I, FREDERICK NOLAN, of xxxxxxxxx, MAKE OATH AND SAY as follows:-
1. I am an independent expert witness in this action and I make this affidavit in support of Mr. Andrew Malcolm's Claim for Damages to be assessed as ordered by the Court of Appeal on 18th December 1990.
2. Between 1954 and 1973, I worked as an editorial and marketing executive with Corgi Books, Penguin Books, Wm. Collins & Sons, and Granada Publishing (now part of Harper-Collins) in London, and with Ballantine Books in New York. Since 1973, I have been a professional full-time author. I have produced more than sixty works of fiction and non-fiction, many of which have been published in this country and the United States, as well as in translations in Germany, Holland, Spain, Belgium, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Portugal (and South America), and Japan, and one of which has been filmed. I have contributed widely to the National Press and the book trade press, and currently write a regular column in The Bookseller, the acknowledged organ of the trade. In 1985 I conducted a survey of publishers' royalty payments which was published In the journal of the Society of Authors, on whose management committee I also served for three years.
3. As might be adduced from the forgoing, I have a thorough overview of contracts, royalties, and other publishing practices; I keep in touch with current developments and changes through the medium of former colleagues, most of who are now senior executives with major houses. I also (unusually, perhaps) have an American literary agent, through whom I keep au fait with publishing developments in the United States.
4. I have read the manuscript of Andrew Malcolm's book Making Names, as well as the expert reports of Alan Ryan and Roy Edgley. While I have no expert knowledge of philosophy, I found the book readable, provocative, and, most importantly, accessible. That would seem to me, in conjunction with the experts' "rave" reports, to make it a perfectly viable publishing proposition. Its success thereafter would be based on (a) the amount of effort the publisher put into publishing and marketing it and (b) its acceptance by readers, and possible adoption for use in schools and universities. I would say, if invited to put forward my views as to its marketability, that this book could, provided the publisher were willing to support its publication with a reasonable promotional budget - easily achieve a substantial, and more importantly, an ongoing sale
%. Although I do not consider myself to be an academic editor, I find myself at odds with with the report submitted by R J Mynott of CUP, who says the book is not addressed at a real readership, whatever that is. If a book is timely, literate, stimulating and well published, it will find a market. Mr Mynott's claim that general readers are never there when you need them is arrant nonsense; does he think that the 8,000,000 people worldwide who bought Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time were all academics? Most importantly, does he believe the publisher had any idea when he commissioned it how successful that book would be? It is my experience that publishers operate on a mixture of past experience, "hunch" and "feel". Market research of any kind is practically non-existent.
6. Addressing the matter of advances (and therefore royalties) leads me to point out that it is generally felt - the Society of Authors will bear me out, I am sure - that an author is best advised to insist upon an advance against royalties calculated as a percentage of the cover price of the book rather than a percentage of net receipts. There are a number of reasons for this. In America - and increasingly in this country - retail chain booksellers call the tune. Mainstream publishers have little choice but to accede to their demands for ever-increasing discounts. It makes sense for the publisher to pay the author on the basis of what he receives, but it by no means makes it a good deal for the author. Example: 10,000 copies of a $20 book with a 10 percent cover-price royalty will earn him $20,000. The same number sold but discounted at 55 percent will net the publisher $90,000; the author's ten percent of that figure yields him $9,000. Which is one reason why publishers prefer "net receipts" contracts .
7. Among the many other advantages (to the publisher) of such contracts is the fact that they make possible what is called a 'sheet deal'. In this, the (multinational) publisher of that same 10,000 copy print run, can substantially reduce his printing cost by 'running on' a further 10,000 copies (that is to say, printing but not binding them), and then further profit by selling these 'sheets' at cost-price or even lower if he so chooses to subsidiaries or overseas branches, then paying the author 10 percent of 'net receipts' from that deal. The overseas subsidiaries bind up the sheets into book form and sell at full price for a nice profit to the Group as a whole. The only one who loses is the author.
8. I understand that it was agreed that Mr Malcolm should receive no advance, but a fair royalty for his work. In my experience and opinion a fair royalty in 1985 for an original general book such as this would have been at least 10 percent (hardback) and 7.5 percent (paperback) of the published price, and possibly more. It is also my experience that royalties are always paid twice yearly.
SWORN BY FREDERICK NOLAN, Bucks., 11th July 1991.
Go to the affidavit and testimony of Roy Edgley
Go to Malcolm's Statement of Claim, to the Case History, to the Affidavits: Ivon Asquith (1); Asquith (2); Henry Hardy; William Shaw (solicitor) (1); Sir Roger Elliott (1); Margaret Goodall; to the Witness Statements: Elliott; Hardy; Richard Charkin; Nicola Bion; Goodall, to the courtroom testimony of the Oxford Six, 14/3/1990: Elliott; Goodall; Bion; Asquith; Charkin; Hardy, to the testimony of Andrew Malcolm 13/3/1990, to the CHANCERY COURT JUDGMENT, to the Cambridge package and the Adrasteia package, to the publishing contract affidavits: Giles Gordon (1); Mark Le Fanu, to the APPEAL COURT JUDGMENT, to the damages affidavits: Alan Ryan; Asquith (3); Jeremy Mynott; Giles Gordon (2); Fred Nolan; Roy Edgley, to McGregor on Royalties (transcript), to the DAMAGES FINDINGS, and to the Settlement agreement.
Return to the Malcolm vs. Oxford I (1984-92) Index, to the Malcolm vs. Oxford II (2001-02) Index, to the blurb for Making Names, to its reviews, to The Remedy, or to the SITE INDEX.