One of my biggest pet peeves are publications that demand an additional online subscription when you’ve already subscribed to the paper version of the magazine or paper. And since some of the publications have proprietary content that isn’t reproduced anywhere else, it’s harder to link to and discuss the details of an article. Grrr. Make me do more work, why don’t you!? Humph. Fine.
In this week’s Crain’s New York Business, there’s an article about publishers releasing books straight to paperback and skipping the hardcover issue in an attempt to “target young, cost-conscious buyers.” The article by Matthew Flamm profiles a few books that likely would have followed the hardback-to-paperback sequence, except that rival publishing houses have had success issuing books straight to paperback:
Though it doesn’t work for every title, and the economics of paperbacks hurt agents and authors, publishers and booksellers see the lower-price format as one way to reach new readers…. First novels, translated fiction, and literary nonfiction have suffered most in a media landscape packed with choices. With a standard hardcover price of $25.00, these books barely stand a chance.
The cons are obvious: there’s less money for the agent and the author, and it’s less of an opportunity for a book to make an impact if it’s only released once, as opposed to twice.
Booksellers, on the other hand, “have wanted publishers to go straight to trade paperback – larger and more elegant than the mass-market paperback format- for years.” They can buy more copies and make more of an effort to promote the author with a larger display of paperpacks for less initial money than a hardback.
Publishers who release new issues in paperback format are also encountering a favorable response from viewers. Seems that Major Reviewers recognize that “serious authors are now being presented” in paperback format, and don’t look at a straight-to-paperback release the same as a movie that skips theatres and goes straight to video.
Meanwhile, authors whose books have been released straight to paperback, trade or otherwise, have reported that at promotional events, their books sell out. Says author Sherman Alexie, “I’ve given two readings and sold out all the copies both times. That doesn’t happen with a hardcover.”
Now, I’m not terribly fond of the trade or the “venti” sized paperback, and since romance is a mostly-paperback format, I don’t bother much with hardcovers. The issue doesn’t affect me much either way, but the business and cost side of the question is fascinating. From my perspective as a reader, hardcovers are a lot of money for someone who chews through books quickly, and for another, they’re difficult and certainly heavy to carry around. But when I see a romance released in hardcover, usually it’s an author with a very well established track record of sales, and an equally well established fan base likely to buy the hardcover. Only on sporadic occasions have I seen an author I’ve never heard of released initially in hardcover.
I’ve also encountered here and there online a sense of mild betrayal and frustration with romance authors who make the jump from paperback to hardcover-then-paperback issue, mostly from fans who want to read the most recent release but can’t shell out the $25 for a book, and have to wait for the paperback. When pressed, though, those same fans have to admit that the increased revenue from a hardcover sale would better support that author they love so much.
As writer Brandon Sanderson wrote back in January, there are simple mathematical reasons to support a favorite author by buying a hardback, though he does acknowledge that it’s hard to be both a salesman and an author at the same time. Sanderson provides a sample breakdown of the costs and payouts of the publishing industry based on his experience, and understands the motivations driving the buyer vs. the motivations driving the writer and the bookseller (especially if those latter two are the same person, as they often are).
Simply put, royalties are often and usually better on a hardcover than on a paperback (obviously). But if the book-buying market is skewing younger and more cost-conscious, as the Crain’s article suggests, then more paperback-only releases are to be expected, because, with the eye on the bottom line, paperbacks cost less all around. I don’t know if this trend will affect romance one way or another, except to make it less likely for romances to be released in hardcover, perhaps, but then, I’m not a publishing professional. So I’m very curious what you publishing-type and writing-type folks think of this information.
I see multi-format all the dang time in the bookstore now. We are talking large indys too.
I honestly already knew the sellers are geared towards the small paperbacks because you see it on the shelves.
One hardcover, two large print paperbacks, versus 10 small paperbacks of that same book.
It’s right there and I think it represents how they already are handling this not so new concept.
My opinion is the publishers push the hardcover as a sales tool and profit maker and a way to gage a writers popularity.
To answer Nora, again (OMG you guys, NR asked ME a question!! I totally fangirl *squeed*! When my partner came into the shop tonight for closing, I was all, “Oh honey, can you close up, I have to go walk the shelves because Nora Roberts asked me a question.” It was soo coool!!)
My shop, now, is 300 sq meters. Which seems large, but I have a coffee shop in it, so some of the space is taken up by the kitchen, 2 bathrooms and clean up area. For 10 years, we ran a much smaller shop, 60sq meters, inside of a shopping centre. We opened the larger store, in Oct. 2005.
Basically, we follow the Powells model. We saw how hard it was for the Indy shops to slog along, so added in used books..it saved our bacon. I set aside all trade in’s on New Releases, for up to 2 months, unless I have sold out of all new copies and my reorders have not yet come in. I make exceptions for some of my elderly customers, as I know they cannot afford to pay new prices, and frankly, some may not have the time to wait it out. I also, tripled our romance, thriller and fantasy sections in the new store.
I find that those genres, are where we can stock multi formats. One thing I take into account, are my older readers. Massmarkets can be hard for them to read, and TB’s much easier, as the print is often larger. My having used copies of those, makes it able for them to read their fav authors, and stay within their budget. It also allows them to splurge every so often and buy new TB’s when they first come out. (AU rarely does HB’s, they go from TB to massmarkets)
I 100% agree with your husbands sensibility as a true bookseller, that the midlist is a must have. Plenty of those writers sell, and sell at a constant pace. Sure, only 2 or 3 of their titles may sell a month, but they always sell at least something, and thats better than a stick in your eye..as my grandma used to say. If I had to choose between multi format and dumping my midlist, the formats would mostly go.
For us, any best selling author, in the genre’s I mentioned, we can carry mutli-formats. Sometimes, the new hot book will carry, but thats pretty hit and miss. Bookclubs make that one hard to call.
If your DH would like to, he can email me (I’m registered here, or we can PM it over at AAR, I’m Megan there though) and we can trade some Indy info. I have more specific numbers and writers lists, and don’t think I want to bore people here with it. We network with quite a few other shops, to help out with ideas. Another thing, is, that if you two are ever going to be around Portland, Or, call Powells and ask to meet with Mike Powell. He drove my partner around for a day, showing him their set up and explaining what they did to become Powells. All my partner did, was show up at the main store, ask to see him, told them he was a Indy seller from Australia, and Mike hopped right down stairs for a chat!
I hope that helped!
*totally not weird asking about the email stuff. Swear it. Its business, and that means food on my table for my kids, so serious stuff.
eggs, can you give the source for those figures? I’m pretty sure that my company alone publishes nearly 100 fiction titles per year in Australia. We’re one of the big boys, but hardly the only player.
Maybe that’s 124 titles that are first published in Australia (as opposed to reprinting from American or British original pubs)?
Can someone there send me some of those Aussy boys in skimpy “banana hammocks” calendars?
“Speedos guys”
I saw this Aussy lifeguard calendar one time that was HOT…
Some interesting things are happening with reprints these days. As an example you have Laurell K. Hamilton. Her books were originally issued in mm paperback size. With, I think Obsidian Butterfly, she moved up to hardback for her initial release. Now her books are being reissued in a variety of formats, Guilty Pleasures her first book is now being reissued in hardback. As are most of the other backlist. And if you don’t like that she can also be found in trade sized paperbacks, as well as mass-market paperbacks. There’s something for everyone no matter what format you prefer. Now this is a long time after the books were first released. But the choice of formats for the consumer is nice. But I find less of this in Romance.
Darlene…great Mothers Day idea. Tuesday morning while in B&N getting my new release fix, passed 3 tables of Mothers Day books…totally boring stuff. There was MAYBE ONE title I would read, do they think just because I’m a mom I have mush for brains?
MeggieMac…interesting info!
This site is sooo educational, profit vs. copies, hardcovers more likely to be reviewed, foreign markets, author control vs. publisher control, hardcovers falling on your face while reading in bed…I LOVE this site!
Ditto…I also prefer a book size that I can easily carry. A paperback fits even in my little purse, a pocket, or car pocket. Didn’t they use to call this “Pocket Book” size?
Poison Ivy…I don’t have any problems with the security word, maybe it is in-house for you?
E wrote: “eggs, can you give the source for those figures? I’m pretty sure that my company alone publishes nearly 100 fiction titles per year in Australia. We’re one of the big boys, but hardly the only player.
Maybe that’s 124 titles that are first published in Australia (as opposed to reprinting from American or British original pubs)?”
eggs replies: The figures came from The Age (an Australian newspaper for non-Aussies), and you are correct that the number is for Australian first publication of original works of fiction, and not for reprints of foreign works. The article makes the interesting point that even when you correct for population, Australia still publishes 10 times less original fiction than the USA. Here’s a link: http://tinyurl.com/2bxhjr
As a fairly regular annual occupant of Nora’s husband’s bookstore, I can guarantee you that he does a wonderful job of stocking a wide variety of titles in an *extremely* tight space. I tend to patronize the chain stores where I live because, frankly, the indies do a poor job of giving me a selection of titles in my preferred genre. The indy where I went to college and grad school did a great job, but they had about as much square footage as the Borders and Barnes & Noble in town. I think a lot of the previous posters have done a great job in expressing pretty much all of my feelings on the topic:
1. I don’t feel “betrayed” because I know it’s pretty much up to the publisher and not the author as to which format a book gets published in.
2. If I’m ever anti-format, I make a stink about it to the publisher and not the author. That whole “value added” mass market debacle, as an example.
3. As an author, I realize that it’s 99% likely that I’ll never be published in hardcover. At this point, I’m just shooting for print one of these days.
4. As a reader, I’m willing to buy hc, but I’m very discriminating. I had to cut back on my hc purchases a couple of years ago in order to pay some bills and have food money left over. I make full use of my library in determining if I want to purchase the hc copy for my lasting collection or to pass. There’ve been a number of titles I’m glad I got from the library. Once I kill off a couple of the long-standing bills, I’m looking forward to going back to buying the hc’s of some of my favorite authors because I do support them and I do want them to keep writing.
I find it fascinating that people respond so strongly to the use of the word “betrayed” and respond to it with logic. Emotion is not necessarily logical. While I wouldn’t necessarily use the word betrayal myself, I do find it frustrating. I think that’s a tendency you see more nowadays given the convenience afforded to so many other things, that when blocked or faced with a longer time frame, people get annoyed.
I also don’t necessarily see a dichotomy with the sense of betrayal and knowing that there are other factors involved. I believe somebody else mentioned that there’s an initial feeling that takes place, followed later by the rationale. That doesn’t mean that it’s logical or people should feel bad for a gut emotion; it just needs to be placed into context and understood.
Then again, when it comes to reading for pleasure, I am a notorious impulse shopper, so there’s no real author loyalty influencing my decision in romance. In sci-fi, despite having authors I love to read, I try someone new while waiting for the paperback of the book I want to come out.
As a reader, I’m also…“betrayed” would be too strong a word. “Mildly annoyed in an OCD/bookshelf-aesthetic way” might be better, when a series flips from softback to hardcover. Conflicted, maybe, because while I’m overjoyed for the author of the series when s/he has “made the big-time,” I just know my bookshelves are going to go cock-eyed. And I do realize I have a choice to wait for the compatible format to come out.
As a reader, my biggest beef has been that lately, some of the hardcovers have been suffering in quality. The cloth covers don’t hold up, the sewn binding doesn’t seem to keep the pages from ripping out—I do feel justifiably betrayed if I’ve spent 25 bucks on a hardback that falls apart after three readings. But I blame the publisher, rather than the author—I know it’s not the author’s fault.
As an author, and a small-potatoes one at that, I’m kind of intimidated by hardbacks. I’d worry that the hardback would flop because it priced itself out of my readership, and cut into my sales for the rest of the book’s run, and how that would reflect to the publisher.
As an e-author, I love that my books don’t use paper. The hippie in me hates to think of the trees wasted when books are remaindered and end up in dumpsters somewhere. Any time a book ends in a dumpster makes the booklover in me weep.
I guess my ideal world would be one where, when a hardcover release is merited, that the hardcover and e-book release come out at the same time—it lets the brick&mortar folks, the libraries, and folks that want durable copies (as long as the damn hardback is quality, dammit!) get them, and the folks who are on limited budgets or live in places where getting books is difficult, can still get their “reward” of a fresh release at a reasonable cost.
Not being in the business end of things, I don’t know how feasible that is, but in happylandia, it works.