Designer Advances and Some Corrections to that Slate Article – Stonemaier Games

Designer Advances and Some Corrections to that Slate Article

Last week, Slate.com published an article focused on our game, Wingspan. It is, in a way, a love letter from the article’s author (Dan Kois) to the game, birds in general, and designer Elizabeth Hargrave. I’m always happy to see our designers (and artists like Natalia and Ana) given the spotlight in articles like this. Plus, it’s a joyful article about the game, and that’s the whole point of why we make games here at Stonemaier.

There’s one paragraph in the article that made me pause and dwell on over the last few days. Part of it is that there are some factually inaccurate statements in the paragraph. The other part was a realization that we can do better to serve our designers via our approach to advances at Stonemaier Games.

Inaccuracies and Corrections

The paragraph in question is about halfway through the article. It talks about Elizabeth struggling at first (in 2016) to find a publisher for a game–then called Bring in the Birds–that involved feeding a variety of birds and playing them as fast as possible in front of you. It was a cards-only game, there was no engine-building or sense of progression, and it was a race to play a certain number of birds.

To fit alongside Stonemaier’s catalog of games, the core gameplay needed some work. But I knew from designing Viticulture, Euphoria, and Scythe just how hard it is to design a few dozen unique cards where the theme directly inspired the mechanisms, and Elizabeth had done that for nearly 100 cards in the early version of the game.

Just based on those cards, I knew there was potential for a great game to emerge from what Elizabeth had created. So I offered to help Elizabeth expand the scope of the game and completely redesign the core mechanisms to add a strong sense of progression. There was no guarantee that Elizabeth would even select Stonemaier Games as the publisher during that time–it was my hope she would, especially after time I spent playtesting and offering feedback on the early prototypes, but I didn’t know. I just wanted Elizabeth to have the best possible version of the game, and she seemed open to the collaboration.

This is where Slate’s accounting of the story veers from reality, or at least the entire reality of what unfolded:

“That meant another half-year of unpaid work before Stegmaier accepted her revision and agreed to manufacture the game.”

It’s true that no one paid Elizabeth to design her game, but at the time it was very much her game. I have the contract right in front of me–we didn’t sign Wingspan (which still had the working title “Bring in the Birds”) until February 2017. The article provides the odd and misleading implication that publishers should pay designers before either party has agreed to officially work with the other.

The paragraph ends with the following sentence that is even more misleading:

“Hargrave, as a first-time designer, received no advance, so until the game sold, she wouldn’t see a dime.”

Elizabeth’s status (in 2017) as a first-time designer had absolutely nothing to do with her not getting an advance. Rather, it simply isn’t standard practice in the game industry to pay advances. I’m not against the concept, and we have paid advances whenever designers (or even artists) have asked, but it simply never came up as something Elizabeth wanted.

As for the second part of the sentence, it’s also not accurate. There is, though, something to be said about people/companies not seeing a dime until products have sold–that’s how business works. Stonemaier Games spent $150,000 on the art, graphic design, manufacturing costs, and freight shipping on Wingspan, and we didn’t earn anything from the English-language version of the game until we sold the first copy in January 2019.

Also, though, Stonemaier Games pays royalties to designers on revenue received every single month when we receive any revenue, regardless of whether or not the game has sold any copies (I think most publishers pay designers quarterly). As a result, Elizabeth actually received her first royalty payment in October 2018, well before anyone bought the game on our webstore in January 2019 or from a retailer in March 2019. Why? Because we and our designers are fortunate to have the support of dozens of localization partners from whom we start to receive revenue when their games enter production.

That one paragraph doesn’t detract from a lovely article about Wingspan and Elizabeth. I just think that an article that could inspire dozens of diverse game designers should also paint an accurate portrayal of how the designer-publisher relationship works. I strive for that relationship to be supportive, caring, and compassionate (and I think the vast majority of publishers do the same), not exploitive.

Advances and Stonemaier Games

Despite the paragraph’s errors, I did learn something from processing it: It isn’t good enough for Stonemaier Games to simply offer an open door for our designers to request an advance if desired. As unintended as it is, it creates the awkwardness of putting the impetus on the designer.

So effective immediately for all new games published by Stonemaier Games (at least those that aren’t designed by me, as I don’t receive a royalty for my games), I’ve added a paragraph to the contract that says the following:

“Upon signing this contract, Publisher agrees to send a one-time advance on royalties of $10,000 to the Designer. This is the Designer’s money to keep even if (a) the game isn’t published, (b) the Designer decides to stop working on the design, or (c) the game’s royalties never cover the advance.”

Perhaps there are other contingencies this doesn’t cover, but I tried to consider any possibilities of “friction” in regards to paying a designer before we actually start to receive revenue for the product:

  • the game isn’t published: There are various circumstances that could lead to this situation, and almost all of them are our responsibility.
  • the designer decides to stop working on the design: Zappos famously once had the practice of offering new employees $2,000 to quit. They figured if someone is so unhappy working at Zappos that they’d rather have $2,000 now instead of a long-term salary with benefits and perks, it’s worth the expense to spend their invaluable time, energy, and resources on those who want to work there. I figured this philosophy can apply to advances too.
  • the game’s royalties never cover the advance: The $10,000 amount isn’t entirely set in stone, as a small expansion might not ever receive enough revenue to cover such royalties. But $10,000 is the target, one that I think is reasonable for us to attain for most products.

What do you think of this approach? While my impression is that most publishers don’t offer advances on royalties in their standard contracts, I’m curious to learn about other approaches and philosophies. Also, importantly, I hope that any designer who reads about this new Stonemaier Game policy is understanding if their publisher of choice handles advances differently (as long as you’re heard and treated with respect).

***

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content!

32 Comments on “Designer Advances and Some Corrections to that Slate Article

Leave a Comment

If you ask a question about a specific card or ability, please type the exact text in your comment to help facilitate a speedy and precise answer.

Your comment may take a few minutes to publish. Antagonistic, rude, or degrading comments will be removed. Thank you.

  1. […] Designer Advances […]

  2. […] about Elizabeth Hargrave and Wingspan. The article provided some great food for thought about designer advances (which we then increased to $10,000) and about the accuracy with which non-tabletop journalists […]

  3. I think this is amazing. Thank you for correcting misunderstandings I had from reading that article! It is great that you share this kind of information with those of us who enjoy your games, and it makes me feel better about buying them, too :)

  4. Once again, I admire the transparancy with which you run your business. I think offering an advance is common practice in other types of businesses. You could think of offering a lower advance for (smaller) expansions, as it is likely that the expansions will take less effort to develop.

  5. Jamey, I love how forward you are with all of this, and how much of an effort you make to do right by all of your partners. Truly inspiring.

    Do you share a form version of your standard contract anywhere?

    1. Thanks Jasper! I just have the text on our website, but you’re welcome to copy, paste, and modify. :)

  6. As it happens, we ran a survey of board game designers’ licensing contracts last year, so we have a pretty good idea of how common advances are. ;-) Just over half of contracts offer an advance, with the amounts ranging widely. A $10,000 advance would put it in the top 1%.

    1. I’m glad you asked that in your survey, and that’s helpful to know! I had no idea that many game publishers offered advances.

  7. I’m always struck Jamey by how thoughtfully you consider potential criticism and consider whether you need to change. I think you’re entirely right to adapt your approach to henceforth offer advances to designers that you sign. As a games designer, my view is that a publisher paying an advance demonstrates their commitment to taking a game idea forward and gives them ‘skin in the game’ to encourage them to work though the many stages of turning a game design into a manufactured product relatively quickly. I’ve been wary of signing games with publishers who don’t offer advances as I know other designers who have been signed and then become increasingly frustrated as their designs languish for years while the publisher focuses on other projects.

    $10K is certainly much higher than industry average in my experience. The advance for my first game was about a tenth of that. From a personal perspective, I’m not primarily looking for a large advance (though that is of course nice!) as I’m more focused on the longterm overall % of future royalties, but then I’m in the fortunate position of not being dependent on an advance from a cashflow perspective. [Rather like being able to focus on the endgame VP conditions rather than the early engine-building stage of a Euro game!]. However I can see how larger advances are much better for people who are in a less privileged position than I am, so I fully support them as a way of making the industry more inclusive.

    1. I like that “skin in the game” approach, Dave. While that’s always our approach, the advance is a sign of confidence and commitment (Joseph says it similarly below).

  8. I love the idea of normalizing advances. Designers work so hard to get their games to where it can be pitched to publishers, often even more than a year of work. An advance doesn’t mean they get more money but shows the publisher’s commitment to publishing and getting the game on shelves.

    To many first time designers, getting their game made is often just as important as getting that check in the mail. Even to those designers I’ve given the advice to consider asking for an advance. I’ve seen a lot of small publishers go on game signing sprees, with the intent of publishing every game they sign but often they run into snags and it takes 2 years for the rights to revert back to the design. Nothing takes the wind out of your sails more than having your game design collect dust for 2 years and come away with nothing to show for it.

    The concern for publishers is cash flow but if anything it makes them think twice about what games they choose to sign. $10k is also a large bonus and smaller indie publishers could probably start with a smaller amount, but it’s something I’d love to see more of in the industry.

    1. Joseph: That’s an excellent point about how an advance is essentially a down payment on committing to publishing the game.

  9. Jamey, this is really interesting and I appreciate both your clarification and your recognition of an opportunity to change how the business works to improve both the designer’s relationship and capability to focus, and set the groundwork for future collaboration.

    To be clear, I don’t see your blog post as criticizing the journalist so much as offering correction. I see an innocent reason for the incorrect paragraph – writers are often (not always) paid in advance, though Dan Kois being Editor would I think be salaried.

    You’d noted in the linked blog entry that an example first print run of a $50 MSRP game would net ~$23k for the designer, so that advance exceeds 40% of the expected first run royalty (or all the royalty if the run sells poorly). That is a risk – does it change the calculus for Stonemaier’s signing up a designer’s new game,?

    1. Thanks JT! You’re right that there is a risk whenever we make any product, so for riskier, lower-priced products, we might offer a lower advance.

  10. Well as a general principle I think that is a good clause, if not brilliant.

    I’m not convinced it should allow the designer to walk and keep all the money at their option, but if things fall through and it’s obviously your problem then the designer ought to get something.

    As to the value of the advance? It seems to me that that’s always going to vary game by game. Only the two parties involved can know what is a fair amount.

    1. I appreciate your thought, Michael, because I’m also thinking there’s an adverse risk there. At the same time, Stonemaier is a sufficiently mature company that I trust their design process.

      Likewise, I’d think that the advance changes how the design process takes place. Say that advance covers three months’ living expenses, would I spend the time focusing on completing the design, then, as opposed to not receiving an advance and having to balance with my other obligations?

  11. I had a look at the article. I think the sentence before the “unpaid work” part made it clear that you were doing her a favour and the unpaid bit was more her determination and not a negative on Stonemaier Games. This sentence, “[…] a list of suggested changes, and told her that if she revised the game and came back to him, he’d consider it.” Before that it mentioned no other publishers were interested.

    The “no advance because of being a first time designer” part does sound negative. Sorry to see they wrote that. Hopefully they will change that, if you ask them.

    Getting paid monthly instead of quarterly is great. Thankfully they didn’t twist the positive thing of getting paid monthly into a different truth: “The designer doesn’t receive a cent from the publisher most of the time, despite it almost selling a million copies”.
    Getting paid 1 day out of 28+ days means most days you don’t receive payment, so it’s true :D lol Edward Bernays proved anything positive can be spun negatively, and visa versa.

  12. You need to factor in how reporters write too. They want a good story and bring their objectives to the story they write. To say the designer recieved no advance or income till the game was a hit builds drama, and it sounds like the reporter brought an understanding of book publishing to what is clearly a different industry. Having come from the record industry (long time ago when they sold actual records) I would hold off on the 10k advance, knock it down to at least half, based on the return on investment you and other game industry folks are mentioning here.

  13. It’s great that you took some lessons and action from the article rather than just being mad about the inaccuracies. I can picture you going for a long walk pondering whether Stonemaier should make any policy changes or perhaps talking it over with a cat.

    I do think an advance is nice and your games are always successful enough to cover a large royalty so I think it makes sense. $10,000 seems high though. I don’t think any designer in this industry will expect that much as an advance, especially since advances in general aren’t an industry standard. We’ve done some much smaller advances for designers and artists and I would do it again because it just feels right. It gives them some assurance we will actually publish the game and starts the relationship out on the right foot.

    As I often do as comments, I want to cover the small publisher side and set expectations for game designers who may not have signed many/any games by saying: The huge majority of board games signed by a designer in this industry will not earn them $10,000 in royalties throughout the life of the game. That will only happen for games that have are very successful and warrant large print runs, it’s just that such success is a consistent occurrence for Stonemaier products. :)

    1. “I can picture you going for a long walk pondering whether Stonemaier should make any policy changes or perhaps talking it over with a cat.”

      That is surprisingly accurate. :)

      I appreciate you setting those expectations quite clearly. Even for us, it depends quite a bit on the MSRP of the game. A $25 game is going to sell to distributors for $10, so at a 7% royalty, even if we sell 10,000 units, we still haven’t covered the advance.

    2. I agree. 10k seems unusually high in my experience as a designer, having signed with a few different decent sized companies. The usual range I’ve seen is more like 1 to 5k.

  14. Honestly, this is amazing! I always wondered how this worked. That advance could really help bring brand new designers from various backgrounds into the industry, thereby increasing diversity.

    Is the mentoring you did for Elizabeth something you are still open to doing for brand new designers? Is there a way to apply? I know you already offer so much in the way of advice, but seeing how the collaboration was so successful, it makes me wonder if more magic could happen.

    1. Amy: That’s an excellent point. While I think design is a hobby–something in addition to a person’s primary source of income–I can see how an advance may be more welcoming and inclusive for a vast array of designers.

      Most of my time (60-70 hours a week) is spent running Stonemaier Games, and I spend some of that time writing this blog and creating videos about game design–and participating in the discussion–so anyone can learn from them (opposed to a private consultation/mentorship, where only one person is benefiting). So yes, brand new designers are welcome to watch my YouTube channel and share their journey in the comments, and I’m there to help them along the way. But privately, no, that isn’t something I offer to games we haven’t signed (Bring in the Birds was the exception to that rule, as I was hoping Elizabeth would choose Stonemaier). For any game for which we get the publishing rights, I work extensively with the designer to help the game achieve its full potential.

  15. To cover all other circumstances you could call it a ‘non-refundable’ advance.

    Now watch the deluge of pitches you get from people trying to snag that $10k!

  16. Wow, interesting read. The slate articpe was great, but its odd they have those few sentences in there, almost changes the focus of the article temporarily.

    Out loud thinking a gew things after reading both articles:

    1) part of why Jamey is such a great human is how much he genuinely cares for other humans. The fact that those sentences bothered him speaks volumes to his empathy and genuine compassion to always strive for the best (strive for excellence not perfection) and do the right thing by people (karma-both business and personal)

    2) now im wondering where the slate article author obtained his info on being paid or not paid. That has to come from somewhere right? Someone would assume possible from elizabeth or tbose in her sphere? Did he get it from random aocial media posts? That’s kind of a bold thing to print after praising a game and the industry so highly. Was it shock factor to draw eyeballs? In the absense of all other logical deductions, id have to assume he probably interviewed elizabeth, took a statement like ‘i didnt get paid yet for it at this time’, which probably wasnt even a complaint exactly, and ran with it as a social and buainess commentary, which kind of iant fair to be honest.

    3) if #2 above was a legit problem, jamey just fixed it with an advance. I was like wow! Bold, well played sir, aka put your money where your mouth is.

    4) jamey: you should write a book on business, i know you have for gaming industry and crowd funding, but have you ever considered a general business book.? There have many great ones throughout the years, but you have a unique perspective that could be useful to all businesses of all types.

    5) elizabeth: you are a rock star, amazing, and deserve all the accolades, you are a market mover, congrats!!!

    1. Thank you, Aaron. It took me a few days to really process if something good could come of my reaction to that paragraph, as I was shocked by it.

      I really have no idea where that paragraph came from. I think advances are more common in the book publishing world (a world where books are signed by publishers before they’re even written), so perhaps the author took his experiences and extrapolated on them here even though there isn’t a direct parallel.

      I appreciate you saying that about a business book; for now I’ll just stick to this blog, and maybe someday I’ll compile all my business mistakes and how I tried to grow from them into one place. :)

      1. Yep, as someone who has written and signed a good number of book publishing contracts, it does sound like the article author brought that background to the story, but why they thought it was applicable without doing some diligence is odd.

        Either way, I like what you gleaned from this experience, and I agree with the comments about smaller advances. They should be generous, but shouldn’t be something that the company has to over-carry. I’d be happy to talk about book publishing advances if you’d like some data and observations from that field.

        1. Thanks for sharing this, Mark. Yes, if you’re open to sharing about how advances work in the book publishing world, feel free to note some key points here–I have limited experience with that! :)

          1. There are some general comments on books that are written by people who aren’t known quantities in the field. In most cases, these books are already completed before they are sold. The industry has been doing this long enough that it knows—in broad strokes—what a book will do in the market. The “advance” they offer is a reflection of this presumption, which leads to authors seeing these advances as pretty close to what they would make in royalties over the course of the book’s life. Naturally, everyone hopes for a breakout success that puts this accounting to shame, but the P & L math is based on honest expectations.

            These advances are typically paid in installments: signing of contract, delivery of book, and publication of book. Signing and delivery are usually fairly immediate; publication is anywhere from 18 to 24 months later. Most publishing houses pay in at a glacial rate, plus there’s an unfortunate aspect of book publishing where books can be returned to publishers for full credit, which means it is very likely years before an author knows hard data about their sell-through. With all of this in mind, authors tend to approach this advance as the only hard money they’re going to see from a book.

            This isn’t to say that you shouldn’t pay upfront and be diligent on your royalty payments. That is a serious gold standard, and don’t ever change. :)

            Language regarding advances are usually non-recoupable by the publisher, except in cases where the author failed to deliver the manuscript. Any time after that, the publisher can pull the plug. If they do, they may not have to pay that final installment and all rights revert to the author.

            An advance at this level isn’t money that is going to change a creator’s lifestyle (especially when it is broken into chunks like the above), but it is representative of an investment between creator and publisher. And yeah, we know that the publisher is going to be putting a lot of time and investment into publishing a product, which is reflected in the royalty rate, but the advance is a stick for both parties to nudge each other with.

            An advance is lovely, but a publisher who publishes quickly and who accounts accurately and often is better. :)

          2. Thank you for such a detailed answer, Mark! This was particularly insightful about book publishing: “With all of this in mind, authors tend to approach this advance as the only hard money they’re going to see from a book.”

            I think it’s particularly notable that the publisher-author relationship officially begins–along with the expectation of payment–when the contract is signed. That’s why Dan’s comment about Elizabeth not getting paid for 6 months of work was particularly baffling to me, as it was essentially a pro bono collaboration without us knowing if Elizabeth would even choose Stonemaier. That collaboration between in August, and the contract wasn’t signed until February–it was only from that point on that we became the publisher and were obligated to pay Elizabeth for all revenue on sales.

See All Comments

Discover more from Stonemaier Games

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading