Rose thinks this author participation is generally a good thing—"people do buy more of something when they know it exists." On the flip side, however, the author compensation scheme has not adjusted to reflect an author's new marketing obligations. Here's the crux of Rose's argument:
[T]oday the author’s marketing/PR effort is often equal to or even greater than what the house is doing. ... We now have a situation where publishers are financially benefiting from the author’s efforts but the author is still getting paid the old way, without regard to how much we personally invest. There’s just no consideration for the checks we’re writing out of our own pockets for marketing or PR services. Accordingly, it’s blatantly and patently unfair for us to invest in our own books and then wait for our advances to earn out based on the same royalties rates we’ve always gotten. Be it $2,000 or $20,000, the money we invest should be discounted from the advances we’re paid, allowing us to earn royalties faster based on an honest up-front expenditure by the publisher. And, it goes without saying, we should be getting a higher royalty rate. After all, we’re doing more than writing our books, we’re business partners as well.
While I'm sympathetic to Rose's point, I'm not sure her solution is workable. Publishers are having a hard enough time staying afloat these days without asking them to pay a higher royalty rate or to credit authors' expenditures against their advances.