Historical and Contemporary Romance Author

Four Years Later…

Offered without comment or interpretation:

Royalty Statement – Page 1

Royalty Statement – Page 2

Note: You can click the pictures to embiggen them. I know the quality’s not great, but I don’t have a scanner.


  • Steven Zacharius January 26, 2014 at 11:17 pm

    You still do not want to correct your misstatement that the print order was only 4000 copies when in fact that was the net sales. You should know the difference between gross and net.

    • Jackie Barbosa January 27, 2014 at 11:49 pm


      Since I said nothing in this post about the number of copies printed vs ordered, no one who’s reading this post who hasn’t read our conversations elsewhere has any idea what you’re talking about.

      I’ve already conceded that I don’t know what the print run number was because no one told me. I made an assumption based on the number I knew had shipped (the 3,775 shown on this statement) and the number I was told were left in the warehouse roughly a month after the book came out (200). If you say 8,000 were printed, I believe you. I’m not remotely arguing that point.

      However, since only 3,775 units shipped and only that number have shipped within the past four years, that’s the practical ceiling of my print run. My book is not going to sell MORE print copies than exist.

  • Laura Kaye January 28, 2014 at 11:46 am

    Thanks for sharing this information, Jackie. The amazing thing about Steve’s comment is that I haven’t seen him making special public announcements about the misinformation he’s spread in his great blog commenting tour of 2014 (some that come readily to mind: that E.L. James is self-published, that self-pubbed authors don’t share sales numbers or income earnings, lumping vanity publishing companies in with legitimate self-publishing portals like KDP and Nookpress, touting that Writers Digest survey as FACT yet didn’t know that 50% of the respondents weren’t even published authors), yet he’s like a dog with a bone about the question of your 4K v. 8K print-run question. And, honestly, it’s kinda hilarious that he wants to argue that. Because an 8K print run isn’t anything to shout about from the rooftops, so you’d think he’d want to let that one drop already. *scratches head*

  • Jackie Barbosa January 28, 2014 at 12:13 pm

    Laura wrote: “And, honestly, it’s kinda hilarious that he wants to argue that. Because an 8K print run isn’t anything to shout about from the rooftops, so you’d think he’d want to let that one drop already.”

    Yeah, I’m really scratching my head. If only 200 of the original 8,000 print run were in the warehouse a month or so after the book came out, what happened to the other 4,000? I mean, I get that a publisher only has room to warehouse so many books and mine wasn’t one it would have made a lot of sense to hang onto, but it seems pretty obvious that those 4,000 copies were pulped very soon after the book was released. So whatever the ACTUAL print run was, the practical number of copies available for sale was under 4,000.

    I just heard a horror story on a loop about an author whose book had a very large print run but marketing neglected to pitch her book to Target/Walmart/et al. The total number of books ordered was therefore less than 5% of her print run. Are publishers trying to tell us that kind of disparity is a GOOD thing?

  • Steven Zacharius January 28, 2014 at 11:14 pm

    My point is that you were still stating misinformation here. Your print run was not 3775 copies. That’s what your book sold in trade paper.

    And Laura I’m a little surprised that a successful traditionally published author like yourself would get into the fray of bashing here. I never stated the Writer’s Digest survey was fact. I just stated what they said at DBW. I said I hadn’t seen the study, which I’ve since spent the $295.00 to order. Of course my words were twisted around here because of the bitterness that exists towards traditional publishing here.

    I was like a dog with a bone with the misinformation about her print run because she kept restating it over and over and over. No 8000 is not a very good print run and the fact that it sold only half of that is not a good sign either. I never said it was, I just said it was misinformation. You would think an author would know the difference between gross and net and even after being pointed out time after time she never corrected the misinformation.

    Before KDP just a few short years ago, author solutions and others were the self-publishing vendor of choice. Because they charged for editorial services and such didn’t change that fact. And yes it was pointed out that E.L. James was not self-published, she was with a small indie press. But she still didn’t become anything until she was traditionally published…that was my point. The fact of the matter remains that there still aren’t any major authors that have left traditional publishing to go only the self-publishing route. I didn’t see yet if you responded to my question as to why you in fact use a traditional publishing house. Also, I’d like to point out that I’ve received a tremendous amount of email from people who’ve been reading these blogs and are afraid to post here for being yelled at by their peers.

  • Courtney Milan January 29, 2014 at 9:31 am

    Steven, are you seriously yelling at Jackie for posting misinformation because she posted the royalty statements that your company sent her in their entirety?

    If the information is misinforming on its own, why are you sending out royalty statements that misinform authors? Did Jackie alter her royalty statements? If not, why aren’t you putting the gross ship number on your royalty statements? This is a problem where the person who is in the best position to correct is you, not Jackie. You are the person who controls the information she posted here.

    So please take a step back here. Why does it matter what the print run was? And if it does matter, why aren’t you printing it on her royalty statement?

  • Anon January 29, 2014 at 11:26 am

    Why are they still holding 118 copies in reserve after 5 years? 3% of net seems high, especially given the low number of returns here.

    Also, question for Mr. Zacharius: why does Kensington change their statements every year, leading to the totally confusing reassignment of past sales on p. 2?

  • Laura Kaye January 29, 2014 at 12:51 pm

    Mr. Zacharius – this is the last time I’m engaging because it’s clear that you just don’t get what I, and others, are saying. Example: trying to prove a point by saying that Author Solutions “a few short years ago” was the self-publishing vendor of choice and not knowing why anything from a few years ago is no longer relevant to, and in that case even offensive in, a conversation of self-publishing TODAY.

    On the WD survey, you did initially represent the survey as factual evidence in your arguments, saying on the Passive Voice blog on January 16, 2014 at 7:36a.m., “Did you see the recent posts from Writer’s Digest that 80% of self-published authors make less than $1000. That’s from a survey of 9500 writers.” Only after other writers challenged the validity of that survey did you backtrack and at 1:07p.m. on January 17 say, “I wasn’t making that statement about the 80%. I was just reporting the story from DBW. I have no idea about how they did the research.” So, misinformation, even if not intentional. And your willingness to see that in other participants in the conversation but not in your own comments is part of the difficulty and frustration of trying to have this conversation at all.

    Now, to your question about why I, “a successful traditionally published author” would care about this conversation and, since I do (as if I shouldn’t? again, the very implication is part of the problem), why I use a traditional publisher:

    First of all, I’m a successful *hybrid* author. I caught the attention of New York publishers because of the success I had with small epublishers. To this day, my most successful book is a novella originally published by The Wild Rose Press and for almost the last year self-published by me that has sold 150,000 copies. My next two most successful books are ebooks (only) published by Entangled Publishing that have both sold approximately 100K copies each. My fourth most successful book, and one I expect will overtake the other three eventually, is my first traditionally published book that came out 11/25/13 (that first traditionally published book was actually my *12th* published book overall – the first 11 were with small presses or self-published). So I care what happens NOT just in the traditionally published world, nor just in the self-publishing world, but in ALL of publishing. Because, I – like readers – don’t see a distinction.

    In August 2012, two New York publishers contacted me out of the blue and asked me to write for them. I was thrilled to have the chance for wider (print) distribution, traditional publishing cache, and to just have the experience of working with NY. So I signed with a traditional publisher (not one of the two who pursued me, as it turned out) and it’s been a wonderful experience. My editor is amazing, my covers have been fantastic, and I’ve had great all-around support from them (see? no bashing!). You’ll notice that in none of my comments in any part of this conversation have I *ever* bashed traditional publishers or traditional publishing. I’ve only ever defended self-publishing, which in your mind might be the same thing but in my mind is not. In fact, on my blog post of 12/18/13 (on which you commented 7 times, so you had the opportunity to see the below quotes) responding to your HuffPo piece that set this whole conversation off, I was careful to say:

    “About me and traditional publishing: I agree with a lot of the benefits and advantages that Zacharius attributed to working with publishers. My covers have been amazing, my editors have been wonderful to work with, I’ve had marketing support (to varying degrees), and have seen a few of my books in brick-and-mortars stores, in one case extensively. I’ve also had three titles hit the USA Today list and one the NY Times (none self-published). I am thrilled and fortunate to be working with my publishers.”


    “Traditional, e-, and self-publishing can and do compliment one another on an author’s list. There are readers who will always want print, and readers who will always prefer digital, and some willing to read both. So the most savvy authors and publishers will cater to the totality of available readership. It doesn’t have to be an adversarial relationship, not from the author’s point of view, anyway. And, fortunately, not from the point of view of the publishers I’m most regularly working with right now.”

    I’m posting these in their entirely to ensure that my words aren’t misrepresented – because there’s no traditional bashing going from me, and there never has been.

    I repeat: **IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE AN ADVERSARIAL RELATIONSHIP**. That, to me, is what this whole thing boils down to. And where I think we’re talking at cross-purposes.

    So, now that I’ve made sure to answer your question, I am bowing out. I have eight books to get out the door between now and fall 2014, to two traditional publishers, one epublisher, and one self-published title. So it’s back into the writing cave for me. Best wishes to you and Kensington, Mr. Zacharius.

    ~Laura Kaye

  • Bev January 29, 2014 at 2:55 pm

    Seriously, Laura, I’m cracking that whip, it’s time for your to go back into your writing cave. 8 BOOKS??!! Lord Almighty, get back to work!


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.