Statement on Draft2Digital’s New Fee Policy
Recently, Draft2Digital announced a new policy introducing annual maintenance fees for accounts earning under $100, along with activation fees for new users. As a publisher, and as someone who works closely with authors across every stage of their careers, I want to respond frankly and without hedging.
I understand the stated reasons behind this decision. The rise of automated content, bad-faith actors, and platform abuse is a nightmare. We understand the strain on infrastructure. We empathize with the need to maintain reader trust in independent publishing. None of that is being dismissed here.
What is being questioned is where the burden of solving those problems is being placed, and who is being asked to carry it.
This Is Not About a Fee. It’s About Responsibility.
At the surface level, $12 a year does not seem significant. For a publisher managing a catalog, it isn’t. Costs exist throughout this industry, and they are part of sustaining the work. But for many individual authors, especially those early in their careers or working outside of high-volume commercial genres, this is not just a line item. It is another signal in an already difficult landscape that says: if your work does not generate enough revenue quickly enough, it carries a cost simply to remain available.
That is not a small message and it is not one we should normalize.
Who This Impacts in the Real World
Policies like this do not land evenly. I have had several authors reach out to me because they do not hit that threshold annually. Now they will owe D2D if they remain in the system. These poilcies do not affect authors with established readerships, rapid release cycles, or built-in marketing infrastructure in the same way they affect:
poets and hybrid writers
literary fiction authors
experimental and cross-genre voices
authors building slowly over time
writers balancing creative work with jobs, caregiving, or limited resources
These are not fringe cases. These are foundational to what independent publishing has always made possible. Many of these authors are not failing. They are building. They are finding readers gradually. They are contributing to a literary culture that does not always translate into immediate or high-volume sales.
A policy tied to a 12-month earnings threshold does not recognize that distinction.
A Misalignment with How Publishing Actually Works
This policy assumes that each account is a self-contained economic unit, responsible for producing a minimum level of revenue in order to justify its presence. That assumption does not reflect the reality of publishing.
Books are part of catalogs. Authors are part of communities. Careers develop over years, not quarters. Some titles remain quiet for long stretches and then find their audience later. Others exist because they serve a cultural, artistic, or personal purpose that cannot be measured by short-term sales. To reduce that entire ecosystem to a single annual earnings threshold is to misunderstand the nature of the work. And more importantly, it places pressure on the kinds of writing that have always needed the most support.
Cost Should Not Flow Downward by Default
If platforms require sustainable financial models, and they do, then we should be having a broader conversation about how those costs are distributed. As a publisher, I can say this: there are entities within this ecosystem better positioned to absorb operational costs. Publishers, distributors, and organizations working at scale have the ability to plan for, distribute, and carry expenses in ways that individual authors cannot.
This policy does not move in that direction. Instead, it shifts the cost downward, onto individuals who are often working without scale, without support, and without consistent income from their writing. That choice is not neutral. It reflects a prioritization of convenience over care.
There Are Better Ways to Address the Problem
If the goal is to protect the integrity of indie publishing, then the solutions need to be targeted at the source of the issue. There are alternatives that do not rely on penalizing low-earning authors:
stronger account verification and onboarding processes
limits on mass or automated uploads
improved detection and review systems
tiered service models based on features rather than baseline access
These approaches focus on behavior, not earnings. They address bad actors without placing additional strain on those participating in good faith.
What We Owe Authors
At Unsolicited Press, we work with authors whose books do not always follow predictable sales patterns. Some of our titles take time to find their readership. Some remain quiet and then become essential to the readers who discover them. Some exist because they needed to be written, regardless of market performance. Point blank: We should not be charging artists.
We believe in that work. And we believe in authors who are building something slowly, often without recognition, often without financial return, and often without institutional support. Those authors should not be asked to pay for the time it takes to grow and they sure as hell shouldn’t be treated as liabilities because their work does not meet an arbitrary annual threshold.
A Call for Thoughtful Reconsideration
This is not a call to ignore the realities platforms are facing. It is a call to meet those realities with solutions that reflect the full complexity of the publishing ecosystem. We can protect against abuse without narrowing access. Platform integrity can be maintained without placing disproportionate pressure on emerging and under-resourced authors. Together, we can build sustainable systems that do not quietly push out the very voices independent publishing was meant to support.
That is the standard worth holding, and that is the conversation this moment should open.
