| | Comments (3)

I recently saw somebody ask, "Who makes more--the top-paid novelists, or the top-paid screenwriters?" I thought that was an interesting question, so I did a little number crunching. Here's what I found.

But first, a warning: what follows is based on anecdotal data, rather than statistical. And the anecdotal data tends to consist of media estimates of private wealth. If those estimates are off, my conclusions will be way off base.

Now, with that out of the way:

According to Forbes, JK Rowling is a billionaire; if that is true, it makes her the first person to become a billionaire just by writing novels. (She has said she is actually not worth a billion dollars, but I think we can assume the Forbes estimate is roughly in the ballpark.)

Clearly, there is nobody who has made anywhere near a billion dollars just by writing screenplays. So by that measure, novelists win.

What about if you include writer/producers, or writer/directors? Well, George Lucas is worth an estimated $3 billion. So by that measure, Hollywood wins.

I think it's safe to say that JK Rowling, as the best-paid novelist in all of human history, is an outlier. What about a relatively low-paid writer like, say, Dan Brown or Steven King? Well, Steven King's net worth is estimated to be "above $200 million." I suspect there are no screenwriters who have net worths that high from just screenwriting_--but if again, if you include writer/producers and writer/directors, then suddenly Steven King doesn't seem so wealthy.

I can't find any estimates of Dan Brown's net worth online, but Forbes estimates that he earned about $88 million last year. Given that we're dealing with very rough estimates, that's in the same ballpark as the $70 million that "Law & Order" kingpin Dick Wolff took home, so on that measure, novelists and screenwriters are about tied.

So that's the megastars and the mere superstars. What about the average joes?

When the WGA releases its annual report, it usually turns out that only about 50% of WGA members had any guild-covered employment in a given year. Among those who DID work, the mean income is usually about $90,000. (I'm quoting from memory, so these figures are approximate.) So, if you are unemployed half the time and earning $90k the other half, your average annual income is $45,000.

On the prose side, $10,000 is a pretty standard advance payment for a novel. So if you wanted to earn $45,000 in one year, your publisher would have to sell out your initial print run, then sell out two-and-a-half further print runs of equal size. I suspect most novelists do not manage to do this, so it looks like screenwriters win again.

However... and now I'm venturing into a realm of wild speculation, so take this with a grain of salt... I suspect that any given novel has a better chance of selling than any given screenplay. The minimum cost to buy a novel is less than the minimum cost to buy a script. And the average cost to actually publish a novel is less than the average cost of actually making a movie. And screenplays have fewer words, so I suspect more screenplays get written than novels... which means there are probably more unsold screenplays than unsold novels...

So if you write a novel, you are more likely to get paid something for it than if you write a screenplay.

3 Comments

But remember that a novel can be turned into a movie, and the permission to do this must be purchased. Jo Rowling earned a great deal of money, one imagines, from licensing her seven novels to Warner Bros. (Reportedly, WB bought the rights to HP1&2 for "a seven-figure sum.") Not to mention merchandising, the revenues from which she gets a cut (unless she got a flat fee). Every Hermione Granger action figure and poster I buy then puts a few cents in Rowling's purse. (And Lucas reportedly made more money from Star Wars merchandise sales than he did strictly from the original trilogy of films.) King and Brown also make money from the movies based on their novels, King especially.

Matthew, I see you are now able to post comments. Have you done anything differently?

OK, I think I see what's going on. If you click "preview" first, then post, your comment will post successfully. If you just click "Post," it won't. Odd. I'll see if I can fix that.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jacob published on August 15, 2007 10:49 AM.

Comment problem was the previous entry in this blog.

Upgrading is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en