Long documented through declarative surveys carried out among members of professional organizations, the question of authors’ remuneration lacked work based on a sampling more representative of the realities of the book market. At least that’s what Technopolis Group considers, which carried out a study on the remuneration conditions of authors commissioned by the Ministry of Culture based on five editorial segments: comics, youth, literature, human and social sciences (SHS) and translation in these different fields.
A survey designed to better reflect the market
The objective was twofold: to analyze the remuneration conditions included in publishing contracts and to observe the rights actually generated by the exploitation of the works. The study also sought to identify possible disparities between authors according to different criteria, such as genre, level of notoriety, role played in creation or even the type of publishing house.
To constitute its sample, the research team worked in conjunction with several professional organizations in the sector, including the Permanent Council of Writers and the League of Professional Authors. The system is based on a random drawing of titles published in 2017, whose commercial performance was then observed over the 2017-2021 period. The initial sample included 6,674 titles distributed among 9,616 authors. The researchers emphasize that this methodology constitutes progress compared to numerous previous studies, often based solely on responses from members of professional organizations and not taking into account the sales levels of the works.
A low response rate which calls for caution
However, data collection encountered several difficulties. Conducted for two months, it only collected 479 responses, a participation rate of around 4%. Several responses were also incomplete. The authors of the report explain this low return rate by the difficulties in contacting certain authors, the absence of obligation to respond and the relatively complex nature of the questionnaire, which required consulting contracts and sometimes old statements of rights. The researchers therefore invite certain results to be interpreted with caution, particularly for the least represented segments, such as SHS and literature.
Proportional remuneration becomes the norm
Despite these limitations, several lessons clearly emerge. The first concerns the predominance of remuneration proportional to sales. This now constitutes the norm in publishing since 91% of the authors questioned declare that they are remunerated according to this model. Among them, 40% benefit from a fixed rate applied to paper sales, the average value of which is 6.1%. However, more than half of the contracts studied, or 52%, provide for progressive mechanisms with several successive rates. In these cases, the first rate is generally between 5.8% and 7%, before increasing when certain sales thresholds are reached.
The importance of value
The study also highlights the importance of value in the book economy. Among contracts based on proportional remuneration, 87% include a value. Its average amount reaches 4,101 euros. This average, however, hides significant differences: only 22% of the authors questioned declare having received more than 5,000 euros. For a large majority, the value therefore remains relatively modest and constitutes only a limited advance on future income from the exploitation of the work.
Notably, researchers observe a positive correlation between the amount of valuation and commercial performance observed several years after publication. This relationship is particularly visible in contracts providing for several levels of remuneration. She suggests that publishers and authors sometimes manage to anticipate the commercial potential of a work as soon as the contract is signed.
Digital remains a separate field
The report also focuses on remuneration methods linked to digital technology. Only part of the contracts provide specific provisions for sales of digital books. When these rates exist, their value often differs from that applied to paper sales. Furthermore, in contracts comprising several levels of remuneration for the printed book, the digital rate frequently turns out to be lower than the first paper rate, which questions the place given to digital exploitation in the remuneration mechanisms of authors.
When these rates exist, their value often differs from that applied to paper sales. Furthermore, in contracts comprising several levels of remuneration for the printed book, the digital rate is frequently lower than the first paper rate. These results show that digital exploitation continues to obey contractual logics distinct from those of printed books.
Marked differences according to professions and segments
One of the main contributions of the study lies in the analysis of the differences observed between categories of authors. Translators appear to be the least favored among the profiles studied. Their contracts more often include flat-rate remuneration, fewer progressive mechanisms and rates applied to sales that are generally lower than those of other authors. The use of fixed prices, considered less advantageous when the work is commercially successful, is particularly common there.
The differences observed between illustrators and designers seem to reflect more the economic specificities of the editorial segments in which they operate. Cartoonists, who have a strong presence in comics, benefit from more favorable conditions, with higher values and better remuneration rates. However, the researchers believe that this advantage is mainly due to the greater commercial potential of the comic books present in the sample. Conversely, illustrators, more represented in the youth sector, have relatively favorable flat-rate conditions but remain less advantaged in terms of proportional remuneration.
No significant differences between men and women
Concerning inequalities between men and women, the study does not highlight any significant differences in remuneration conditions. On the other hand, the type of publishing house seems to play a more determining role. Contracts concluded with houses belonging to large groups generally present more favorable remuneration arrangements and higher rates. Conversely, when a contract only has one rate, this tends to be more advantageous in independent houses.
