There is definite room for increasing efficiency in the publishing industry.

I would (and do) separate the technology of print-on-demand from the product. The product ranges from vanity publishing to self-publishing (this was the route that MJ Rose took with her first book — that was ultimately picked up by a major publishes) to certain houses that use the POD model quite effectively for their business. And, if I may, some people are magnets for the weird and possibly insane. . .

The technology, if it ever achieves its promise, could lead to improvements in the distribution process. If, for example, high-speed presses that could produce lower print runs at a reasonable cost were to become the norm, then bookstores (and salespeople) could order in lower volumes, knowing they can fufill demand if a title sells in unexpectedly high numbers. The benefit to the author would be more accurate sales figures and lower reserves, leading to more timely payment.

Until then…

Wendy, I’m not even sure the urban legend author was a mid-list. I got the impression that we were dealing with a total unknown. Either way, it sounds improbable.

This is absolute bullshit. Usually, something like half of all the books printed are held against return, often for a year or more, so the idea that the author had suddenly reaped great profits from this mythical sale to Costco is hardly believable. As a writer and a reader, I must admit that I find POD dubious. Why? Because most of the POD books I’ve read have been foisted upon me by weird, possibly insane, people at writers conferences. As a writer, it’s not a viable publishing model for me because it’s not publishing, it’s printing. And while I’d prefer that my books were able to sit on shelves until the end of time, the truth is that it’s called the publishing business, not the publishing gallery, and if your work is subpar, at least according to the reader, they certainly have the right to return it.

Sorry, not true. Departments stores can and do return unsold garments to manufacturers.

The print run of 300,000 for a mid-list author does sound like urban legend, especially when you consider that Brett Easton Ellis’ latest offering had an initial print run 125,000. Generally New York publishers don’t get to be corporate behemoths by following that listen-to-the-author business model laid out in Hoy’s argument.

While “books held against return” do hold up authors’ royalty payments—seemingly forever—the bottom line is that books are products just like electronic equipment, sporting goods, or furniture. And, there isn’t any reason why return policies for books should be different than for other products.

As for straight POD titles, I’m not sure what the answer is. If it’s a one-off situation (where the customer orders and puts a deposit on a single or multiple copies), then I can see compromises. Retailers are in an unfortunate position of being faced with limited shelf space and a never-ending, always increasing barrage of new releases. And, in defense of booksellers, the quality of POD titles varies greatly — there are the straight vanity titles and there are titles that have gone on to win major awares — and while blanket policies exclude quality work, it’s going to be hard going to change perceptions.

Then there’s the question of impulse purchases — not an issue of the store is willing to stock POD titles, but it is an issue if not. I’m willing to cogitate on ways to change the system, but it needs to be a mix of solutions. Suggesting that no returns is the ultimate goal seems, on the surface, to be a way to discourage booksellers from taking risk.

And, yeah, worked lots of retail in various types of stores. I can even make change without having the register calculate the amount for me!

I’m not talking about the superchains. They are a waste of time for just about any new or relatively unknown writer no matter who their publisher is. Nor am I saying the POD ideal of no returns is necessary. What’s preventing POD from taking a place in the market is less the issue of returns than it is that the books have to be paid for at time of ordering and the perception that all POD books are vanity-published garbage.

All we ask of booksellers is that they not reject good books out of hand solely based on the way they are printed. We have no problem being snubbed by the Big B’s. What frustrates us is when indie bookstores won’t even look at one of our books because “Oh, that’s POD. We don’t stock POD.”

Need I mention that up till the point this enters the conversation, they have often been very enthusiastic about the book in question? And, note: they will even refuse to take the books on consignment unless they get the full 40% discount. Excuse me? We (or the author) pays for the books, pays for the shipping and then is supposed to give the full retail discount? I don’t think so.

As for your analogy that customers of other versions of retail can take items home and return them if they don’t suit, have you ever actually worked in a retail store? There are some that will accept returns without question, but many more require there actually be something wrong with the return–wrong size, flawed construction, whatever. Nor will they accept returns that have obviously been damaged post purchase.

And ask publishers how many returns they’ve gotten from Barnes & Noble that are coffee-stained because the customer spilled his nosh on it while snacking then put it back on the shelf.

One way of competing in bookselling is offering deeper and deeper discounts on the books everybody is selling. Another is to look for alternatives to the books everybody is selling. We try to encourage booksellers to try the latter–not in place of what they do now but as an adjunct. Some of them are listening.

My question is, won’t print-on-demand hold our books in “in-print limbo”? A few sales here and there meriting keeping the book in print for the publisher, but the author is left with no way to get rights back and sell to a new source while making just a couple of bucks here and there. Everyone wins but the author.