Idea Girl

Okay, peeps. There is a lot of confusion out there about the CPSIA and what’s required and what’s not and who will go out of business and who won’t and who it’s really meant to effect and who it isn’t…blah blah blah blah blah.

I am going to add to the confusion. It’s because I am perplexed and no one I’ve spoken to is able to really give me a definitive answer…although plenty of people have given me their opinion.

Here’s the deal: in this blog, as well as thousands of other blogs and message boards and the video I first watched via YouTube of Rick Waldenberg presenting comments to the CPSC, it has been stated that the CPSIA is retroactive. This means that after Feb. 10, 2009, all goods that don’t have a certificate of compliance will be classified as hazardous waste and will not be able to be sold. This is what’s causing all the hoo-haw in the toy, craft, d.i.y. etsy type, small business-y worlds. Weirdly enough, not so much among indie children’s book publishers, like myself, but whatever.  I can’t force my peers to give a $hit, but I can try to let them know what’s going on.

But the thing is, if you look at the CPSIA, specifically HERE, at the timetable section of the FAQ, which I feel like just appeared recently (like after I first read it, which was about 3 weeks ago), you can see that maybe, just maybe, it’s saying that the ruling is not retroactive…at least not for now. Here’s what it says for Feb. 10 (in case you want to stay with me instead of clicking the link):

So - this reads like it’s NOT retroactive. But is also says that “children’s products may not contain more than 600 ppm of lead.” Which implies that it’s referring to ALL children’s products…past and future. So I don’t know what to think.

And meanwhile, if you go HERE, to a memo dated Nov. 14, written by Cheryl Falvey, head of the CPSC, you will see that she states quite clearly that the ruling about lead in children’s products is absolutely retroactive, as it states it in the law passed by Congress. This is where the statement that any product that doesn’t meet the new lead limits will be considered a hazardous substance comes from.

I also spoke to someone today who works at one of the labs (more on that in the next post) who said that he actually talked to someone at the CPSC (gasp! He spoke to someone!) and that person said that although on Feb. 10 the small business will not be required to have a certificate in place (but we will be the fall), that many distributors will require this. So, even though I will probably be allowed to sell my book from my website without penalty, to sell through Amazon I’ll have to say that I have a certificate in place…which means that I’ll have to get a certificate, since the bulk of my sales are through Amazon and other distributors.

Oh, my aching head!

I am thinking that I will err on the side of caution with this one. I have found a lab that will test my books and has actually talked to someone at the CPSC to get the run-down on what to test for and how to conduct the test so it’s acceptable. This means a lot. And hopefully the test won’t be too expensive…but I’ll share that in my next blog entry. I’d love to think that what teh FAQ appears to be saying is true, or that because of all the protest and sturm und drang it will all go away, or at least be revised so it’s reasonable, but it’s not a risk I’m willing to take right now.

Next: how children’s books will be tested to meet the requirements of the CPSIA.

…is that a Day Job worker is too tired to do much of anything when she gets home.

Especially if she has decided she needs to keep up the exercise habit she forced herself to develop over her holiday break.

And even if she has interesting information about the CPSIA…in which she is vitally interested.

And even if she has 800 million things to do for her small business.

And even if her kids have no socks to wear to school tomorrow.

And especially if she’s discovered that despite her New Year’s commitment to leaving work ON TIME every day, she won’t be able to this week because she has 3, count ‘em, 3 meetings after work this week.

I’m just sayin’…

A really nice article on The Big Fun Guide to Tar Heel Country was in the Chapel Hill News this week and it’s really doing a great thing for sales! The book’s sales rank on Amazon has finally become respectable, and it’s one of the top 12 travel books for the Southeast! Yay! A couple more sales and it’ll be a top 10 - I’ll have something new to brag about.

Funnily enough, a similar article in the Chapel Hill Herald a couple of months ago did NOTHING for sales. That was confusing to me. Maybe more people get the CH News? In any case, it’s very cool!

I’m not one to create New Year’s resolutions. I think there are some things you should probably do around New Year’s Day: clean your office, put away the Christmas tree, think about the year that just passed. But resolving to do better in the year ahead? I prefer to set goals for the new year. Goals provide an end product. Resolutions don’t. Resolutions are too wishy-washy. I like to think that I’m not a very wishy-washy person.

That said, here are my goals for 2009:

#1: find a way to get out of full-time work outside of the home. This is such a major goal for me that my 9-year-old finishes my sentences when I start to talk about it. I don’t know if this will actually happen, as I am also the only person in my family bringing in a steady paycheck right now, but some plans are in the works to try to make this happen. The rest of the goals for my little business support this goal, as the success of DRT Press both depends on and is depended on for its attainment.

#2: Continue publicizing and selling and marketing the heck out of my current books. I was going to add a qualifier - as much as I can in the time I have - but that’s been my S.O.P. and in order to be successful I’m going to have to do MORE than this. I will have to push myself - hard. Included in this is:

• create teacher’s guides for 1st 2 books, then school/library mailing to promote books w/free teachers’ guides
• write articles about school and adoption, both to promote 1st 2 books but also to promote possible future project (TBA later…)
• find 8 new place for BFG to be sold
• get BFG reviewed in all NC state-wide publications as well as ALL local
• place articles in free article banks to promote BFG
• author appearances for BFG - at least 3 before summer
• press releases EVERY MONTH about BFG
• work the social networking for BFG as well as adoption books; write guest blogs on adoption sites; work the Facebook, join appropriate networks/blog rings, etc.
• complete fundraising mailing for BFG

#3. Continue production of next 2 adoption books so they both come out next spring

#4. Create imprint! Yee haw! This is a TBA project, but one which I’m really excited about.

#5. Start personal blog - also TBA. This is a big part of quitting my full-time job. But I’m not ready to share just yet.

Phew! This is actually a lot to do - and much depends on that #1 goal. To do all of this I’m going to have to accomplish 2 personal goals: 1) work less at the Day Job, and 2) really support my husband so his salary can carry us for a while.

Good luck to me!

I am not someone whose life is ruled by astrology. I don’t exactly think it’s complete b.s., but let’s just say I have a healthy dose of skepticism when it comes to predicting my life or my best mate or my personality based on the date or the position of the sun when I was born.

That said, many of the characteristics of my sign, Sagittarius, fit me to a T. I am enthusiastic, honest to the point of bluntness, and I hate to be second-guessed.
I am a free thinker, that’s for sure. I am enterprising, independent, and impatient. I generally have good judgement, although I can be very impulsive as well.

Problem is, all of those things could describe any number of people. Probably describes you, blog reader. Or at least someone you know.

Despite my astrological snark, I can’t help but love it when I read a horoscope that matches my current zeitgeist. Jan. 1st’s horoscope, written by Jeraldine Saunders, is a great example of this. Here’s what it said for me:

There is world enough, and time. Don’t limit yourself or be afraid to stretch your imagination as far as possible when you make an inspiring New Year’s resolution for the year ahead.

I like it! Ms. Saunders is saying that the stars themselves are giving me permission to take my ideas and run with them. Thanks, Universe!

Urg.

I just got off the phone with a lovely, kind, sympathetic man who supervises the lead testing in one of the 12 certified labs in the U.S. listed on the CPSC website…and he is just as confused as I am about lead testing requirements and children’s books.

Is the paper that needs to be tested? When I read the CPSIA F.A.Q. I read it to mean that the inks in children’s books don’t count as lead paint…therefore the inks were exempt. So I figured that meant that the paper, cardboard, string, glue, dustjacket, etc. needed to be tested.

Is it the ink? When he read the CPSIA F.A.Q. he read it to mean that the inks were the thing that needed to be tested - or at least, based on his experience with lead testing, he seemed to feel if there was lead anywhere, it might be in the ink - but how to test the ink? How to break out all the millions of variations of ink colors in the average children’s picture book? 

And why?

WHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHY?

Give me an example of a picture book recall due to lead? I’m not talking a book with a novelty toy attached, or a book with a spiral binding - I’m talking an average picture book that anyone with children hopefully has dozens of strewn about their house.

You can’t give me an example, because there are none.

Anyway, the kind lead-testing supervisor is going to get back to me as soon as he find out more. 

If this lab, the only lab that comes up in the keyword search for “paper” or “books” on the CPSC website, has no idea what to do…then how is anyone else supposed to know?

Frankly, I don’t know if I want him to call me back. I am thinking about giving up…or, at the very least, changing the ages on my books to 12 and up, as I’ve heard a bunch of people suggest (and thus exempting them from being in the category of goods that need to be tested). I don’t like that idea, however, since a) it’s cheating, and I am a rule-follower, and b) my books are not for 12 and up. They are for little kids who were adopted from Russia and Eastern Europe, and who need a book of their very own! That’s who I wrote them for - not for 12 and up. 

Help.

Soon, I will get back to the main purpose of this blog: d.i.y. publishing, book marketing, and work/life balance. I have a cute photo of Erin Donoghue Baldwin, the author of The Big Fun Guide to Tar Heel Country at a nice, albeit sparsely attended talk at our local co-op grocery that I’d like to post. There’ll be an article on the book, Erin, and possibly me in the Chapel Hill paper this week, too, which is cool. Since it’ll appear New Year’s Eve I’m interested to see the spin on the article. I also have some (not so new) ideas about using article banks to promote books…but right now I want to draw your attention here:

The Washington Post

for a well-rounded article about the CPSIA.

Here’s a very reasoned statement from the Printing Industry of Minnesota, Inc., about CPSIA and children’s books. I like it because it’s not panicky, like I and all the other bloggers who’ve been posting about this have probably seemed, and it’s short and to the point. It also seems very hopeful in nature, and explains why it makes no sense for books to have to be tested for lead, as the CPSIA calls for: 

“It is the goal of this group to demonstrate to the CPSC that the majority of children’s printed good products do not pose a health hazard to children, and as such do not require product testing and certification under the CPSIA.”

I feel like there’s someone out there who’s looking out for us providers of printed material. They also pledge to get to the bottom of the testing:

“If an exemption is not provided, one of the key questions is to clarify the extent and nature of the testing and certification that will be required for all products sold or distributed (including products from inventory) on or after February 10, 2009. It is not clear if testing of component materials, final products, or both will be required to demonstrate compliance with the new lead and phthalate standards. Additionally, to the best of our knowledge, the CPSC has not accredited any third party organizations to perform the scope of testing required by the CPSIA.”

It feels good to have someone trying to figure this out for us little guys - like the statement I wrote about earlier from the National Association of Manufacturers (and signed by the American Publishing Association). The professional organizations I’ve belonged to in the past and COULD belong to again if I saw a point to it - SPAN (Small Publishers Assocation of North America), SPAWN (Small Publishers, Artists, and Writers Network), and the Children’s Book Council have said NOTHING on the subject. At least that’s what a search of their sites shows. SCBWI (Society for Children’s Book Writers and Illustrators) also appears to have no information, not that I’d expect them to. I actually belong to that organization, although I’m not sure why. They sure don’t have any patience for a d.i.y. publisher like me (but that’s a whole ‘nother blog post).

And what about the rest of the book-connected people out there? I know some of you are reading this! When I search “cpsia and books” or “cpsia and publishing” I mostly get links to THIS BLOG! What are you people doing? What are you thinking? Are you just going to sit back and take it?

Tomorrow: I will try to get a quote for testing my books. Either it will be something I can afford, or it won’t. If it won’t, then I don’t know what I’ll do.

I monitor all comments left on this blog. Only people who’ve posted before and have been approved are allowed to post again. When I set up the blog I figured that would be the prudent thing to do, and am I ever glad that I did it that way! Since I started this blog in June, I’ve steadily gone from 1-2 spam comments a week to 15-20 a day. It’s annoying to delete them, but a lot less annoying than allowing them to be posted. It’s the usual levitra-valium-viagra-naked girls etc. etc. string of words that accompany a weird, offshore URL. I’ve never clicked on a link to see where it goes, so I don’t know who is sending them or why they’re sending them. I’m assuming it’s some advertising scheme that will take over your computer with pop-up ads if you click-through, or will maybe commit you to buying a time share in Orlando - but not one anywhere near Disney.

What I find most amusing is that the post that gets the most number of spams is this one: Why I want an office (after I finally make it). I’m pretty sure the reason it gets the most spam hits is that it links to an article on Mommytrack’d with this title: “Working from home is the shits.” The keyword here is “shit.” I guess spammers figure that if you use a swear word in a blog entry you’ll happily allow them to post ads to sites where you can pay to see grown people put unusual things in various orifices.

The second most spammed part of my blog is the About me link. That one is funny. Why does it get spammed? Is it the part where I say I’m a librarian? I’ve heard there are fantasies involving librarians taking off their glasses and letting their hair out of their restrictive up-dos. But I don’t wear glasses and up-dos are too complicated for me most days. Or maybe it’s the part where I say “I’m busy…like a bee?” Ohhhh - sexy!

Now, I’m sure, this blog entry will soon attract the spam, since not only do I have a link to that original article with the word “shits,” I’m saying it twice, along with the singular (shit), also twice, as well as the levitra-viagra-naked girls string from above. I also said sexy, and fantasies, for that matter! I might as well throw in anal sex and hot pussy while I’m at it.

So here’s what I have to say to you spammers: bring it! I have a delete button and I know how to use it! 

I don’t know the answer to this question, but I’m really wondering about it. If it will be illegal to sell children’s items without a lead test from a certified lab, and children’ books fall into this category, will it be illegal to expose kids to children’s items that are not certified - like all the children’s books in a library?

At the Day Job I opened a library last year. 13,000 items. Total cost: $200,000. Will these need to be thrown away? Will I need to investigate the lead certification for every book? What about all the other stuff we have at school?

Seriously?

Seriously?

Does anyone have an answer?

I’d really like to know.