The debate over whether royalties for ELT authors are on the way out is raging on the conference circuit and in various corners of the Web. It’s clear that some kind of change is afoot within the industry, but it’s unclear yet just how extensive that change will be, especially for established authors. Here at eltjam, we thought now would be a good time to look at a couple of important issues related to fee-based ELT materials writing, especially on digital projects.
One very persuasive argument in favour of royalties is that royalty-earning authors tend to invest considerably more time in getting the quality of the content as high they can; after all, it’s in everybody’s interest to make the thing as good as possible so that it sells as much as possible. The obvious risk for publishers in switching to fees is that even the most conscientious writer working for a fixed fee is inevitably going to be thinking about return on investment, measured simply as time spent versus cash received. The worry is that the writer will try to do the work as quickly as possible, rather than as well as possible. That’s not intended to do the writer a disservice; it’s human nature to want to be fairly rewarded for our labour. And let’s not forget that the publisher is also paying up front for content that might not sell at all, therefore potentially lowering its own ROI; royalties are a way of sharing some of that risk with the author (a large advance notwithstanding).
But fee-based writing can present serious risks to the author, too. Unless the author brief is absolutely set in stone at the start of the project, and articulated in such a way that the completion of the writing job can be clearly measured, then writers run the risk of being asked to redraft work continuously as the result of changing requirements; and with each redraft, the writer’s ROI gets worse and worse. This problem is particularly common on digital projects, where content requirements often change to accommodate new or reduced functionality in whatever platform the material is to be delivered in. The reality is, if the software development being done on the platform is happening in tandem with the production of content, it’s the content that’s going to be reshaped to fit the platform, not the other way round. If you saw what software developers earned per hour compared to ELT writers, you’d understand why.
So what can writers do to protect themselves?
- Find out whether the platform being used for the course is still in development and whether that development is going to continue alongside the content creation.
- If the answer to question 1 is yes, it’s very important that the contract you sign — and the author brief attached to it — represent the final scope of what you’re being asked to produce. If it doesn’t, don’t sign it.
- If it’s clear that the content requirements are likely to change, try to negotiate a separate fee for this experimentation phase. Explain that you understand that some extensive rewriting of content might be required at the start of the project, but that this needs to be reflected in the fee offered.
- Try to ensure that your brief provides some way of measuring when your work is complete. The real risk is an open-ended brief that simply requires the writer to keep redrafting endlessly for the same fixed fee. This is sadly very common in digital materials writing. You might try to have a certain number of drafts specified in the brief. Alternatively, you could ask for the brief to make a distinction between redrafting required because you didn’t follow the brief or delivered poor quality material (which you should be responsible for financially) and changes to the scope of the project (which they should).
- Finally, as we mentioned recently, don’t be afraid to ask how the fee for the job has been calculated. Is it a time-based estimate? If so, how has that been calculated and what happens if it takes more time? Is the fee based on a similar, comparable project? If so, how much time did those authors actually take to complete the project?
If the publisher and the writer both start the negotiations with an understanding that the best desirable outcome is the production of great content for which the writer feels fairly remunerated, then it is possible to end up with a deal that makes everyone happy. And don’t forget that fair remuneration is actually in the publisher’s interest, assuming that you’re a good writer who they want to use on a regular basis. However, in the fast-paced, sometimes chaotic early stages of large digital projects, these important discussions can get missed, the need to start working on the content right now taking priority over everything else. In order to protect themselves, both writers and publishers need to make sure that doesn’t happen.