Some thoughts on Medallion / RWA

Since the letter from Medallion was made public, a lot of people have questioned their professionalism and accounting practices. Not being able to produce certain records at the touch of a button has nothing to do with receipts, and unlike a lot of people, I understand that there are some limits as to what a software program can do. I work for a small company. We've checked out different types of office software over the years, and not a one of them does everything small business owners want it to do. We can produce some reports, but not others. If we switched software, we'd be able to run different reports, but would lose the ability to do others we use more often. Upgrades to the software we use can also cause issues, since we have no control over the changes the software provider makes--changes which can alter types of reports and programs you can run, and the way in which it is displayed.

Y2K was a major PITA where this was concerned. When the software we use was upgraded, for some stupid reason they changed it so that invoices do not show a discount being taken, even though it is refelcted in the amount due. We've discovered that there are far too many people in this country who cannot look at the "amount due," see that the "subtotal" is greater than that, and discern that a discount has in fact been taken. You wouldn't believe how many people try to take a discount twice! When asked why they did this, there was no valid answer, and we were told it would cost a couple grand in order for them to write it in just for us. No one ever said programmers were the sharpest pencils in the drawer. My point being, small companies like us, and this would extend to small publishing houses too I think, can't afford to spend the thousands of dollars larger houses can on personal programmers and designer software--not when it comes down to that or keeping the cost of a product reasonable.

Smaller companies are also limited by how much data they can store on the computer, as well as how many computers are available. Our company, for example, has two--one that only prints UPC labels, and one used for everything else. Copies of paid invoices, old orders and such are stored in file boxes. Which means finding something for the accountant, lawyer or customer may require several hours digging through those boxes, depending upon how many months or years we have to go back. It's not that the information isn't available, but that it takes a lot of valuable time trying to find it--and time is money.

What I agree about in the letter from Medallion is that there ARE other ways for RWA to ascertain the validity of a publisher, such as advances and royalties, how they are paid out, and whether they are paid on time. Yes, how many books they publish in a year and how many of a single title are important, but there are other factors to consider when looking for a "valid" publisher. As a writer, I personally would like to know how honest a publisher is, how prompt with payments, and how they treat their authors--not just how the top selling authors are treated, but those at the bottom of the barrel as well. Not entirely without the realms of possibilty, as evidenced by the site Preditors & Editors, where one can find info on editors, agents, and companies one should steer clear of.

In her response to the Medallion letter, author Debra Dixon says,

Guidelines for publishers are not new in the industry. Ingram, the largest wholesaler in the country, routinely makes decisions about which publishers it will continue to service and stock in its warehouses. *Ingram* decides who's big enough, who's selling enough books per title, how many titles signal a serious player, whose business terms they like, etc.

Qualifying for services and inclusion in business networks is a fact of life in this world.

Guidelines are fine, so long as they are the same for everyone. The problem with RWA's guidelines, however, is that they have different requirements for print and ebook publishers. You know, it doesn't matter in what format a book is published, they are equally difficult to write, and require editing, publicity, an art department, etc. A book is a book is a book, and there is little difference in cost between print and electronic books--ask anyone who has bought them! The biggest difference I can see is that you don't have to pay shipping when ordering an ebook, whereas you do if you order a traditional print book online. Well, that and the fact it's kind of hard to curl up in bed at night with a computer, no matter how compact it is.

It is also a fact that RWA has, for a number of years now, labored to keep a number of legitimate publishers off the "recognized" list, simply because they were epublishers or small press. For example, New Concepts, a publisher that repeatedly met RWA "standards" but were kept off the list for other reasons--such as the size of their printed books not being the same dimensions as other mass market books. Hmm...I wonder--will RWA go after Harlequin's new imprint "Next," seeing as they are slightly taller than the traditional mass market book, yet smaller than trade? And really, what difference do the dimensions of a book matter, other than the fact these new "Next" books make it difficult to wedge them onto a bookshelf with all your traditional-size books?

It seems to me that RWA needs some policing of their own. When standards are routinely changed in order to prevent certain publishers from qualifying for "recognition," when ethics and moral practices of the organization itself are called into question, it's definitely time their practices were audited--and time for some changes. I think there are some major ones in store for RWA in the very near future.