Comments on: Connecting Books With Readers: A Failure

By: Clive Warner

Clive Warner — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 20:49:12 +0000

Sheila, I am a small publisher and I use POD because large print runs are the death of small publishers.
To answer your question, I will use the new Citiria novel, ReBody, as a price example.
This SF-satire, to be released in October, has a production cost such that, after giving a 55% distribution discount (as required by Amazon etc), I have precisely $2.60 left to pay Citiria’s expenses and author royalties.
If I were running a big publisher and had gone to a 5,000 off print run, my profit per book would “appear” to be $4.85 due to the lower printing costs.
Unfortunately that profit would be wiped out by the dreaded “returns’ from retailers. (Usually they return books in a damaged and unsaleable condition, too.)
Now is it surprising that big publishers have an operating margin of a miserable 6%?
Frankly this whole industry is a big dinosaur like the music biz. It won’t progress until the whole wasteful retail practice of overproduction followed by returning most of the stock, is finished with.

By: Sheila

Sheila — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:34:12 +0000

I have a question, perhaps a stupid one. Why don’t publishers publish all their books “on demand” instead of taking a chance on big print runs?
As the orders come in, you print the books on a machine like the Espresso Book Machine.
Why would they do both? Can someone enlighten me please? What are the advantages to traditional print runs?
Sorry if this is a dumb question.

By: Team Coverage of the O'Reilly TOC Conference | Oxford Media Works

Team Coverage of the O'Reilly TOC Conference | Oxford Media Works — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:03:51 +0000

[...] Connecting Books With Readers: A Failure — Despite the promise of Print On Demand and streamlined inventory management systems, publishers still have challenges getting books into the hands of avid readers. [...]

By: Team Coverage of the O'Reilly TOC Conference | Oxford Media Works

Team Coverage of the O'Reilly TOC Conference | Oxford Media Works — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:03:51 +0000

By: booktwo.org Notebook » Stop Press for June 26th

booktwo.org Notebook » Stop Press for June 26th — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:31:25 +0000

[...] Connecting Books With Readers: A Failure | Booksquare – On the necessity of upgrading the technology: why Gutenberg doesn’t work any more, and why POD, or something similar, has to be the next step. [...]

By: Brian Guerin

Brian Guerin — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 11:42:47 +0000

I was of the same opinion as Shirley on this issue up until recently. My mind was changed when I had a long chat with the production director of a publishing house who I was sure would benefit greatly from POD. They have a very large backlist of craft and hobby titles that were out of print, but not irrelevant to their market. The PD told me that they were watching the technology very closely, but it was still impossible for them to print POD with enough profit margin for it to be worthwhile. In defence of the publishers, POD technology has to get cheaper before POD makes business sense.

By: Kassia Krozser

Kassia Krozser — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 04:13:47 +0000

Shirley, yes.

Heatseekers — it sounds to me like you’re dealing with a production issue rather than a technology issue. It’s unclear who owns the original artwork and/or typeface (fonts are often copyrighted). Without knowing more details, it’s hard to say where the fault lies. However, reproducing a book, note-for-note (if I may), is not generally a technology issue.

Alex – wow, I don’t know what to say. Except that Hollick commented that their financial system is SAP. I’ve had more than few rounds with SAP. Integrating a new business is hard in any system. No excuse, of course, but from the other side, I feel.

As for your final comment, you are so right. Good business decisions, embracing the right choices. I’ll be discussing this more because you’ve really touched on something that needs to be said. Loudly. In public.

I am sorry that your books didn’t arrive in time, SAP notwithstanding!

By: Kassia Krozser

Kassia Krozser — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 03:46:42 +0000

Brenda — you know I love arguing with you. Truly. You make it fun (g).

If Harlequin isn’t looking at POD as a solution, then they are not serious about publishing. Simple as that. I agree that they are a front-list company. But as markets get squeezed (Wal-Mart’s recent decision to cut shelf space, for example), the importance of backlist grows. It’s clear that Harlequin takes their backlist seriously — but it’s not always economical for them to do major print runs. I believe they’re exploring this. If not, then, well, how are they seriously looking to expand the market?

A long time ago in a galaxy far away (btw, there are many, many Buckaroo fans out there — you’d be shocked and pleased!), the home video market was stymied by slow manufacturing. Truly. The inability to get units en masse, cheaply to customers was hurting the market. The sell-through explosion that hit in the early nineties (I feel like such a pioneer!) was due largely to rapid, cheap manufacturing. Prior to this, the market was limited to high-priced “rentals” and very limited.

Consumers want choice (though not too much) and reasonable pricing. They also want immediacy. I should note that the book I’m still waiting for is from Pocket. Yeah, I’m naming names!

For you, the author, it’s a question of rights reversion or making sure your backlist is available. Think about July 15 — when you win the RITA (hey, I love knowing the cream of the crop). Are all your titles readily available? What if, two years from now, someone starts collecting all RITA winners or nominees or…?

I do believe that the current POD systems are meeting a production gap. And the price is not so out of line with other prices.

By: Kirk Biglione

Kirk Biglione — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 03:34:50 +0000

The problem is not that there isn’t money in POD. The problem, apparently, is that Harlequin doesn’t think there’s money in POD.

Really, POD should be like printing money. Especially for a publisher like Harlequin.

By: Brenda Coulter

Brenda Coulter — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:15:56 +0000

Believe me, Kirk, if Harlequin thought for a minute they could make money in POD, they’d be all over it!