Not sure this will get any further. You see desperation right across the poetry scene. Of the poets "it's their desperation to get published at any cost that I'm criticising." And the publisher has been "so desperate to overload his list." You may have a point that Salt expanded too far and too quickly, but I doubt that makes him "desperate". It's a mistake to presume you know all these people's motives. You don't.
   Tony explained the situation clearly from a publisher's perspective. I tried to do so from a writer's perspective. My impression is that royalties are a usual thing for poetry book publication, so I don't know why you're stuck on this single issue.  It's not something I've heard much discussed or complained about by poets, probably because very few of them receive any or much because of the sales, and many poetry books are published at a loss for the press.  You're more likely to hear complaints about a publisher not making any efforts to distribute the book, or not sending it out for review, or making a mess of the cover. If this sounds like vanity to you, and if you insist on believing poets are vain creatures without any sense, you wouldn't be alone in that belief, but there's not much else to say.
Jamie

Sent from my iPad

> On 21 Oct 2017, at 21:01, David Lace <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Jamie (and Luke who also asked me about this) my comment about poets egos is in the context of not getting paid royalties. My point is that if they weren’t so desperate to get published at any cost, they would be more fussy about immediately signing a contract that says they can’t get royalties. Seeing as they do sign such contracts they must be putting their egos before common sense. Less insecure poets would shop around a bit and look for a publisher who does pay royalties. It’s their desperation ration to get published at any cost that I’m criticising. 
> 
> My reservations about royalties not being paid are exactly in relation to a no-advance contract. 
> In such a case, the publisher, having not had to spend any money on the advance, would/should have enough money to pay royalties—even before the 150 copies sale requirement for royalties to begin. But I agree that the 150 figure is a reasonable starting point for royalties to begin. I’m glad Shearsman’s does this under its no-advance policy. But publishers who operate a no-advance policy and still refuse royalties should be boycotted by poets, and reported to the funding bodies as being unethical. 
> 
> Another question that comes to mind is how can the poet know that the publisher is being honest when he or she says that the poet’s book has not had enough sales for the royalties to begin being paid? Is there any way that this can be proved or not? Where would the poet go for an independent verification of how many of his or her books were actually sold? This is a cynical question, but publishers have to look out for their own interests, and so would be tempted to tell lies regarding book sales in order to avoid paying royalties. It’s a bit like tax avoidance.
> 
> I think the mistake Salt made was that it published too many poets—many of them not that good. It seemed to me at the time that Chris was trying to get as many poets on his list as possible to impress people. Many of the poets were of the “young and upcoming” kind—who now no one has heard anything more of. I remember reading all the hype surrounding their getting books published by Salt—for a while you couldn’t escape it. Had Chris not been so desperate to overload his list, then he might not have run out of money to keep Salt afloat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ————————Original Message—————————-
> 
> 
> Jamie McKendrick wrote:
> 
> Daivid, I think this comment of yours is especially dismal.  
> "I wonder how many poets in this list have never or currently don’t get paid royalties—probably a lot. I think poets are so desperate to get published that royalties don’t matter to them. The ego of seeing themselves in print is the main thing. Very sad."
> Of course you can accuse anyone who publishes, exhibits or performs a work of art of 'ego' but it doesn't make it less egotistical to insist on payment, just more sensible. Take painting as an example, most galleries take upwards of 60 percent of the sales of art work, better than any royalties I've come across, but the sales and timing are usually much brisker. If you're unhappy with the terms and effectiveness of one gallery, you can try moving to another. The notion of ego is just irrelevant.
> 
> I don't think anyone would quarrel with your point about the appropriateness of royalties for any literary work, but the emphasis here on their sacrosanct status is a little beside the point: which is that, as Tony has explained, very few books of poems earn any royalties. I'm on the verge of being innumerate, so I'd welcome any adjustments to what follows.
>  Let's take two realistic if somewhat simplified options.
> 1) the poet is paid an advance, say £1000, for a book with10 percent royalties, and the book is sold for £10. The book would need to sell 1000 copies before any royalties are paid. (Tell me if my maths are wrong.) If I'm right this means that only a few poetry books will pay off their advance and begin to earn usually minimal royalties. So for most poets with this kind of contract the whole question of royalties is pie in the sky. They'll never receive any if the book is not reprinted after the first print run of, say,1000 copies are sold, usually over several years. 
> 2) the alternative contract, such as the one on Shearsmans' website: no advance, and 10 percent royalties start after the sale of (was it 150?) copies, the sales the publisher requires to break even for production costs etc. Seems to me not an ungenerous way of doing things because the poet sacrifices the ready cash of the advance but, if the book sells, begins to see some royalties, probably only a trickle, somewhat earlier, supposing the book sales exceed that figure.
> 
> We're all agreed, I think, that if anything is earned (beyond the production costs) by the sale of poetry books, the poet is entitled to a share. Personally I'm happy with 10 percent royalties. But you sign a contract so you should read it. I was once offered less and refused it. Having said that, I'd prefer to forego any minuscule payment if it meant the publisher stayed in business. All this is hearsay about Salt's operations, but to Chris's credit the books are still available, it seems, from the website, and again to his credit the production values are really impressive. Irrespective of ego, that kind of stuff might matter more to poets than a few extra quid.
> 
> Far worse is my experience of translation where the royalties, if the book is still in copyright, can either be non-existent or 1-1.5 percent. Unless the book is a best seller this is devised so the translator will never earn a penny beyond the advance, which itself is usually minimal. One example of a book I translated at 1 percent, has now sold 30,000 copies or more, the publisher has made a substantial profit but I will never see anything beyond the £4,500 advance (that for a year's work, at a slow rate admittedly).  I'm going off topic somewhat to suggest poetry seems relatively benign in its finances. And I think the idea that poets are being ripped off by unscrupulous publishers (some vanity presses apart) is completely fictive. They deserve support rather than cynical criticism.
> 
> Excuse the length of this post.
> Jamie