Could UK Authors and Publishers Actually Start Talking Turkey?

While surveys of authors’ revenue from writing may be flawed tools, the latest major study might just get publishers and authors to the table to talk

There’s been an understandable round of dismayed reactions to the new study released June 27 by the UK’s Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society (ALCS) on author income. Based on the 2017 earnings reports of some 5,500 writers, the report indicates that the median annual income (from writing) of a professional author in the UK has slipped below minimum wage, assuming a standard 35-hour workweek.

Granular data will follow the report’s summary (PDF) at a later date. The 2017 study was preceded by similar studies in 2013 and 2005, yielding these median income reports (with a conversion to today’s US dollar):

• 2017 £10,437 (US$13,850) 
• 2013 £11,000 (US$14,600) 
• 2005 £12,330 (US$16,400)

As the Society of Authors noted in their coverage, the study also indicates that “Just 13.7 percent of authors earn their income solely from writing.” In 2005, the results indicated that 40 percent of authors were earning all their income from writing. We’d like to call your attention to two things: (1) strong questions about the validity of this kind of survey and (2) a new potential for dialogue between authors and publishers about money.

Jane has written extensively about the serious questions that must be asked about many such efforts to quantify the field. An essential point, of course, is that these efforts rely entirely on the accuracy of a self-selecting pool of respondents. That doesn’t mean a study is devoid of value, but it does mean that its most fundamental data isn’t independently verifiable. In her piece, Jane also looks at the changing shape and size of the respondent pool behind the ALCS studies, as well as the variation in researchers themselves. Although some have used income-survey data to assert that publishers are underpaying writers, Jane looks at how survey data “doesn’t prove that publishers are the cause of the decline” in reported income. And she reminds us that the writerly career has never promised full-time employment and can’t, because authors are acting as independent agents (and publishers as contractors). The expectation may be more flawed than the result.

The other factor to note, however, is the intriguing possibility of talks. As the ALCS material was released, the Publishers Association’s chief executive, Stephen Lotinga, told the Bookseller’s Katherine Cowdrey (subscription required), “These figures will be unrecognizable to the majority of publishers as they just do not reflect the investments they are making in creative talent.” He also said that it would take a “much sounder evidence base” to support “a genuinely constructive conversation.”

This triggered a spirited response signed by Nicola Solomon and Owen Atkinson, who lead the Society of Authors and the ALCS, respectively. They challenged Lotinga’s response, yes, but they also echoed him in one important way: they shared an interest in talking.

Bottom line: In diplomatic circles, this is when you rush everyone into the conference room, send in pizza, and lock the door. This exchange, even though contentious, could lead to substantive conversations if the Publishers Association and the Society of Authors each created a small negotiating team simply to explore how such talks might happen and what their goals might be. With the competition from other entertainment media looming, what we hear both sides saying is Can we talk?