quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Masked Mage


Wooly, the main difference I see between TSR and WOTC is that TSR was broke for years - in the end they were like 30 million in the hole or something like that. WOTC is totally solvent, and is in fact just one part of a multi billion dollar parent company (HASBRO for those of you who were not aware of all the buyouts of the late 90s :P).

---

That is not at all relevant to the point I was making. Again, someone was bashing WotC, and I was pointing out that WotC was not going as far as TSR did. TSR decided that if a writer wouldn't write their signature character, they'd get someone else to do so. WotC has not gone that route.

I'm not defending WotC, I'm just trying to put things into perspective -- we've got too many people here who howl for WotC's blood anytime the company does something remotely disagreeable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Masked Mage

I've worked for Hasbro in the past and let me tell ya, they throw money around like its air - 50 grand here, 300 grand there. For them to tell any writer they can't afford the going rate is one heck of a bad joke. For them to tell an established writer with a fan base that is unconscionable.

---

So do we then have proof that someone at Hasbro made this call, and that WotC is not just a subsidiary that is responsible for its own bottom line? Everything I've seen was that WotC was a smaller part of a large group, and that they were running themselves with only the broadest guidance from the parent company -- and that guidance was mostly focused on the bottom line, and not how that bottom line was reached. If you have proof otherwise, or that someone at Hasbro decided how much WotC could offer it's authors, I'd love to see that.

Honestly, I think this is more a case of a bean counter saying "we need this much return on our investment, and we project this many books would be sold -- so the max we can offer is this amount."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadowsoul

Typical big corporation wanting something for nothing.

---

There's a difference between wanting something for nothing and wanting to make sure you get the desired return on your investment. As I said, I think it more likely they expect that a certain number of books would be sold, and that for them to get the desired profit margin, they can only offer a certain amount to the author.

Think about it: if you had the opportunity to spend X amount of dollars for a 10% profit, or the same amount for a 5% profit, which are you going to choose?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firestorm

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadowsoul

Typical big corporation wanting something for nothing.

---

There's a difference between wanting something for nothing and wanting to make sure you get the desired return on your investment. As I said, I think it more likely they expect that a certain number of books would be sold, and that for them to get the desired profit margin, they can only offer a certain amount to the author.

Think about it: if you had the opportunity to spend X amount of dollars for a 10% profit, or the same amount for a 5% profit, which are you going to choose?

---

Paul on facebook said his books more than sold their share to make it profitable for them. Cannot remember the exact verbiage used, but his books go like hotcakes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

And your point is what? It's obvious someone at WotC doesn't think they'd sell enough books, because it hasn't happened.

I'm not defending their decision. I'm defending how they got to that decision, and saying to stop acting like there's someone at WotC gleefully twirling their mustache as they make calls like this out of pure spite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Wizard

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

And your point is what? It's obvious someone at WotC doesn't think they'd sell enough books, because it hasn't happened.

I'm not defending their decision. I'm defending how they got to that decision, and saying to stop acting like there's someone at WotC gleefully twirling their mustache as they make calls like this out of pure spite.

---

Wizards might not have signed a bestselling author for reasons other than 'low sales.'

Nothing to go on for this theory, but it could be possible Wizards feels the Realms brand is strong enough to sustain sales with less well-known (and thus less well-paid) authors. In that way, they only have to support one big name (RAS), which in their accounting may be all they're willing to reach for (and perhaps all they need, as Ed is probably a unique case).

It could all just be a matter of cost/benefit math.

The lowball method gives Wizards a chance to test out new or established mid-tier Realms authors for much less cost. If two mid-tier authors sell enough to cover one big name release, but their pay is half, that math works out for the accounting side. This also has the potential benefit of filling up more shelf space and more opportunities to launch a new bestselling series.

---