@carlianne I'm just following you around agreeing with you today! 
It seems the podcast was geared towards being contacted by amateur authors. I have had that particular problem too, as recently as last week. But I know what to say when that happens.
What I don't know is where my style fits in, who to send postcards to who will like it, and what kind of market the themes I am drawn to would be good for. I would love, love, love a deep dive into that!
A clarification based on my experience:
At 27:00 the discussion is about agents.
I heard all three of the guys essentially agree that "You must have an agent"
Like so many things this is both true and not true at the same time.
YOU MUST HAVE AN AGENT IF: You are a picture book author&illustrator submitting a manuscript. I've seen more and more editor submission guidelines adopting a "no unagented submissions" as their default policy. Note: I've seen exceptions announced for a limited time basis. Typically on twitter and the imprint website.
YOU DO NOT NEED AN AGENT IF: You are submitting art samples to an art director. Art directors continue to be open to unagented illustrators.
I was successfully unagented for 15 years of my career. It was only as I moved into writing and illustrating that I saw the value of partnering with an agent.
Continuing to listen and I got to 52:51
Topic under discussion: Paying illustrators to illustrate your book.
What I agree with:
Don't try to pay TRADITIONAL royalties.
Traditional Royalties = Tracking each book sale and return and then calculating 6% of the cover price of each book sold and issuing a check every six months
What I do not agree with:
Instead always pay an illustrator a "Flat Fee".
Flat Fee = A single, one-time payment to use the images in all the ways outlined in the contract. For a picture book that "Grant of Rights" will likely be the publisher's ability to reproduce the images in book form only for as long as the book is in print and for sale.
NOPE NOPE NOPE!
Full stop! Hang on! De-sist! Hit the brakes on that there idea!
Flat fees are appropriate for some projects, but NOT for a picture book. This is because books are intended to be sold as many as possible for as long as possible. That is how the basic royalty arrangement came about. As the publisher is successful in selling the book, the illustrator is proportionally successful in the profits of the book. It is effectively a "win-win"
A flat fee completely negates that relationship.
Besides there is a very simple solution, that does not require tracking individual sales or sending out checks every six months.
NOTE: Both options outlined below involve a fee paid BEFORE books are printed and available for sale.
Limit the copyright license (the publishers ability to print and sell the book) to a print run number. That is a specific number of copies printed at a given time.
Not a hard thing to do. After all when you contact a printer their first question will be "How many copies do you want printed?"
Or
Limit the copyright license (the publishers ability to print and sell the book) to a time frame. That is, the publisher can sell as many books as possible within a 2-year, 5-year or 10-year period (you pick your time frame, but the longer the time frame = the higher the licensing fee)
When either limit to the "Grant of Rights" (copyright license) expires the publisher has the ability to determine if the book is profitable enough to justify a continuation of the original contract. Resulting in a second payment associated with a new print run or time frame.
This process repeats until both parties determine the book is no longer selling well enough to justify continuing the partnership.
@davidhohn I need to listen to this again, but I don't think Will, Jake, or I would EVER say illustrating a book for a flat fee is a good idea. If it came across like that, it wasn't intended. I think it probably got lost when we didn't specifically say "advance".
Now, to further clarify, many of the options for working with a self published author COULD be mixed up in flat fee vs. royalty. ANd the reasoning there would be that self published books typically don't make money. Picking a high royalty with a low advance is foolish there. With self publishing I recommend illustrators assume that the advance is all they will ever see. This is due to many different things such as poor marketing planning by the author, no idea about distribution, and no real plan for the books success in general. It's not always the case, but I would bet it happens most of the time.
SVS Faculty Instructor
www.leewhiteillustration.com
@lee-white Definitely listen again.
To be clear, neither you nor Jake said the words that a flat fee was a good idea. That was Will's recommendation.
And he says it multiple times in this podcast (I haven't checked out the set of videos he mentions but we can reasonably assume that is the recommendation there as well)
It's just that neither you or Jake pushed back on that idea, or clarified (what might be) Will's meaning. Hence my post above.
Now, to further clarify, many of the options for working with a self published author COULD be mixed up in flat fee vs. royalty.
Not entirely sure what you mean here.
But I'll clarify on my end.
What I've outlined in my two options are neither a "Traditional Royalty"
Traditional Royalties = Tracking each book sale and return and then calculating 6% of the cover price of each book sold and issuing a check every six months
And neither of the two options are a "Traditional Flat Fee"
Flat Fee = A single, one-time payment to use the images in all the ways outlined in the contract. For a picture book that "Grant of Rights" will likely be the publisher's ability to reproduce the images in book form only for as long as the book is in print and for sale.
I'm advocating a hybrid of the two. A MUCH simpler payment system for the self-publisher that still allows the illustrator to participate in the ongoing sales, and potential financial success, of a picture book created for a self publisher or very small publisher.
ANd the reasoning there would be that self published books typically don't make money.
I agree with you there. But then you know that most trade picture books with large publishers typically don't generate royalties either. But of course some do! The same is still possible for a self-published book. My position is that illustrators need to prepare for success!
Picking a high royalty with a low advance is foolish there. With self publishing I recommend illustrators assume that the advance is all they will ever see.
I agree. Illustrators should prepare for the possibility that the book won't sell well.
And if you think of that single payment as the only money the illustrator will ever see, then you can see how Will landed on his recommendation of a "Flat Fee" right?
Trouble is, as soon as you use that term "Flat Fee"(it has a specific meaning in our industry) the illustrator is needlessly cutting themselves off from future payments.
There's no need to do that when a simple limit on the Grant of Rights in the form of:
a. allow the publisher to sell a certain number of copies
or
b. allow the publisher to sell as many copies as they can for a limited amount of time
will solve the problem so efficiently!
@davidhohn I just asked this questions as a followup on an upcoming podcast. basically we all landed on- if it's with a traditional publisher (real company) then go with the advance. When working with an author, flat fee is not out of the question. We elaborate more in the podcast on both of those points. Will actually has a story of a flat fee he negotiated with a traditional publisher that worked out massively in his favor.
SVS Faculty Instructor
www.leewhiteillustration.com
if it's with a traditional publisher (real company) then go with the advance.
Sure. No argument there.
When working with an author, flat fee is not out of the question.
Oh, nothing is ever "out of the question". I think that EVERY project should be approached on a case-by-case basis. Every clients needs and every illustrator's needs are different.
My issue with Will's position/advice in the podcast is that he presented getting paid by self-publishers as: "Your options are royalties or flat fee. Pick one. But royalties are out, so it's gotta' be a flat fee."
And I continue to say NOPE! As creative business people who understand licensing intellectual property we have more options than just that simple binary (see my post above)
We elaborate more in the podcast on both of those points.
Great. Nuance is important in this case.
Will actually has a story of a flat fee he negotiated with a traditional publisher that worked out massively in his favor.
With a "traditional publisher"? Didn't we establish earlier that traditional publishers should do the advance against royalties?
Regardless, I love me a good anecdote! I look forward to hearing Will's experience. Can't imagine how it would be better than what I am proposing, but I'm always open to learning new things!
@carlianne It seems a lot of us ask this question of "where does my art fit in" . It might be a fun idea to start a thread where we all just post links to our work and we can comment what comes to mind in terms of the market we see that art fitting into.
@davidhohn To clarify, I would always have picked a royalty situation with a publisher, but Will threw that out the window with this story!
SVS Faculty Instructor
www.leewhiteillustration.com
@griffin great idea!
@lee-white Hang on let's actually clarify this -- so you are saying that based on this mysterious, yet compelling, story from Will, that YOU personally would not want a royalty arrangement with a traditional publisher from now on, but would prefer a flat fee?
@davidhohn It's tricky, but if I can get 2x the advance with a flat fee AND i don't think the book has huge commercial viability, then it's definitely worth looking into. If I'm doing an "artsy" book that I know might have a dedicated, but small buying audience, I'm open to discussing it.
I can say this with certainty- If I did a flat fee that was 2x my advance on my books, it would have paid more on EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM vs. the advance model. But I haven't had a breakout book that made a lot of income past the advance like your Xmas book did. So that might change my opinion.
From where I stand, the advance vs. royalties is only a great theory. "If the book makes money, we all make money". But that isn't really the norm I'm thinking. I bet MOST books never even earn back the advance. I've never had advance vs royalty pay that much in all the books I've done.
SVS Faculty Instructor
www.leewhiteillustration.com
@davidhohn does this mean that even if Iām just starting out and I want to be an author&illustrator that getting an agent should be priority number 1?
@griffin In my experience priority 1 should be mastering your craft of writing and illustrating picture books. Create a TON of dummies! Build a killer portfolio of work!
-- But I assume you are already focused on that --
With a body of publish-able book dummies in hand, if your business plan involves getting published by any of the big 6 publishers or their respective imprints, then, yes, I think you are going to need an agent to assist you in getting your dummies in front of editors.
There are a number of smaller publishers that remain open to unagented book dummy submissions. The advances are going to be smaller, and the promotional budgets will be as well. But they are often a bit "hungrier" for unrecognized talent and willing to take a risk on unproved author/illustrators.
As I write this I can imagine someone mis-reading this to think "I should get an agent! ANY AGENT!" (I made that same mistake just out of school)
No, do NOT get just any agent. Research the agents you submit to, or those that contact you. Make sure you like the kind of projects they get their other clients. Make sure you "fit" personality-wise, working method-wise, communication-wise.
I have no illusions about how difficult it is to verify all that before you partner with an agent. But ideally it will alert you to red flags right at the start.
And agents are great about discussing their profession and what to look for. Any SCBWI event will have a session about agents. Just the other day I saw a highly educational discussion happening on twitter in association with #Pitchwars
I did a quick search and came across this initial thread. Feel free to follow this rabbit hole all the way down:
https://twitter.com/ChelseaBigBang/status/1494009022802014208
@lee-white said in Where Do You Fit In The Picture Book Landscape?:
@davidhohn It's tricky, but if I can get 2x the advance with a flat fee AND i don't think the book has huge commercial viability, then it's definitely worth looking into. If I'm doing an "artsy" book that I know might have a dedicated, but small buying audience, I'm open to discussing it.
O-KAY! Now we are getting into a valuable conversation. That (in my experience) rarely happens in a public forum like this.
But let's reset and regroup a bit before we start digging into the overgrown rose garden that is the state of picture book publishing. (you know; looks pretty, smells good, but is all tangled up and will make you bleed unexpectedly)
For those reading along this all could get confusing pretty quick. So I want to clarify our current* positions.
*Note: Those positions are subject to change. I know this is the internet but there's no need to die on any of these molehills.
I started my participation in this thread by taking issue with Will Terry's blanket assertion on the 3PP podcast that: Self publishers should only offer a flat fee to the illustrators they work with. The binary options Will believes are available are either "Advance Against Royalties" or " A One Time Flat Fee"
I articulated why I don't believe that a flat fee is the only option for a picture book contract with a self-publishers.
I then went on to list two ways to structure a contract with a self-publisher so that the illustrator has an ongoing connection to a book that continues to sell, and how the illustrator should participate in the profits resulting from those sales.
You initially responded to say that none of you would ever say that a flat fee for a picture book was a good idea. And if it came across that way it wasn't intended.
You followed up by letting us know that you guys discussed the question of picture book flat fees on a podcast recording and that a flat fee is not out of the question.
You followed that up by mentioning a story Will told. A story compelling enough to convinced you to rethink your stance on flat fees for picture books, and perhaps royalties were not something you would want when doing picture books.
Do I have this correct?
Not trying to trick or trap you. Just want to make sure I'm following your line of thinking, and that I understand what you've written.
Because if I've got this right -- you've gotta' admit -- that's quite the position reversal.
Once we've established your position, then let's dig into what you wrote above. It's super interesting. I would have loved to read a discussion like this when I was starting out!
@griffin I would really like this. Right now....I'm reluctant to sign up for SVS classes due to the fact I'm not sure Children's books are for me....I'm just not sure I fit that genre at all.
@carlianne me too
clearly if you guys want to add a little more "and sometimes we argue" to the podcast you know who to invite
Check out my art and tutorials :)
Instagram: www.instagram.com/carliannecreates/
Youtube:
https://youtube.com/c/CarlianneCreates
Shop: www.carliannecreates.com
@carlianne we should have sold tickets for this one 
Downsides of the Flat Fee project continued:
Stories like this are one of the reasons I'll always advocate for a "Ongoing Revenue" based payment rather than a "Flat Fee"
TLDR:
Stan Weston creates GIJoe in 1964.
Takes prototype of his action figure to Hasbro
Hasbro likes it and offers Weston a payment per figure sold or $75,000 flat fee.
Weston negotiates up slightly to a $100,000 flat fee. (Roughly $1 million in 2022)
Since 1964 GIJoe has acquired a value of (via Hollywood Reporter) $100 million. Doing some rough math, a 5% per-figure-sold royalty would have resulted in $5 million. Which is likely why . . .
Weston attempted to sue Hasbro to regain IP ownership just before death at 82.
@carlianne It seems a lot of us ask this question of "where does my art fit in" . It might be a fun idea to start a thread where we all just post links to our work and we can comment what comes to mind in terms of the market we see that art fitting into.
