Comments on: One Of Those Business-Oriented Posts https://booksquare.com/one-of-those-business-oriented-posts/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&%23038;utm_campaign=one-of-those-business-oriented-posts Dissecting the publishing industry with love and skepticism Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:59:31 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 By: Mad Max https://booksquare.com/one-of-those-business-oriented-posts/#comment-35339 Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:01:09 +0000 http://www.booksquare.com/archives/2005/02/26/1038/#comment-35339 There’s nothing that would do more to eliminating the disadvanges that the publishing industry faces compared to virtually any other industray than an elimination, or radical overhaul, of the returns policy, In truth I cannot image it happening; and it might have devastating effects on on literary novels by unknow writers–which are hard enough to get booksellers to order as is. But all this is beside the point, since there’s no indication whatsoever that such reforms will actually come to pass.

One point I wanted to clarify about bestsellers lists:

What would changing publisher returns policies do? Well, it would make bestseller lists more reflective of actual bestsellers, since print runs and initial shipments wouldn�t be such a factor. It would reduce actual manufacturing costs (and their inverse � destroying inventory). It might increase certain other distribution-related costs (freight, fulfillment). It would lessen bookkeeping issues.

For the record, print runs and copies shipped do not in & of themselves have an impact on bestseller lists. Bestseller lists are determined not by copies shipped by publishers but by copies sold by retailers to customers. Obviously a announced first print of 250,000 may convince the bookseller to take hundreds of copies and stack them by the front door–in which case this would likely influence the number of copies sold. But retail bestseller lists reflect “p.o.s” numbers — point of sale, i.e. to CUSTOMERS–and not quantities shipped per se,

]]> By: booksquare https://booksquare.com/one-of-those-business-oriented-posts/#comment-35104 Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:48:36 +0000 http://www.booksquare.com/archives/2005/02/26/1038/#comment-35104 Agreed that print run is not a deciding fact, in and of itself, but larger (announced) print runs have a psychological effect on buyers. A 250k print run might be a publisher’s justified belief in a book, or it might be a calculated business move (no shame there, but book buyers cannot always discern between the two).

Now, I will respectfully disagree that bestseller lists represent actual sales. We both know that’s not entirely true. Perhaps it would be better to say something along the lines of actual sales meeting certain criteria (a certain major metropolitan newspaper on the East Coast comes to mind ).

For better or worse, the current system, inefficient as it is, benefits certain types of books. If a change were to occur (and this will likely be coincidental with the next ice age), it would have to be gradual and deliberate. Ripping off the band-aid won’t work. At all.

]]>