A thread for ISH only

[LadyFunkenstein]

need more evidence?

The Layoffs Hillary Didn’t Write a Letter About

Now this is some delicious irony.

As you’ll recall from yesterday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is upset with Circuit City for laying off 3,400 workers, wagging her finger to management in a letter that declared, “these decisions are inconsistent with the fundamental compact between your company and its employees. This is the wrong way to deal with the economic pressures of the day — and the wrong way to treat workers who’ve given their all to your company.”

Hillary doesn’t mention it in the letter, but one presumes she believes that the company has spent too much on other areas.



I wonder if she feels the same way about another company… like, say, a book publisher, like Simon and Schuster, publisher of Hillary’s book (and, ahem, mine).



Margaret Menge made the case back in 2003:

It may be unkind to say it in one long breath, but here it is: Hillary Clinton took an $8 million advance from Simon & Schuster and then 75 people at the company were laid off. One did follow the other (by weeks) and so it’s natural to wonder: If Simon & Schuster, which is owned by Viacom, had paid a more reasonable advance for the book, would those people still have their jobs? …



"There’s no connection," a Simon & Schuster spokesman balked when asked about the timing of the layoffs and the publication of Living History. The company says the book is one of the fastest-selling nonfiction books in history–proving that the advance was justified. But the advance paid to Hillary and the mobilization of the top staff at Simon & Schuster to plan, publish and promote the book means that the company didn’t make a large profit on it. The book has earned publisher Simon & Schuster a lot of attention, sure. But it hasn’t earned the company a lot of money.



Here’s the evidence. The advance paid to an author represents an advance on royalties based on the number of books expected to sell. The author’s royalty on hardcover books is 10 to 15 percent of the sale price. The publisher gets the rest. This is industry standard. So, if Clinton’s contract gave her 15 percent–the top rate–then she gets $4.20 for every $28 hardcover book sold. At a million copies sold, Clinton’s cut is $4,200,000. At a million and a half copies sold, her cut is $6,300,000–still way short of the $8 million advance.





Last reports are that Living History sold 1.2 million copies, and bookstores are reporting that sales in the last couple weeks have dropped way off. It seems she could sell a million and a half by year’s end–but not much more. There’s really no way they could have expected it to, which means that Simon & Schuster effectively altered the ratio of publisher/author earnings for Clinton. Hillary didn’t get just 15 percent, the maximum percentage that authors earn in royalties; she got a million to a million and a half more than the 15 percent would have yielded.



This is money that, under the standard ratio, Simon & Schuster would have pocketed. At the median 12.5 percent royalty, under which Clinton earns $3.50 per book, her cut is $5,250,000–and the advance of $8 million represents an overpayment of almost $3 million.

Then, later, in U.S.News and World Report’s Washington Whispers column:

Predictions in the slumping book industry that blockbusters like Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's tell-little bio would revive sales are dying fast. Whispers is told that Simon & Schuster, publisher of Clinton's Living History, is planning a second round of layoffs. One reason given: Advances to authors are too high.

(I would note that by the time I came along with a book idea in 2005, S&S certainly seemed to have the problem of too-big advances well under control.)



So, Senator... any letters of reprimand for the management of Simon and Schuster, laying off some of your constituents in New York, because they decided to pay out too much money to fatcats?

The person who wrote this analysis is a complete fucking moron who must have read a wiki page regarding the financial aspects of book publishing.

 

[busybody..]

no, Dummy

told ya

it went over your head


http://www.iflipflop.com/uploaded_images/dunce-713973.jpg

 

[busybody..]

The person who wrote this analysis is a complete fucking moron who must have read a wiki page regarding the financial aspects of book publishing.

you also missed the point of the thread

you too get a



http://www.iflipflop.com/uploaded_images/dunce-713973.jpg

 

[busybody..]

the POINT of the thread is that the PEOPLE dont like ClitBitch

her negatives are going up

DESPITE favorable press


the point of my last post was THIS

Last reports are that Living History sold 1.2 million copies, and bookstores are reporting that sales in the last couple weeks have dropped way off.

while the COLOREDS book is taking off

McCains book is taking off

Her book, is DYING

the people HATE ClitBitch

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

it has already sold 1.2 million in hardback? Paperback typically sells ten to one HB. Looks like S+S were right. BTW, they haven't counted overseas sales.

Yes indeed. This deal was for world rights, not just US . Which is wery unsual. They presold $3 million in sub, serial & foreign right well in advance of pub date.

Yes the book earned back the advance.

And even if it didn't, the "article" notes that people were laid off weeks after she received her advance... so there wouldn't even be enough time for their to be a connection.

Yes that writer is an idiot.

 

[Sean]

the POINT of the thread is that the PEOPLE dont like ClitBitch

her negatives are going up

DESPITE favorable press


the point of my last post was THIS

Last reports are that Living History sold 1.2 million copies, and bookstores are reporting that sales in the last couple weeks have dropped way off.

while the COLOREDS book is taking off

McCains book is taking off

Her book, is DYING

the people HATE ClitBitch

1.2 million in HB is fucking phenomenal, you idiot.

 

[busybody..]

you two say something dumb

and

repeat it often

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

the POINT of the thread is that the PEOPLE dont like ClitBitch

her negatives are going up

DESPITE favorable press


the point of my last post was THIS

Last reports are that Living History sold 1.2 million copies, and bookstores are reporting that sales in the last couple weeks have dropped way off.

while the COLOREDS book is taking off

McCains book is taking off

Her book, is DYING

the people HATE ClitBitch

Last few weeks? That book pubbed 3 or 4 years ago.

 

[busybody..]

Last few weeks? That book pubbed 3 or 4 years ago.

when in a hole

STOP DIGGING!


but not YOU

so here is some help


http://www.stonehill.edu/sihc/Pictures/Shovels/1840shovel.jpg

 

[Sean]

Last few weeks? That book pubbed 3 or 4 years ago.

June, 2003.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton, won't vote for her if she's the Democratic nominee. I've explained why many times and won't go into it here.

That said, you're dancing around the slight falloff in sales of a book that was published 4 years ago as a sign that her popularity is falling off? You truely are grasping at straws DizzyB.

I've said it before, the Democratic Party could run a Black Muslim Woman for President and beat anyone the Republicans put up against her. Thank good old G.W. for that. He has destroyed the Republican Party's chances for a generation to come.

 

[busybody..]

Obama V. Hillary [Jonah Goldberg]


The New York Times story on New York's black Democratic leadership inching toward Obama and away from Hillary is pretty interesting. My guess is this is that unless Obama has a serious misstep this can only get worse for Hillary. Right now black voters aren't really paying attention (just like white, Hispanic, Hmong and left-handed voters). But if the race goes the distance and Obama is seen as viable all the way through, it's going to be very hard, I think, for Hillary to command the outsized share of the black vote as she's planned. Assuming he goes the distance, just when black Democratic voters start paying attention will be just the moment when Hillary will need to negative on Obama and she won't be able to

 

[hogjack]

Ish is dating busybody?

Klanswitch will be very disappointed.

 

[busybody..]

need more evidence?

The Layoffs Hillary Didn’t Write a Letter About

Now this is some delicious irony.

As you’ll recall from yesterday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is upset with Circuit City for laying off 3,400 workers, wagging her finger to management in a letter that declared, “these decisions are inconsistent with the fundamental compact between your company and its employees. This is the wrong way to deal with the economic pressures of the day — and the wrong way to treat workers who’ve given their all to your company.”

Hillary doesn’t mention it in the letter, but one presumes she believes that the company has spent too much on other areas.



I wonder if she feels the same way about another company… like, say, a book publisher, like Simon and Schuster, publisher of Hillary’s book (and, ahem, mine).



Margaret Menge made the case back in 2003:

It may be unkind to say it in one long breath, but here it is: Hillary Clinton took an $8 million advance from Simon & Schuster and then 75 people at the company were laid off. One did follow the other (by weeks) and so it’s natural to wonder: If Simon & Schuster, which is owned by Viacom, had paid a more reasonable advance for the book, would those people still have their jobs? …



"There’s no connection," a Simon & Schuster spokesman balked when asked about the timing of the layoffs and the publication of Living History. The company says the book is one of the fastest-selling nonfiction books in history–proving that the advance was justified. But the advance paid to Hillary and the mobilization of the top staff at Simon & Schuster to plan, publish and promote the book means that the company didn’t make a large profit on it. The book has earned publisher Simon & Schuster a lot of attention, sure. But it hasn’t earned the company a lot of money.



Here’s the evidence. The advance paid to an author represents an advance on royalties based on the number of books expected to sell. The author’s royalty on hardcover books is 10 to 15 percent of the sale price. The publisher gets the rest. This is industry standard. So, if Clinton’s contract gave her 15 percent–the top rate–then she gets $4.20 for every $28 hardcover book sold. At a million copies sold, Clinton’s cut is $4,200,000. At a million and a half copies sold, her cut is $6,300,000–still way short of the $8 million advance.





Last reports are that Living History sold 1.2 million copies, and bookstores are reporting that sales in the last couple weeks have dropped way off. It seems she could sell a million and a half by year’s end–but not much more. There’s really no way they could have expected it to, which means that Simon & Schuster effectively altered the ratio of publisher/author earnings for Clinton. Hillary didn’t get just 15 percent, the maximum percentage that authors earn in royalties; she got a million to a million and a half more than the 15 percent would have yielded.



This is money that, under the standard ratio, Simon & Schuster would have pocketed. At the median 12.5 percent royalty, under which Clinton earns $3.50 per book, her cut is $5,250,000–and the advance of $8 million represents an overpayment of almost $3 million.

Then, later, in U.S.News and World Report’s Washington Whispers column:

Predictions in the slumping book industry that blockbusters like Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's tell-little bio would revive sales are dying fast. Whispers is told that Simon & Schuster, publisher of Clinton's Living History, is planning a second round of layoffs. One reason given: Advances to authors are too high.

(I would note that by the time I came along with a book idea in 2005, S&S certainly seemed to have the problem of too-big advances well under control.)



So, Senator... any letters of reprimand for the management of Simon and Schuster, laying off some of your constituents in New York, because they decided to pay out too much money to fatcats?

An Update on Hillary vs. Circuit City

Remember Hillary's finger-wagging letter to Circuit City over their layoffs of their best-paid workers? I laid out all of the dire financial numbers for the company that likely played a big role in those layoffs.

Well, the company released some more news today:

For the month of April, the company experienced substantially below-plan sales, primarily related to the large flat panel and projection television categories.

Due to this trend, the company now expects a loss from continuing operations before income taxes of $80 million to $90 million for the first quarter of fiscal 2008. In light of uncertainties in the current operating environment, the company is withdrawing its previously issued guidance for the first half of fiscal year 2008.

Terrible news for the company, and the stock price is reacting as you would expect. But presidential candidates don't have to worry about that stuff. They get to denounce layoffs as "inconsistent with the fundamental compact between your company and its employees" before moving on to the next speech or photo op.