"E-book data poor" (from The Bookseller)

[Nate the great]

Foyles and Nielsen Book have called for greater co-operation from publishers regarding information for both selling and monitoring e-book sales.

Becky Jones (pictured), head of e-commerce at Foyles, told delegates at The Bookseller's Digital Conference, FutureBook, sponsored by Wiggin and held in London last week, that current e-book bibliographic data was "poor". She said: "Many have no jackets and no book synopsis. Many are supplied without information such as author or publication date."

She added: "Random House is a fantastic publisher and does a great deal in the e-book market here, but when The Lost Symbol came out it failed to put either 'Dan' or 'Brown' in the file information."

from:
http://www.thebookseller.com/news/10...-poor.html.rss

It's an interesting read.

[HarryT]

One reason why many eBooks don't have covers is simply that "cover art" rights are generally negotiated separately from the book rights, and it's common for a publisher to have electronic distribution rights to the book, but not to the cover.

[dsvick]

Interesting.

A lot of the information they don't seem to be including is the information that they could then use to determine sales and use of the eBooks and that would let them get a handle on better distribution and marketing methods. I'm hoping, with the way eReaders seem to be the big thing this year (aside from the little hamster things), that the publishers will begin to take them seriously and put some effort into a marketing paln that wont tick off the consumers, but will still generate enough revenue for them and the authors to keep the books coming.

I understand about the covers but you would think that if so much effort goes into designing, selecting, and creating the cover that they would want to get it out there, if for no other reason than for ease of recognition.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

One reason why many eBooks don't have covers is simply that "cover art" rights are generally negotiated separately from the book rights, and it's common for a publisher to have electronic distribution rights to the book, but not to the cover.

I would have thought that the cover would be work for hire. Odd that it isn't.

[fugazied]

Originally Posted by HarryT

One reason why many eBooks don't have covers is simply that "cover art" rights are generally negotiated separately from the book rights, and it's common for a publisher to have electronic distribution rights to the book, but not to the cover.

That seems like such a bizaare situation. The publishing industry has some backwards practices.
Interesting article though, I am definitely opposed to electronic version being stripped of that valuable 'meta' data.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by HarryT

One reason why many eBooks don't have covers is simply that "cover art" rights are generally negotiated separately from the book rights, and it's common for a publisher to have electronic distribution rights to the book, but not to the cover.

Which doesn't preclude the publisher from negotiating for an ebook cover. As you implied, the cover isn't usually supplied by the author. Which explains why different publishers of the same book often (usually?) have different covers.

I also have a few examples where different books have used the same cover-as you said, the cover is a separate work from the book, which implies that a book can have multiple covers-if the publishers chooses.

I've also heard, as a rumor, I guess, that some publishers retain artists on salary to produce covers, which are then owned by the publisher-no negotiations needed there. If that's the case.

[Direct Ebooks]

For us retailers, these issues are a constant source of frustration. Its like trying to sell an electronic appliance in a plain box for want of a better example.

Its really in the best interests of the publishers to supply the information that best equips us to sell their products. Hopefully they will catch on soon.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by HarryT

One reason why many eBooks don't have covers is simply that "cover art" rights are generally negotiated separately from the book rights, and it's common for a publisher to have electronic distribution rights to the book, but not to the cover.

That's a reason for not having the same cover as the printed edition, but not for not having any cover at all. Just take a public domain picture and put the title and author name with big letters, and you have a cover, that's better than nothing.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Jellby

That's a reason for not having the same cover as the printed edition, but not for not having any cover at all. Just take a public domain picture and put the title and author name with big letters, and you have a cover, that's better than nothing.

I agree entirely. That's what Harper-Collins did with all their Agatha Christie e-Books, for example. Just a plain cover with the book title and author. It's perfectly adequate.

[alecE]

I would have thought that at the very least, publishers would want to establish a brand identity, much as Random House have with their ebooks (or Gollancz did many years ago with their distinctive yellow jackets).

[Solitaire1]

Originally Posted by alecE

I would have thought that at the very least, publishers would want to establish a brand identity, much as Random House have with their ebooks (or Gollancz did many years ago with their distinctive yellow jackets).

Ebook publishers could follow the lead of comic book publishers, where each comic book cover contains several standard elements (company logo in the upper left corner, price/date information below that, names of the creative team below that, bar code in the lower left corner, and title logo on the top) while leaving plenty of room for the cover artwork. This makes it easy to tell the comics from one company from another.