book publishing profitable in 2014

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Isn't it great the way infinite copyright duration increases the incentive to produce?

Except that the rights mostly lay dormant and unused to their full potential. The only thing those backlists do is prevent hostile takovers - nobody can afford to buy a publisher with all the extra unused rights that come with it.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Except that the rights mostly lay dormant and unused to their full potential. The only thing those backlists do is prevent hostile takovers - nobody can afford to buy a publisher with all the extra unused rights that come with it.

I thought that it was sarcastically clear from my post that that perpetual income from the backlist reduces the incentive to produce anything new.

[Fiat_Lux]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Is publishing so unprofitable that a mere 3.3% down is going to turn black numbers into red ones?

What a 3.3% drop in sales does to a publisher, depends upon:

• What the initial figure was;
• The size of the organization;
• The financial reserves of the organization;
• The debt load of the organization;
• Ongoing short term projects;
• Ongoing long term projects;

Some guidelines I read a while ago:

• 70% of the titles won't sell enough copies to pay the printer;
• 20% of the titles will sell enough copies to cover all of the costs associated with publishing them;
• 9% of the titles will sell enough copies, to subsidise the books that did not generate enough revenue to pay the printer;
• 1% of the titles will generate enough sales to pay for everything else;

If your financials are based on those guidelines, and your overall sales drop by 3%, your finanicials might drop enough that your 1% are no longer able to subsidize everything else.

That happened to me. The publisher loved my book, because it would enhance their backlist. As a front-list title, it wouldn't cover printing costs, and their 10% weren't doing quite well enough to justify publishing a known money-loser. (My book is "back list only" material, designed to enhance the reputation of the publisher as a specialist in that field.)

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Except that the rights mostly lay dormant and unused to their full potential. The only thing those backlists do is prevent hostile takovers - nobody can afford to buy a publisher with all the extra unused rights that come with it.

Not anymore.
Didn't you see MacMillan's latest letter to all the important people in publishing?
(Artists, agents, and uh... oh, yes, authors)


I didn't bring in MGM on a whim: The BPHs are going to dump their entire backlists into subscription services and keep the frontlist sales-only. Much like the movie studios keep new and recent releases in theaters and pay-per venues and only later into the subscription services. What better way to keep the backlist from stealing sales from new releases than to pull them from sale? Besides, shelf space in B&M is declining.

This way the backlist provides a nice steady rent, enough to keep the doors open and the bestseller lottery provides the profits. Nice and sustainable even as market share withers away.

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/12/a-m...m-john-sargent

Those deep discount clauses are really going to pay off now.

[pwalker8]

I don't believe that they are pulling those backlist books from sales. Due to curiosity, I checked scribed's subscription service. They have quite a few interesting SF&F books, including Andre Norton's Witch World series. I might be interested if I didn't already own most of the ebooks that I was interested in. I just double checked and the Witch World series is still available for purchase in Amazon's kindle store (roughly $4 a book).

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Not anymore.
Didn't you see MacMillan's latest letter to all the important people in publishing?
(Artists, agents, and uh... oh, yes, authors)


I didn't bring in MGM on a whim: The BPHs are going to dump their entire backlists into subscription services and keep the frontlist sales-only.

With all due respect, that letter means nothing until it goes into action concerning the backlist. Dumping would mean to give something away for cheaper than it is worth, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

In our search for new routes to market, we have been considering alternative business models including the subscription model.

The time is right now to consider this? Do they need to hurry before it is too late and Scribd / Oyster still got money to burn? The letter is clearly anti-Amazon, especially anti Kindle Unlimited.

Out of the letter:

Several companies offer “pay per read” plans that offer favorable economic terms.

mentions Scribd and Oyster, but definately not Kindle Unlimited. They will make a lot of money milking the cow all the way to the slaughter house while they can use the little trick to effectively remove the complete backlist from Amazon's influence. Hey, I had absolutely no idea that it hurts Amazon so much. It is not like the backlist is for sale anywhere anymore. Putting it into subscription without option to also buy the books is a big mistake, IMO. Making the backlist unavailable to Amazon only would also be a mistake (if it is even possible). Edit: to clarify, I meant to prohibit the sales on Amazon, not the subscription part.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I don't believe that they are pulling those backlist books from sales. Due to curiosity, I checked scribed's subscription service. They have quite a few interesting SF&F books, including Andre Norton's Witch World series. I might be interested if I didn't already own most of the ebooks that I was interested in. I just double checked and the Witch World series is still available for purchase in Amazon's kindle store (roughly $4 a book).

Exactly, completely agree with you on this one. A subscription is a good way to supplement sales, but not to replace them altogether.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

A subscription is a good way to supplement sales, but not to replace them altogether.

For titles that are moving to their satisfaction, no.
For slow movers, yes.

Most of their slow movers would actually make decent money if priced lower (as demonstrated by authors who managed to get reverted while reverting was still possible) but since the BPHs don't want to "devalue" books by selling them at market prices it makes more sense to move them to subscriptions, which are loans, not sales. With the added bonus that by book-keeping the subscription reads under their deep discount clauses they get to pay lower royalties.

That way they take advantage of the higher volume of books moved at the lower subscription "price" but shift most of the per unit revenue loss to the authors.

It makes perfect sense given their contracts and concerns: they need more ebook backlist revenue and exploiting those copyrights via ebook subscriptions minimizes frontlist pbook cannibalization. (If it leads to lower ebook sales, so much the better.) And keeping the subscription titles app-locked is a nice "anti-piracy" bonus.

The letter is MacMillan's way of telling their authors to prepare for lower ebook revenues.

Anyway, getting back to my original point, those backlist rights are very valuable to the bigger publishers which is why they are looking to buy out any smaller or equal publisher they can grab. Backlist isn't an impediment to a takeover, it is a motivation for consolidation.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

For titles that are moving to their satisfaction, no.
For slow movers, yes.

Most of their slow movers would actually make decent money if priced lower (as demonstrated by authors who managed to get reverted while reverting was still possible) but since the BPHs don't want to "devalue" books by selling them at market prices it makes more sense to move them to subscriptions, which are loans, not sales. With the added bonus that by book-keeping the subscription reads under their deep discount clauses they get to pay lower royalties.

That way they take advantage of the higher volume of books moved at the lower subscription "price" but shift most of the per unit revenue loss to the authors.

It makes perfect sense given their contracts and concerns: they need more ebook backlist revenue and exploiting those copyrights via ebook subscriptions minimizes frontlist pbook cannibalization. (If it leads to lower ebook sales, so much the better.) And keeping the subscription titles app-locked is a nice "anti-piracy" bonus.

The letter is MacMillan's way of telling their authors to prepare for lower ebook revenues.

Anyway, getting back to my original point, those backlist rights are very valuable to the bigger publishers which is why they are looking to buy out any smaller or equal publisher they can grab. Backlist isn't an impediment to a takeover, it is a motivation for consolidation.

Or those slow sellers could simply sell the same number at a lower price, thus making less money. As the Laffer curve shows, there generally is a sweet spot where you make less money if you go either below or above the price. Sometimes a book only has a limited number of buyers who are not that sensitive to price. There really is no way of knowing which it is. When I checked out scribed, I noticed that several authors were heavily represented, but it didn't see to be publisher oriented. One thing to consider is that there is an expense involved in making pre electronic format books into ebooks.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Isn't it great the way infinite copyright duration increases the incentive to produce?

Is this serious or sarcastic? Do we have infinite copyright duration? Are less works being produced? Totally confused.

Helen

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Is this serious or sarcastic? Do we have infinite copyright duration? Are less works being produced? Totally confused.

Helen

Sarcastic. It didn't jump out at me as such, so I gave the benefit of doubt. And I get lectured how I should have known. Conversation below in spoiler:

Spoiler:

Originally Posted by j.p.s

I thought that it was sarcastically clear from my post that that perpetual income from the backlist reduces the incentive to produce anything new.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Do we have infinite copyright duration?
Helen

As far as I know, the US is the only place with infinite copyright duration.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

As far as I know, the US is the only place with infinite copyright duration.

Please give one example in the USA that has a longer duration than either:

1. death + 70 years
2. publication date + 95 years
3. creation date + 120 years

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Please give one example in the USA that has a longer duration than either:

1. death + 70 years
2. publication date + 95 years
3. creation date + 120 years

No need to until one of them gets close, then the law will again be amended to extend them.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

No need to until one of them gets close, then the law will again be amended to extend them.

Once they enter PD, they cannot be brought back to copyright. It is not the longest duration (if multiple choices apply), but the shortest that makes the work enter PD. If they grant longer duration in the future, they have to grandfather the existing law into it that makes them enter PD sooner. Every change in copyright law in the US made it easier for work to enter PD sooner than it could have - e.g. by publishing it without copyright notice, by not re-registering copyright.