4 ms·

Its a silicon valley startup promising a new structure to an old business. So at best the startup will survive and be a bad deal for the authors or most likely

Its a silicon valley startup promising a new structure to an old business. So at best the startup will survive and be a bad deal for the authors or most likely it will fail. So no, if I'm a good author i dont need their so called 'services'. I want my money upfront. If I'm a bad author, then, well, I'm fucked and should have learnt programming when I had the chance.

gnicholas 3y ago
> So no, if I'm a good author i dont need their so called 'services'. I want my money upfront. I guess it depends on how much money is on offer, and how much money the author already has. If the advance is $500k and the royalties could otherwise pay $750k, perhaps there won't be many takers. But if the royalties could be $1.5M, there will be some confident authors who would prefer to take the risk and hope for a big payoff.
- __lbracket__ 3y ago
  In principle you're correct. But ultimately the all powerful VC backers will ask for monetization or "increased margins" or whatever, which will erode the good deal for authors, as it always happens. Not being preachy, but personally I run away as far as possible from "startup" products. They eventually turn to shit.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    Why do they need VC backing? They aren't paying advances to authors up-front, and paying royalties later doesn't require a bankroll of investment (you only have to pay it after the revenue comes in). They would need funds to pay for actually printing the books, but even this should be doable with their existing investors (which includes former publishing CEOs and big name authors) and bank loans. If this were VC-backed I'd feel differently, but as it's described it sounds like a great option for authors who want to take a risk on themselves.
    - __lbracket__ 3y ago
      My bad. I just read "startup" and got triggered. You framed it well. If they dont take VC money and control their greed, i guess it may turn out to be a good model.

gnicholas 3y ago

> So no, if I'm a good author i dont need their so called 'services'. I want my money upfront. I guess it depends on how much money is on offer, and how much money the author already has. If the advance is $500k and the royalties could otherwise pay $750k, perhaps there won't be many takers. But if the royalties could be $1.5M, there will be some confident authors who would prefer to take the risk and hope for a big payoff.

__lbracket__ 3y ago
In principle you're correct. But ultimately the all powerful VC backers will ask for monetization or "increased margins" or whatever, which will erode the good deal for authors, as it always happens. Not being preachy, but personally I run away as far as possible from "startup" products. They eventually turn to shit.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  Why do they need VC backing? They aren't paying advances to authors up-front, and paying royalties later doesn't require a bankroll of investment (you only have to pay it after the revenue comes in). They would need funds to pay for actually printing the books, but even this should be doable with their existing investors (which includes former publishing CEOs and big name authors) and bank loans. If this were VC-backed I'd feel differently, but as it's described it sounds like a great option for authors who want to take a risk on themselves.
  - __lbracket__ 3y ago
    My bad. I just read "startup" and got triggered. You framed it well. If they dont take VC money and control their greed, i guess it may turn out to be a good model.