A: Richard
Hull, Executive Director, TAA:
"There are several
considerations against recycling material from one book in another.
First, it robs you are your first publisher of a potential sale. If
you lead the reader to whatever you think important in the second
book that is found in the first, but don't 'give it away,' you might
find the reader buys the first book to get all of what he or she finds
sketched in the second. Consider including in your second book only
a minimal indication of what you showed so brilliantly in the first,
in hopes that the engaged reader will want to know the full story.
You might even interest your first book's publisher in publishing
the second one as a second, companion volume to the first.
Second, it may
make your second book look like you didn't have quite a full book's
worth of material for it and so you found it necessary to borrow from
the first one. In this, put yourself in the shoes of a reader of book
one who buys book two, only to find that most of the first chapter
or section he already has, and has paid twice for. Not a happy reader.
I certainly understand
that, if your work is conceptually connected, you might want to make
the transition from the first to the second book like you make the
transition from one class lecture to the next: 'As we were saying
last week...,' but it is possible for the reader of book two to obtain
book one, whereas it is hard for your student who missed last Friday's
class to pick up the relevance of Monday's lecture. Of course, if
book 1 sold out completely and is not available even on the used book
market, you might, if you and publisher aren't into a reissue, find
it to be a kindness to reprint that relevant section of book one in
book two.
Third, as your
book one publisher has a vested interest in its sales, and may well
hold copyright, if you decide to go ahead and reprint or reprise a
significant portion (say, 5-10 percent of book one) in book two, you
might first want to discuss that with your book one publisher. That
publisher probably will give permission; you may even want to have
a clause in your book one contract that allows you to republish portions
of it, but giving notice is the cleanest and fairest way to avoid
incurring your former publisher's wrath.
Fourth, if your
work is reviewed by tenure and promotion committees, it is possible
that someone will take exception to your proposed practice, accusing
you of padding your later work or of self-citation (suggesting that
you are trying to build some kind of record of your own citations).
Just some considerations.
Others may have a different view."
A: Jay
Devore, Professor Emeritus, Department of Statistics, Cal Poly State
University, San Luis Obispo:
"I've been thinking
about this issue because a colleague and I are thinking about collaborating
on a business statistics book (introductory statistics for a business
audience). I have written statistics books for engineers and also
for a general audience -- 4 in total, all published by Thomson. But
Thomson (actually their subsidiary Southwestern) already has a full
stable of business stat books, so may not be interested in publishing
another one. Yet if they refused to do so, I would still like to use
many of the explanations I have used in my other books and maybe even
some of the examples. The new book would not compete with the others,
so I don't think Richard's considerations are relevant. I know of
one other author who has published introductory probability and statistics
books with at least three different publishers, so something of this
sort must be possible. If Thomson does not want to publish the new
book, I suppose I have to ask them for permission to use material
in a new book published by another company. Wonder what they'll say."
A: Paul
Chance, TAA Member:
"I think some
editors are like realtors: They will try to make you feel you have
betrayed them if you contact another company. If you have a really
good relationship with an editor, then it might make sense to give
her first crack at a Ms, but she shouldn't feel betrayed if you send
a copy to her and to other houses. When you're shopping for a new coat,
you go to more than one store, don't you? Does a clerk get angry because
you went to other stores?"
A: Steven
Krantz, TAA Member:
"My experience
is that editors are rather territorial. At the end of the day, an
editor gets credit for the books he/she signs and the books he/she
develops. You are liable to aggravate everyone if you try to deal
with more than one editor."
A: George
Odian, TAA Member:
"This discussion about
choosing a publisher and editor clearly points out the difference
between academics and business. Unfortunately, when an academician
is looking for a publisher/editor, he/she must realize that you are
now in the business world--you are not in academia any longer. There
are three objectives for an author: 1) Satisfy your ego when
you 'become famous.'; 2) Do good for students; 3) Make money. To
accomplish any or all of these objectives you need a publisher and
an editor who knows what they are doing. And you need to be a business
person.
You want to pick
the publisher and editor who will do the best job in producing the
book and distributing and selling it. You need to send the book proposal
to as many publishers/editors as makes sense in terms of the field.
Send them all at once and then wait to see who bites, and go from
there. Anything less and you are doing yourself a disservice."
A: Christa
Harris, Senior Sponsoring Editor, McGraw-Hill Higher Education:
"A good editor
should not only have his/her own interests in mind, but also
those of his/her authors. So a good editor should not mind at all when
a prospective author takes a proposal to multiple publishers.
A relationship
with a publisher is going to last 20 years, at least, if all
goes well. Meaning, if a textbook goes into multiple editions, which is
something we all want (authors and publishers alike), then the authors
will have a relationship with the publisher for longer than most marriages
last. Authors (and publishers, for that matter) need to select their
publishing 'mates' with great care, and both sides need to feel that
the relationship is open, honest and based on mutual respect and trust.
If that's not the case, it is going to be an unpleasant and bumpy 20
years. And that process begins at the time of proposal consideration and
contract negotiation.
If authors have
the opportunity to receive offers from multiple publishers, that
allows the author to carefully consider a variety of important
things: the terms of the contract, the nature of the publishing
company (and their priorities), the editor(s), the production staff,
the sales and marketing strategies and priorities, the commitment to
media development, and so forth. These are all important and will
vary from publisher to publisher. And of course, the contract terms
can be negotiated, and an author has more negotiation power if
he or she has another offer from a different publisher.
Editors change
over time, so authors need to consider not only their relationship
with a particular editor, but their relationship with the company
as a whole. I hope that I'll have a long and fruitful relationship
with 'my' authors, but who knows? I could be laid off, I could
get a better offer somewhere else that I can't refuse, and so forth.
Authors don't have the option to move to another publisher once they've
signed a contract, so must be especially careful.
Publishing a
successful, best-selling textbook is a team effort, one in which
all the players play important roles. When an author picks a team, he
or she should have checked out all the other teams already and decided
which one is the best fit."
A: Michael
Lennie, Lennie Literary & Authors Attorneys:
"From the perspective
of negotiating a good contract, the single most powerful consideration
is to have secured the interest of more than one publisher."
A: J.
David Hunger, TAA Member:
"Christa is right
when she says that a relationship with a publisher is very important.
It is also important to point out that editors change and so
do publishers. When Tom Wheelen and I began the first edition of our
textbook, we talked with three publishers: McGraw-Hill, Prentice Hall,
and Addison-Wesley. Although all three publishers showed interest in
our book, we chose Addison-Wesley. Over time, publishers do develop personalities.
We didn't want to sign with Prentice Hall, for example, because
it had a reputation of signing lots of authors and only supporting
the first year of publication - 'Tossing them against the wall
and seeing which one stick.' We went with Addison-Wesley because they
tended to support their books for multiple years until the next edition.
This was because it was a smaller publisher and only had one book
in a topic area. Prentice Hall, in contrast, published multiple books
within each topic area. After many successful editions with Addison-Wesley,
imagine our surprise when it was bought by Pearson (which had
also bought Prentice Hall). Our book was then transferred to Prentice
Hall. Like a lot of other Addison-Wesley authors, we had a tough
time getting used to the Prentice Hall bureaucracy. We finally figured
things out after some conflict and are happy to report that we are
currently working on our 11th edition. Even if Tom and I have some issues
with Prentice Hall's approach to publishing, we do appreciate the fact
that they are able to market to the entire market with a lot more clout
than smaller Addison-Wesley.
One point: Don't
get too caught up in signing with a publisher because you like
the editor who signs your book. We are in our 11th edition and we
have never had the same editor on more than one edition!!!! (And we are
currently in a two-year revision cycle!!)"
