence.

What it means: The amount they pay you is final, and unless you officially object to the amount within 1 year of payment, you can’t do anything about it.

Why it’s funny: Many companies have accounting clauses like this, because accounting processes require some period of time during which potential liabilities (royalties and objections) have to be carried on the books.  So I understand the reasoning for this, and drawing attention to this particular clause isn’t necessarily a “slam” on this publisher. It’s just funny because, here in America, customers can object to things any time they want, and rarely do contractual clauses prevent them from doing so (since we’ve already established that almost no one reads this particular competitor’s contracts anyway).   

Next time, #6…

9th funniest self-publishing contractual clause

Over the next few weeks I’ll examine the top ten funniest contractual clauses from our competitors and dissect what the legalese means and why it’s “funny.” I looked at #10 yesterday.

#9 Funniest Clause from the Competitor’s Contract – We will determine how to handle Customer returns of Units, which may include, without limitation (a) in the case of physical Units, placing the returned copy of the Unit into inventory and reselling it to another Customer, in which case we will have no obligation to pay you any Content License Royalty for the resale of such Unit (because we paid, or will pay, you for the original sale of such Unit);

What it means: This publisher is allowed to sell your book multiple times from its e-retail store, but only pay you for it once.

Why it’s funny: Authors have two major frustrations with the book publishing industry:  Book returns and the secondary market.   The secondary market is when a book is sold “used” over and over again without any compensation coming to the author.  Logistically this occurs because most bookstores don’t have a way of tracking secondary sales.  But even though this particular publisher does have a means of tracking secondary sales (and in fact, it’s e-retail store is huge)  it actively chooses not to recognize secondary sales nor compensate its authors for secondary sales.

Next time, #8…

10th funniest self-publishing contractual clause

Over the next few weeks I’ll examine the top ten funniest contractual clauses from a competitor’s self-publishing contract and dissect what the legalese means and why it’s “funny.”

#10 Funniest Clause from the Competitor’s Contract – You will provide a List Price for each Title which will be at or below (a) the price at which you list or offer that title via any other sales channel; and (b) the price at which you sell such title in physical form to customers through any distribution method.

What it means:  If you’re going to publish your book with this publisher, you have to allow them to sell it for the same price, or less, than you sell your own book anywhere else.

Why it’s funny: This clause even prevents you from selling the book yourself (from your website or in person) for less than what your publisher sells it for, and in essence, mandates the price you must sell YOUR book for everywhere. 

Would you rather set your own retail price and keep 100% of the net profits? Publish a book with Outskirts Press.

Next time, #9…

Top 10 Funniest Self-Publishing Contractual Clauses

We do a lot of competitive analysis at Outskirts Press to constantly make sure Outskirts Press remains the best self-publishing company.  There are a lot of other reviews and comparisons of self-publishers that can be found on the Internet, too, and I wrote about those, and how we rank among them, in series of blog posts cumulating with this one here.  During my own recent review of our competitors I stumbled across some entertaining  (at least to me) clauses in self-publishing contracts and had to ask myself, “Do authors actually read these agreements before they pay some of these companies?”  I think in many cases, the answer is no, because would YOU sign something containing clauses like these?

The Top 10 Funniest Self-Publishing Clauses Found in Our Competitor’s Contracts

10. You will provide a List Price for each Title which will be at or below (a) the price at which you list or offer that title via any other sales channel; and (b) the price at which you sell such title in physical form to customers through any distribution method.

9. We will determine how to handle Customer returns of Units, which may include, without limitation (a) in the case of physical Units, placing the returned copy of the Unit into inventory and reselling it to another Customer, in which case we will have no obligation to pay you any Content License Royalty for the resale of such Unit (because we paid, or will pay, you for the original sale of such Unit);

8. We may, in our sole discretion, at any time, and without notice to you remove, or refuse to list or distribute any Content on or from any sales channel, but you will remain liable for all fees and other amounts that you may owe under this Agreement in connection with any Title or Promotional Clip we remove because of a violation of this Agreement or our Content Guidelines.

7. All statements and other accountings will be conclusive, final and binding, unless you give us written notice stating the specific basis for objection within one year after the date the payment was rendered. You will not maintain any action or proceeding against us or our affiliates in respect of any disputed statement unless you commence that action or suit against us within 6 months following the date that you provide us with the written notice referred to in the immediately preceding sentence.

6. Our use of the Descriptive Materials may become integral to us throughout the term of this Agreement and will continue beyond the term of this Agreement even though we will no longer produce or sell new Units after the term of this Agreement. Therefore, notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, for Descriptive Materials and Promotional Clips, the license you grant us will be perpetual and royalty-free.

5. Accordingly, for each of your written Titles you hereby grant us permission, on a nonexclusive, perpetual basis, to (x) reproduce and store the entirety of each Title in digital form on one or more computer facilities of or under the control of us or our affiliates or our independent contractors;

4. We may disclose or use Feedback for any purposes whatsoever without any obligation (including any financial obligation) to you. In addition, if you are participating in a beta program, you agree to provide us with any reports we request and to promptly respond to any and all reasonable inquiries, questionnaires, surveys and other test documents we submit to you.

3. We may terminate this Agreement at any time by sending you an e-mail notice at the e-mail address associated with your account. Our notice of such termination will be effective at the time we send you the notice. Upon termination, you will pay us whatever fees were incurred prior to the date of the termination.

2. We will have sole discretion to determine the production, appearance and format of each Unit (for example, bar code placement).

1. You acknowledge that you have no input or control over the price at which your Titles are sold. 

Next we’ll examine each clause one by one and I’ll explain what each of these clauses actually means for an author, and why they’re kind of funny (and a little scary that people are agreeing to them). Stay tuned…

Which online service should you use to incorporate a small business?

Over the past couple posts I’ve discussed the advantages of incorporating and a brief outline of the steps involved in incorporating a small business. Now let’s do some research to determine the online service to use.  I’m going to incorporate a new company, so I’m going to research online services to help me.  But how to choose the “best” one?

It’s not unlike the process I recommend to authors or professionals when they are researching a self publishing company:  Locate a number of comparison or review sites and allocate a point system to come up with a combined value for all the firms you are researching.   This prevents any one opinion from carrying undue weight.  Do enough research on any large company on the internet and you will find unhappy campers and ecstatic customers. Who do you believe?  You believe yourself, but conducting research and common sense. So when you look at a number of sources and take a combined average score from all of them, you usually come away with a good, fair idea of the service or company. 

I performed this process for self-publishing firms to demonstrate what I mean. You can see the results of that effort by clicking here.

So now we get to compare online incorporation services. I’m going to use two comparison sites: CompareLegalForms.com and TopConsumerReviews.com.    Stay tuned tomorrow to see what happens next…

Best self publisher for reviews and awards

In the previous post I looked at the number or 4 or 5 star reviews received on Amazon for books published by the top 6 major online self publishing firms.  That chart is below again as a refresher.  This time the chart is in order from highest to lowest, which, admittedly, is how the previous chart should have been, too (rather than the order it was in, which was the order in which I conducted the research).

Publishing Firm Percentage of 4 or 5 star ratings
Outskirts Press 52%
Company U 37%
Company C 27%
Company A 24%
Company X 19%
Company L 13%

My conclusion was that Outskirts Press books and authors receive statistically more and statistically higher reviews on Amazon than our 5 competitors.  In fact, it’s not even close. 52% compared to the next highest, Publisher U at 37%.  Remember, I don’t mention our competitors by name, but it’s probably not too hard to decipher this table…

Reader reviews are all well and good — in fact, we’re proud to come out on top in this analysis —  but I was curious if there was a correlation between high book reviews on Amazon and results within a widely recognized and valued book award contest. So I browsed the results of the ForeWord Reviews BOOK OF THE YEAR AWARDS that were just listed in the July/August issue of ForeWord Reviews trade magazine to compare these same 6 companies:

Publishing Firm Book of the Year Awards
Outskirts Press 4
Company U 4
Company C 1
Company A 0
Company X 0
Company L 0

What do you know? There is almost a direct correlation between the percentage of 4-5 star reviews on Amazon and the number of book awards won by a major book contest.

Not surprisingly, those publishers whose books received less than 25% 4-5 star reviews didn’t win any awards at all.  And this in spite of the volume/quantity advantage they have.  For instance, Publishers A and X publish approximately 2-4 times as many books as we do in a month, and Publisher L claims to publish about ten times as many.  Well, quantity doesn’t translate to quality, as you can see here.

I guess this also proves that Publisher L’s CEO was accurate when, in a 2009 New York Times article, he claimed that his company has “easily published the largest collection of bad poetry in the history of mankind.”

I don’t get the press that he gets (probably thankfully, because I’ve been known to put my foot in my mouth on occasion, too), so for the convenience of NY Times journalists everywhere, they are welcome to my analysis above, and this handy-dandy quote: Outskirts Press easily publishes better books, on average, than our five major competitors.

Actually, we seem to publish better books, on average, than any of our competitors. I searched the 2010 ForeWord Book of the Year Awards for all 20 of the publishers I’ve been posting about in the past and I couldn’t find any that can compete with Outskirts Press.

Just sayin’…

3 Tips for Conducting Research Online – Tip #3

Over the last couple of posts, I have suggested that the problem with conducting research on the Internet is that it is difficult to find facts. Even Wikipedia uses “social opinion” to shape and shift information; although they also require corroborative evidence or support from encyclopedias and/or newspapers for much of their new content. Isn’t that ironic? I wonder what Wikipedia is going to do for corroboration when it puts encyclopedias and newspapers out of business.

Until then, any potential customer or client researching a product or service online finds herself or himself in the wild, wild west. All you can really do is follow a few simple tips. I posted Tip #1 (determining the legitimacy of the source) and Tip #2 (Look at the date of the content) previously.

Tip #3 for Conducting Research Online: Analyze multiple sources

If you were thinking about buying a new BMW, would you go to the Mercedes Benz website to conduct your research? Perhaps. But you certainly wouldn’t stop there. You would probably also go to the BMW site. And then you would look at some car review sites and/or magazines.  Then you might read testimonials from people who had purchased the same BMW.  And you might read testimonials from drivers of other cars.  In other words, you would locate multiple sources and analyze all the information.   Rarely would one online comment that “BMW sux” be enough to completely sway your $60,000 decision.   And yet many people allow a single random comment on the Internet to sway their decisions on less expensive decisions all the time.  When you consider going to a new restaurant, does one negative YELP review point you in a different direction?   “Hamburger Joes SUX.”    Isn’t it the same concept as “BMW sux” — one person with one opinion? In fact, if anything, the LESS expensive a product or service is, the MORE it requires many different opinions to reach a worthwhile consensus.  This is because the barrier to adoption for less expensive things is so low, there will be many more opinions of it, so statistically speaking, you need a larger sampling to get an accurate average.

With the cost of our most popular publishing package coming in at $999, I wouldn’t necessarily say we were “less expensive” (although when you compare that to the average cost of independently publishing your book yourself with the cost of a professional book designer, cover designer, and off-set print-run, we certainly are).  Since our services fall in the realm where comparative research is important, I recently compared four sources to arrive at an average score for 20 self-publishing companies, and those results are here, where Outskirts Press received an average of 33.41 points out of a possible 40.

But the point of all this is that, even if the service/option/product you are considering is “cheap” or “free,” comparative research is a must.   The opinion of the person who writes “Hamburger Joes SUX” isn’t any more or less valid than the opinion of the person who writes “Hamburger Joes ROX.”  For authors, it comes down to this: After the months or years it took to write your book, do you really want to rest the fate of it on “cheap” or “free” or on the opinion of one random “Hamburger Joes SUX/ROX” individual?

So, for readers of my blog who are in start-up mode themselves, or running/managing/operating their own business, my piece of advice is this:  Get mentioned and reviewed in as many sources as you can. One might be bad. Others average. Hopefully most are good.  And get lots of testimonials. Your satisfied clients are your best advocates.  I’m pleased to say that we are in wonderful position as far as author praise is concerned; we get so many heart-warming and touching comments about our services and company every day, it just reinforces my personal drive to keep delivering even more value for them.

3 Tips for Conducting Research Online – Tip #2

In yesterday’s post I suggested that the problem with conducting research on the Internet is that it is difficult to find facts. Even Wikipedia uses “social opinion” to shape and shift information; although they also require corroborative evidence or support from encyclopedias and/or newspapers for much of their new content. Isn’t that ironic? I wonder what Wikipedia is going to do for corroboration when it puts encyclopedias and newspapers out of business.

But until then, a consumer researching a product or service online finds himself in the wild, wild west. So all one can really do is follow a few simple tips. I posted Tip #1 yesterday, which was determining the legitimacy of the source.

Tip #2 for Conducting Research Online: Look at the date of the information

We think of the Internet as an immediate, up-to-date source for everything from news to the latest photographs of Lady Gaga. As a result, it is easy to assume everything you read on the Internet is timely. Don’t be fooled. “Information” (or a better term would simply be “content”) posted on the Internet is available for a loooong time. You may be looking at information that is 3, 4, 5 or more years old. It may no longer be relevant or even accurate (if it ever was). Always look at the date the content was initially posted to make a better assessment of its relevancy to your search.

And speaking of being fooled, be extra cautious of information posted on April 1. “April Fool’s Day” has earned its namesake in the Internet age, with desperate marketers using the date as justification for posting false, fraudulent, and libelous claims. A competitor of Outskirts Press, for example, once distributed a press release on April Fool’s Day claiming that the Library of Congress needed to add another wing to accommodate the vast quantity of books being published by said competitor. Another company in our industry claimed in a press release dated April 1 to have reached a deal with J.K. Rowling for the ebook rights to Harry Potter. Were both these press releases clever? Of course.  But they muddy the waters in an already confusing industry and ultimately confuse the end customer/consumer/client even more.  I’ve seen evidence in social media comments and postings that suggest many people fail to realize these press releases are “jokes.” Of course, that’s good news for the original company or individual who posted the April Fool’s Day press releases to begin with; they want to mislead you.  That is their intent.

Separating fact from fiction is hard enough on the Internet. Companies don’t have to make it harder one day out of the year.

Tip # 3 next time…