Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemurion
As I read that, the only thing that stands out is that if Konrath honestly believes what is quoted there about authors reclaiming backlist books then he really doesn't have a good handle on what's going on there at all.
The economics of an author republishing his or her backlist electronically are very different from those of a commercial publisher deciding whether to devote one of their limited number of publishing slots to the same books.
Commercial publishers often let books revert because even though they might sell a steady trickle if left in print (which may require a new print run on the publisher's part), there's a brand new book in competition for that slot which the publisher expects will sell better.
.
|
Uh, that is not the reality today.
Today, publishers are hoarding book rights for books old and new for ebook publication. They actively try to redefine "in print" in a dozen ways to avoid reversion. The economics of ebook backlists don't revolve around print slots at all, much less print revenue. They revolve around sales rates and little else.
So what he said is literal truth: when a publisher *these days* reverts a book it is because they either think the book will not sell in ebook form or because they have so clearly failed to uphold their side of the contract the threat of litigation and audits forces them to let go. And considering how publishing contracts are structured the former is more common than the latter.