Some rare and interesting research into what authors actually get in their advances:

http://www.tobiasbuckell.com/2005/10/05/author-advance-survey-version-20/

Not surprisingly, advances tend to be higher when negotiated by agents. But for all those on this site who are convinced you can't sell a novel without an agent, note that 48% of authors here selling their first novel did so without one.

Terry

Interesting! I wish someone would do a similar study for general fiction.
He could probably get a PhD in publishing studies out of that if he wanted to.

Gosh - really interesting. I wonder what a UK/general version would show up?

One other thing not commented on in the survey (for obvious reasons - I guess they needed to keep it simple) is what rights were given away for the advance. I would guess that the unagented writers would be more likely to let the publisher handle world rights, whereas agented writers might be more likely to let their agent handle other sales.

Therefore disparity between agented and unagented advances might be bigger than it looks - in the sense that they're giving away more for less.

Yes, very interesting.


I looked through the comments and something got me thinking... do you ever have to pay an advance back if the book doesn't sell enough to cover it? I don't think you do, do you?

And, on top of the advance, to all authors get royalities on each copy sold and is this once the advance amount has been surpassed?

I believe Joan Collins had to pay back an advance because her 2nd novel was deemed 'unpublishable', but if it's gone to print then my guess would be no.

<Added>

...unless you do something daft and the novel's recalled and pulped.

As long as the publisher's formally accepted it, you don't have to pay the advance back, whatever happens: after that, it's their risk.

The basic criterion for their accepting it is that it's "of publishable quality" - as I remember Joan Collins won the case, which set that bar pretty low (although of course it could also really have been about the publisher having paid far too much for it, and being desperate to claw it back). I think it's usually only when the author actually fails to submit the book at all that the contract's breached and you'd have to give the advance back.

However, I've heard anecdotally (and before the recession proper, I think) that with the general squeeze on the book trade publishers are now rather more inclined than they were to hold an author to the letter of the contract: if the book's late, or very different from the the un-contracted length, or very different in terms of story or whatever, then they may use that to wriggle out if they're beginning to wish they wriggled out already: say if they're feeling they paid to much for it (editors get carried away in auctions too) or the feedback they're getting from the trade isn't promising.

But I think it's still very rare, in fiction at least. More likely that they'll sigh, publish it with a minimum of support so as not to throw good money after bad, and move on.

Emma

<Added>

"do all authors get royalities on each copy sold and is this once the advance amount has been surpassed?"

Yes. Although I think in things like non-fiction series (DIY, say, or astrology) it would be quite common for the author to get a straight fee, with perhaps another payment if sales go over a certain amount or they sell the rights elsewhere. Also series like Animal Ark or I assume Working-Partners-type contracts.

But I THINK I'm right in saying that's more likely to be the case when the copyright is with the publisher, not with individual authors.

Working Partners actually does pay royalties.

That's interesting - shows there are all sorts of permutations!

Emma

Hmm, interesting, thanks.