It’ll be about the people who know, and will go to the press, that’s what the NDA is covering
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
NDAs can't cover crimes or the reporting of crimes. They can't prevent anyone talking to the police a lawyer or their MP.
She's a couple of years older than him. We often assume the male is the protagonist.
That issue though doesn't deny his trawling over young female fans in his dressing room.
It seems a drastic move from the publishers when his books have been so successful. The books were a major cash cow so they'd have every incentive to keep him. Just read this: 'accounted for 44% of HarperCollins Children's total trade value in 2018'. Obvs this is just from a quick google search so that figure might not be correct, but if it is...yikes.
I'm happy they've done this but wish it had happened sooner. Seems as though he's yet another man who was protected for far too long.
I did see a post today that said his sales were down 60%. Couldn't find an official source, though.It seems a drastic move from the publishers when his books have been so successful. The books were a major cash cow so they'd have every incentive to keep him. Just read this: 'accounted for 44% of HarperCollins Children's total trade value in 2018'. Obvs this is just from a quick google search so that figure might not be correct, but if it is...yikes.
I'm happy they've done this but wish it had happened sooner. Seems as though he's yet another man who was protected for far too long.
Sales will have fallen off a cliff in the last year or so. Sure he was selling shed loads eight years ago, but not now.
Publishing is like any other business and the bottom line is ultimately what drives decisions. As much as I’d love to think there was a major bombshell about to drop, it’s more likely the case that it’s just not economically viable to keep his backlist in production
This is a shame. For all the victims who had their potential abuser platformed for years. I’m younger than most in here so I actually read some of David’s books as a young child and loved them… I still have some of them knocking about somewhere, so I’d be interested to see if they have the timeless charm of a Roald Dahl classic or if they’re only enjoyable as a child.
Oh wow, that's a big drop in 2026. I was hoping the decision was based on ethics, but sadly you're probably right that the business side of things won over. At least he's having some kind of cancellation, I suppose.
That makes me feel ancient.
That’s not how it works - those books would’ve immediately earned out, so are then evergreen profitable stock, and it costs then nothing at all to keep them in print since orders can be fulfilled via print-on-demand. Publishers never revert rights (for any title) if they can help it!
But they've very publicly announced they're no longer printing any more of his books right as the run up to Christmas begins, which is typically when book sales - especially children's literature sales - go up. And he's effectively their most popular children's author with a ton of books, including Christmas-themed books. That's what's not normal about this.
Typically if a publisher is going to take an author out of print, they just do it quietly. They'll do smaller runs until it's not viable then after the last batch gets printed, it'll sit on shelves until it eventually sells (or if they really can't shift it, it goes to bargain shops, then gets pulped) and they just don't publish more. Usually it's a gradual enough process between the final batch being printed and the books actually becoming less and less available, that it'd can take some time for the general public to become aware of it.
And with the sheer volume of Walliams' books that are out there, it would probably would have taken a good while for public to really notice that his books aren't really being sold anywhere anymore.
The only reason the publisher would so publicly announce they're no longer printing one of their most popular authors (even though the books were earning them a lot of money and were popular enough to justify a theme park branding deal) is if they want it KNOWN that they no longer associate with him, effectively immediately.
Thirty years in publishing and this is not how it works either.
I know one of his illustrators, so just think of the income he is losing over this.
Yep, a couple of decades in publishing here too.
How could someone’s backlist be classed as ‘evergreen profitable stock’ if the books aren’t selling well and are unlikely to see a resurgence because the author has been effectively “cancelled” by the public?
Rights are often reverted, as it depends entirely on the terms of an individual author’s contract. No author should sign away their rights in perpetuity, and anyone doing so has been poorly advised. And many traditional publishing contracts include an out-of-print or rights reversion clause that allows the rights to be reverted to the author and the contract to be terminated once the work is no longer selling above a certain threshold.
David Walliams’ sales figures are significantly down and are unlikely to see an uptick in the foreseeable future as public opinion of DW is largely negative; hence, his backlist is not ‘evergreen profitable stock’ and he is no longer the cash cow he was, added to which keeping him on the roster isn’t a great look in general.
How could someone’s backlist be classed as ‘evergreen profitable stock’ if the books aren’t selling well and are unlikely to see a resurgence because the author has been effectively “cancelled” by the public?
Rights are often reverted, as it depends entirely on the terms of an individual author’s contract. No author should sign away their rights in perpetuity, and anyone doing so has been poorly advised. And many traditional publishing contracts include an out-of-print or rights reversion clause that allows the rights to be reverted to the author and the contract to be terminated once the work is no longer selling above a certain threshold.
David Walliams’ sales figures are significantly down and are unlikely to see an uptick in the foreseeable future as public opinion of DW is largely negative; hence, his backlist is not ‘evergreen profitable stock’ and he is no longer the cash cow he was, added to which keeping him on the roster isn’t a great look in general.
100% this. It’s very definitely a statement. I’ve actually never heard of a publisher doing anything like this before, especially not with a cash cow!
I wonder if Matt Lucas is trying to clean up profile by getting rid of as much association with DW as he can? He’s going to be covering for Simon Lipkin in Oliver! in the West End and he’s in the current series of Taskmaster, so career-wise he’s on a great trajectory just now.
Weren't there rumours the abusive famous comedian in Baby Reindeer was Matt Lucas?
There was but it wasnt him apparently. It ended up being someone I had never heard of
It's still on Facebook, Instagram, Apple podcasts, Audible...
Who was it?
I cant remember. It wasnt confirmed who it was but I seem to remember the name going around was someone I had never heard of