Slothful Publishers?

[Apache]

When I read hard and paper books I would buy a hard cover over paperbacks if the book was interesting enough or was an author I really liked. Now that I read mostly eBooks I will not buy a hard cover. I would rather read an eBook and am willing to wait for it to be released.
Apache

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

They should just release everything at the same time. Maybe I'm an exception, but if I want the e-book, I'm not going to buy the hardback or the paperback, even if they're cheaper. If I want the paperback, I'm not going to buy the hardcover, not even if it's the only one available.

I buy what I want, and only if I think the price is worth it, or I buy nothing.

Back in the day, Ballantine Books started out selling both hardcover and paperback editions at the same time. Both versions sold well but Ballantine was pressured by other publishers (via distributors and bookstores) into adopting windowing.

The more things change, the harder the publishing establishment fights against change.

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's the point: you consider it to be ridiculous, but nonetheless they sell. Hardbacks truly are the cash cow for publishers, and that's why hardbacks and paperbacks are windowed.

Hardbacks are profitable, if the audience who buy at the high price is large enough. I guess the main factor for buying hardcover is that the book is new. Of course there are the people who buy hardcover because they strongly prefer it. But I guess most buy it, because they want to read the book now.

At least in germany, there are many books never sold as hardcovers. I think the pool of people who would buy them is just to small to make it profitable. Many genres are like this, only the highest profile authors sometimes get a hardcover (like Pratchett).

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The more things change, the harder the publishing establishment fights against change.

Everything that doesn't change eventually dies. It has been proven over and over again.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Everything that doesn't change eventually dies. It has been proven over and over again.

Shhhh! Don't tell the BPHs.
The world will (eventually) be a better place if they don't change.

To paraphrase Napoleon: "Don't interrupt a predator when it's busy cutting its own throat."

[LadyKate]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's really stretching it to claim that selling hardbacks is "discriminatory" because they're heavier than paperbacks. By that argument, you could sue a publisher who published a long book, because it's heavier than a shorter book. I have some monstrously heavy "coffee-table" type art books that I wouldn't want to hold. I prop them up on my lap, or on a table.

In truth it isn't discriminatory, but it does exclude those of us who enjoy our books at the font size we can read best at.

I think the best seller lists (NYT etc) would be the best place to start lobbying for ebook = hardcover. I firmly believe that it is the prestigious NYT list of new Hardcovers that is why publishers push them. If it was Hardcover and ebook (first release) then publishers would be as eager for the ebooks to sell.

The day when NYT pushes their ebook list as being IMPORTANT (and remember, hitting the NYT list of Best Fiction is good for money in an author/publishers pockets) should result in publishers putting equal push behind their hardcover and ebooks.

(as an after though, how many hard cover books sold are read immediately vs shelved in a private collection? Does the best seller list include sales to libraries?)

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by LadyKate

In truth it isn't discriminatory, but it does exclude those of us who enjoy our books at the font size we can read best at.

I think the best seller lists (NYT etc) would be the best place to start lobbying for ebook = hardcover. I firmly believe that it is the prestigious NYT list of new Hardcovers that is why publishers push them. If it was Hardcover and ebook (first release) then publishers would be as eager for the ebooks to sell.

The day when NYT pushes their ebook list as being IMPORTANT (and remember, hitting the NYT list of Best Fiction is good for money in an author/publishers pockets) should result in publishers putting equal push behind their hardcover and ebooks.

(as an after though, how many hard cover books sold are read immediately vs shelved in a private collection? Does the best seller list include sales to libraries?)

The best seller lists are partially based on how many books the book seller orders. Not how many actual people buy the book. And usually libraries get the books a bit later.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Apache

When I read hard and paper books I would buy a hard cover over paperbacks if the book was interesting enough or was an author I really liked. Now that I read mostly eBooks I will not buy a hard cover. I would rather read an eBook and am willing to wait for it to be released.
Apache

Same here. I've bought less than a handfull of dead tree books this year, all fairly obscure books that were written before personal computers where it was very unlikely that an ebook would come out.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

Hardbacks are profitable, if the audience who buy at the high price is large enough. I guess the main factor for buying hardcover is that the book is new. Of course there are the people who buy hardcover because they strongly prefer it. But I guess most buy it, because they want to read the book now.

At least in germany, there are many books never sold as hardcovers. I think the pool of people who would buy them is just to small to make it profitable. Many genres are like this, only the highest profile authors sometimes get a hardcover (like Pratchett).

Back during the 70's, few sf&f books came out in purely as hard back. Then they started coming out as trade paperbacks (I believe that Brooks' The Sword of Shannara were among the first, certain the first that I remember). It became a lot more common as time goes by. Plenty of lesser known authors still initially come out as paperback.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by LadyKate

The day when NYT pushes their ebook list as being IMPORTANT (and remember, hitting the NYT list of Best Fiction is good for money in an author/publishers pockets) should result in publishers putting equal push behind their hardcover and ebooks.

Maybe it is different in the international edition, but the first list here is combined print and eBook fiction.

The bestseller lists are newsworthy because they tell you what people are reading. The push as to what people should read comes from the book reviews. Judging by the current number one bestsellers, the ability of the Times to push the books their staff likes is, at best, limited.

[Kyle Connor]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

Hardbacks are profitable, if the audience who buy at the high price is large enough. I guess the main factor for buying hardcover is that the book is new. Of course there are the people who buy hardcover because they strongly prefer it. But I guess most buy it, because they want to read the book now.

I personally prefer reading a book on my kindle but ya, there are many who prefer the hardcover. Like a friend of mine says she likes the feel of holding a book and turning the pages around.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Maybe it is different in the international edition, but the first list here is combined print and eBook fiction.

The bestseller lists are newsworthy because they tell you what people are reading. The push as to what people should read comes from the book reviews. Judging by the current number one bestsellers, the ability of the Times to push the books their staff likes is, at best, limited.

Yep, I've bought a number of books where I read the review and it sounded interesting. I've never bought a book because it was on the best seller list.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Yep, I've bought a number of books where I read the review and it sounded interesting. I've never bought a book because it was on the best seller list.

Surely it's the other way around, isn't it? A book is on the best-sellers' list because a lot of people buy it. Not vice versa.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Surely it's the other way around, isn't it? A book is on the best-sellers' list because a lot of people buy it. Not vice versa.

Nope.
The NYT list is strictly a promotional tool to get people to buy the highlighted books.

They've said so themselves repeatedly, most recently when they re-rigged the children's book list to exclude titles that reach high levels of sales over time. They only want fresh produce on their list.

That is why they created the children's book list in the first place: the Harry Potter books kept selling and selling and by "cluttering" up the list kept them from promoting newer releases.

The other thing is the list rolls in months of pre-orders into the launch week "sales" numbers so, again, titles that are steady good sellers get shuffled out of view while one-week wonders get highlighted. It is possible for a book to sell a million copies over a year and never hit the list while a book that sells 30-50K total copies gets to call itself an NYT Bestseller. It is in fact common for books to sell a couple hundred thousand copies in a few months without ever showing up on the list.

There's been a couple threads here documenting why the "bestsellers" list doesn't list the best sellers.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Nope.
The NYT list is strictly a promotional tool to get people to buy the highlighted books.

They've said so themselves repeatedly, most recently when they re-rigged the children's book list to exclude titles that reach high levels of sales over time. They only want fresh produce on their list.

That is why they created the children's book list in the first place: the Harry Potter books kept selling and selling and by "cluttering" up the list kept them from promoting newer releases.

The other thing is the list rolls in months of pre-orders into the launch week "sales" numbers so, again, titles that are steady good sellers get shuffled out of view while one-week wonders get highlighted. It is possible for a book to sell a million copies over a year and never hit the list while a book that sells 30-50K total copies gets to call itself an NYT Bestseller. It is in fact common for books to sell a couple hundred thousand copies in a few months without ever showing up on the list.

There's been a couple threads here documenting why the "bestsellers" list doesn't list the best sellers.

All of that seems entirely reasonable - it's a list of what's currently selling well, not a summation of cumulative sales. The pop charts work in exactly the same way, and for the same reasons.