So, in talking with some people about things they've looked into publishing (tape and/or book wise), it seems that most magic producers pay flat fees for material instead of royalties.

For an individial trick, I understand this, but it makes NO sense for me relating to books and videos.

Is this accurate and, if so, why do magicians take a flat fee versus a percentage of the return?

E

Because we can't believe producer's sales report.

Hideo Kato

That's disturbing, Hideo...

So, my next question would be (based on conversations I've been involved in with a few other business minded magicians):

Assume a company were in business, with the same production values as the best of the rest, but paying on royalties (and, we'll assume for arguments sake, a verifiable sales tracking system). Would those of you had produced tapes previously be likely to sign on with that company for royalties?

See if you can start by getting Mr. Swadling some royalites for his coin gaff.

If you can manage that, I'll consider releasing some of my material.

This is all about results. We can have a free and open market if we respect each other's work.

Jonathan, I agree completely; it's a results-driven concept because, obviously, if a certain number of products aren't sold, the originating magician will come out behind, not ahead.

The idea came about because a magician friend of mine was approached by a rather large and successful magic publishing video and was offered a flat fee. Coming from an interest in mainstream publishing, I just can't believe magicians are only paid a flat fee...

::shrug::

I can think of 4 concepts in contracting with producer.

1.You get flat fee only.
2.You get royalty only.
3.You get initial fee + royalty.
4.You get royalty with minimum quantity. For example, if you set 100 as miniumum and royalty per 1 is $3, you get $300 at the beginning, then you get royalty for ones over 100 pieces.

The condition will be determined by the potetial of the product and willingness to sell it by the manufaturer.

Hideo Kato

If you want royalties - which in my opinion is not only reasonable, but should be the norm in magic– you have to build into your contract a clause permitting you, the author, to verify and audit the accounting of the publisher. This is absolutely standard in any royalty-based industry, so when you are negotiating for a royalty position, do not buy into any argument that such a demand is overly-intrusive.

Thomas, what kind of fees do you see as involved in getting something basic in place for a trick inventor for a trick? no middlemen, just direct sales.

An interesting topic and one that I feel compelled to chime in on.

While working on a royalty agreement can be a good thing, like everything else, there are dis-advantages.
An example of this is in the video game industry. Years ago (1980's) I worked with a partner and we freelanced several computer/video games with a few of the large companies of the day. Most of those firms have vanished, though a few have managed to survive or have been swallowed hole by bigger companies.

The contracts we worked with always had a nice line that went something like this; Author will receive xxx % royalty per copy sold - less returns.
Simple enough one would think. Until you realize that if the game does not move well, maybe the huge number of titles that a large company like BESTBUY or CIRCUIT CITY or WAL-MART had purchased are returned to the publisher and BOOM!, that's money you thought you were going to make, but not anymore. That's not counting any defective titles that may come back.

As mentioned previously, the author (creator) would no doubt want/need access to the books in order to verify sales reports. If done properly, this can work. However, it can also be a big problem for the publisher (cost wise) and the fact is, can cause a feeling of distrust between the parties involved.

One of the biggest problems I see is that Magic is a cottage industry at best, meaning sales are not that large. Creators working on a royalty based contract will no doubt see those large magazine ads promoting their creation, lots of chatter on the net, reviews in the trade magazines and talk at their local magic shop and assume their effect/creation/DVD MUST be selling like hot cakes, when in fact it may not be selling very well at all. (Piracy & Bootlegging are not helping). The publisher naturally informs the creator of the situation and the first of many DOUBTS will start to formulate in the mind of the creator. Not a good thing at all, as this creates a rather negative situation between the author and the publisher.

Flat fee publishing is a win-win situation in the magic arena. If we were talking sales in the tens of thousands, that would be a different matter to be sure, but the fact is, a thousand units sold is considered a HIT in magic, and quite frankly, magic does NOT have a lot of so-called HITS.

In a flat fee contract, the creator/author is guaranteed to receive a certain amount of money AND normally a chunk of product as well. The creator can then sell the product at lectures, through the mail, etc and bring in even more revenue. Most publishers allow the creator to order additional product at Jobber rates, which is better pricing then even the shops can get.

If the product does not do well, the publisher takes the loss, simple as that. The creator/author has not had to lay out any money and has made probably more cash then royalties would be paying on a product that is not selling well.

Remember, the publisher takes most of the risk, which includes manufacturing, distributing, promoting, etc.

I would say that those of you who refuse to deal with publishers who use a flat fee system go ahead and try to market your own wares. I have no doubt that a few of you may be successful at this, but most will not, once you find out what is involved in not only time, but out of pocket expenses.
Trust me on this, I know this from personal experience.

Just my thoughts...

Steve, can you add some protection from 'variations' to that?

Variations? Protection? Okay, I'm not exactly sure which direction you're going with this Jonathan.
Perhaps some sort of example could be provided so we have a common frame of reference within this discussion?
:smoke: