About the backlist

[stonetools]

Bob Mayers just did a post over on another forum talking about how he wanted his backlist rights back so he could self-publish them. He expected a long drawn out argument to prove he had never sold the erights. (Bob is a fairly high midlist seller in a couple of genres.) Basically according to what he wrote, the publisher didn't argue at all. Now, granted, they probably didn't have a leg to stand on, but they could have made an OFFER to try and get some of the "real estate" out of the series he was talking about--it's stil in print. This was a series that sold EXTREMELY well (a million copies comes to mind, but don't quote me on that. I'd have to go verify the number. But even if it were 100,000, you'd think the publisher might want to negotiate for e-rights to get some of that.)

It may be the reason is that making money from the back-list just isn't the sure shot proposition people make it out to be.
If Bob Mayer makes a go of it, we will see publishers do it more. If he fails... well I'm sure folks on this forum will concoct lots of explanations about how he didn't do it right.

[stonetools]

Or maybe it would port over very nicely to other publishers but they won't try because they're too hung up on the wrong things.

Your argument seems to be that since the other publishers don't follow Baen's lead, it MUST not work for them. Assumes facts very much not in evidence.
__________________

One of the facts that MR folks is assuming is that Baen is highly profitable. Of course, neither we -nor the publishers-KNOW that. It may be that Baen is making just enough money to keep the wolf from the door.
Frankly, without knowing what Baen's finances are, we really don't know that Baen's models work all that well.
I think publishers would be a lot more willing to follow Baen's lead if they know whether Baen's models actually made money.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by leebase

What a non-sequitor. Folks that will steal, will steal. I do not worry about it. I'm speaking about folks who wish to see the backlist put out by the publishers for legitimate purchasing. I was hoping to highlight the inconsistency of wishing companies to spend their time and money creating a product for them, while at the same time arguing that such a product has little value and therefore should be priced like a used paper back book.



Another non-sequitor. I replied to your naieve assertion that the customer is always right. Well, that's not true. No business believes it is no matter what their marketing might say.



Great example. Ford has to compete with Hyundai's new cars -- Ford does not try to put out new cars to compete with used Ford's from the 70's.



They spend hundreds of millions of dollars convincing folks to pay their high prices. Imagine how cheap Coke would be if the company listened to folks on this forum who think that cost has something to do with price. Let's see...coke is water plus sugar and a few other ingredients that add up to a penny or so, throw in another couple pennies for the can and distribution. And what? Coke should sell for 10 cents a can instead of a dollar? (from a soda machine). Even the 25 cents a can you can get on sale is 2 to three times the cost.

Coke doesn't give a flying fig that lots of folks think their prices are shockingly high. Does not care that there are numerous no-name brands that sell for far cheaper. Every person who drinks a cola is not Coke's customer target. Coke would rather spend millions upon millions of dollars building a brand than saving all of us that money and make their product cheap.

Lee

Then why doesn't Coke charge 10 times what they do for their product, or 100 times? They'd make a lot more money, right? Who cares about the marginal customer, they aren't particularly profitable, anyway...

Any business that takes that attitude and incorporates it into their culture, dies. it takes a while, but it dies.

In 1968, GM was the biggest company in the world, and one of the most profitable. A friend of mine went through their university in the mid 1970's. (yes, they had their own school of management.) by the mid '70's they had started teaching exactly the same ideas you are espousing. They went broke in 40 years. The biggest and best company in the world on a tobbogan to perdition all the way...

It nearly killed IBM in the late 1980's.

This isn't original to me, C. Northcote Parkinson described it in great detail in his book Parkinson's Law (1957). I just watch it happen...

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by stonetools

One of the facts that MR folks is assuming is that Baen is highly profitable. Of course, neither we -nor the publishers-KNOW that. It may be that Baen is making just enough money to keep the wolf from the door.
Frankly, without knowing what Baen's finances are, we really don't know that Baen's models work all that well.
I think publishers would be a lot more willing to follow Baen's lead if they know whether Baen's models actually made money.

Given that publishers aren't into trying much, I doubt they would follow Baen's model (or anyone else's model). Baen has been doing non-DRMd books at reasonable prices for a while. They've posted that it works for them. No they haven't posted numbers or profits--but I'm guessing they would *stop* doing it if it *didn't* work for them.

Baen is one of the few publishers out there that tries things. Not all of them succeed (Baen's Universe comes to mind; a recent attempt to reach the short story market.)

Yes, they are niche, just as indie authors are niche. And not everything I do would work at a large publisher. The kicker is: They don't seem to be trying *anything.*

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by stonetools

One of the facts that MR folks is assuming is that Baen is highly profitable. Of course, neither we -nor the publishers-KNOW that. It may be that Baen is making just enough money to keep the wolf from the door.
Frankly, without knowing what Baen's finances are, we really don't know that Baen's models work all that well.
I think publishers would be a lot more willing to follow Baen's lead if they know whether Baen's models actually made money.

No, I don't see ANYONE assuming that Baen's backlist publishing is "highly profitable". It's entirely possible that their backlist publishing is actually done at a loss.

The Baen company itself, though, is profitable or it wouldn't have lasted this long. So whether they're making HUGE profits on backlist publishing or MINIMAL profits on backlist publishing or NO PROFIT WHATSOEVER BUT IT'S GOOD ADVERTISING AND BRAND BUILDING on backlist publishing ultimately doesn't matter....

....because what they are doing *is* working for them and very likely would work for the current publishers.

My guess is that the reason the big publishers don't do it now is because they think they don't NEED to. If you're making money off your bestsellers already, why bother with making some (relative) pittance off backlist publishing?

The thing is, I can think of lots of reasons to bother to do it, but I also am not going to sit here and assume that companies can't get "too big to fail" egos or that they do everything in their power to maximize profits.

If anything a small company like Baen pursuing something like this tells me that it does make money but that it also takes hard work and a lot of effort. And they're willing to put in that effort because a little extra profit and barnd-building is more important to a small company than to a large one.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Given that publishers aren't into trying much, I doubt they would follow Baen's model (or anyone else's model). Baen has been doing non-DRMd books at reasonable prices for a while. They've posted that it works for them. No they haven't posted numbers or profits--but I'm guessing they would *stop* doing it if it *didn't* work for them.

Baen is one of the few publishers out there that tries things. Not all of them succeed (Baen's Universe comes to mind; a recent attempt to reach the short story market.)

Yes, they are niche, just as indie authors are niche. And not everything I do would work at a large publisher. The kicker is: They don't seem to be trying *anything.*

Well, they are trying things . They just aren't trying things MRers like , because they are actually responsible for the livelihoods of thousands of people and are responsible to millions of stockholders. When that's the case, you are pretty circumscribed about what you can do. Betting lots of money on the Baen model when you don't actually know what the Baen's finances are is apparently one of the things you don't do- and I can't say as I blame them.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I blame them because it isn't a "if I buy this I *won't* buy that" proposition. Books are not like cars; I can read more than one. Cars are expensive so I'm not going to buy more than I need. If publishers priced books in the impulse buy range--at least now and then, they might actually make more money.

A few authors have tried this with 99 cent price sales or even lowering from 6 dollars to 2.99. In the short term it *can* double, triple or quad sales--and this is from no-name indies. Publishers need to take advantage of marketing tools and this includes sales, promotions and the like. I think they should especially do this for backlist if they want to "recreate" interest in older series.

When I put out Under Witch Moon, because it was paranormal (a hot genre at the moment) and because my expenses were higher (paid for pro artwork and so on) I charged 4.99 out the gate. It sold decently--about 2 copies per day. But that wasn't my target, nor was it as high as I expected given what my other series sells (which is a cozy mystery series). So I lowered the price. Sure, it will now take more sales to make back my initial investment, but--since sales increased per day it hasn't been a bad strategy. And remember, I need to make enough on this book to pay for artwork for the next book in the series, the editing and so on--that's the way I choose to run my business. Make enough to pay it forward so that I don't end up assuming a book will sell and finding out it doesn't sell so there I am with high costs that will take me a loooong time to earn back.

Publishers aren't able to micro-manage each book like a single author can. However, the ones who are taking advantage of "sales" and pricing the first in a series lower than others and so on--CAN drum up interest. But by and large, they don't want to expend the energy from what I've seen. They believe their product is "worth" at "least" 9.99 (or whatever magic number they decide upon.) The problem is that the market decides what a product is "worth." So my prediction is that they are selling less than they expected of backlist copies. In most cases, stubbornly, they refuse to lower the price--and then don't put out more backlist books because:

1. It's somewhat expensive in hours and initial cost
2. They can say, "See backlist doesn't always sell so it's hard to get back the initial investment.
3. It will compete with their current authors/books/bestsellers and they have a higher initial investment with those authors--so they are anxious to make back their money there.

Bob Mayers just did a post over on another forum talking about how he wanted his backlist rights back so he could self-publish them. He expected a long drawn out argument to prove he had never sold the erights. (Bob is a fairly high midlist seller in a couple of genres.) Basically according to what he wrote, the publisher didn't argue at all. Now, granted, they probably didn't have a leg to stand on, but they could have made an OFFER to try and get some of the "real estate" out of the series he was talking about--it's stil in print. This was a series that sold EXTREMELY well (a million copies comes to mind, but don't quote me on that. I'd have to go verify the number. But even if it were 100,000, you'd think the publisher might want to negotiate for e-rights to get some of that.)


It's just not a market they are going after very hard.

Really, that's okay with me. It probably helps me as an independent. But it doesn't help me at all as a reader...

I think he'll make a lot more than you think. He has a brand, a backlist that sold significant numbers, if one in 10 of his old customer buy the books at $2 gross profit a pop, well, you do the math...

I'm not familar with him, I don't know what his genre is, but he might end up in the 6 figures from his backlist. not bad, for another revenue stream, much of which, I suspect are O.O.P. and earning nothing.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I think he'll make a lot more than you think. He has a brand, a backlist that sold significant numbers, if one in 10 of his old customer buy the books at $2 gross profit a pop, well, you do the math...

I'm not familar with him, I don't know what his genre is, but he might end up in the 6 figures from his backlist. not bad, for another revenue stream, much of which, I suspect are O.O.P. and earning nothing.

You misunderstand. I think he will make a CARTLOAD of money. That is why I don't understand why the publisher didn't try harder to cut a deal to keep some of that cartload. I think he will do more than just "fine." More like "Very, very fine."

He writes tough guy books and also tried his hand as working with Jennifer Cruise on romance/chick-lit (talk about two ends of the spectrum.) He also wrote some stuff on Area 51 (those were the books that I believe he was getting the rights back.)

[leebase]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I blame them because it isn't a "if I buy this I *won't* buy that" proposition.

When you are thinking of markets and not individual books, it is a "this or that" scenario. New books have a ton of competition already. From other new books, from last year's new books, from the classics, and TV, Movies, the internet etc.

Of those who choose to entertain themselves by reading -- do you really want to offer them MORE material at marginal or no profit potential to you?

And why have folks never been all that angry that the cheap MMPB is never released at the same time as the hard back? That's the "who can blame them" I was talking about. It makes perfect sense to put out your most expensive and profitable version first, and to withhold all other versions until after the sales for the premium product have had their run.

When a new book in a series comes out, publisher typically will put out the paper backs in new editions of the earlier books in the series -- caching in on the attention the new book is bringing and ringing up more sales and profits for themselves. But these new books, though cheaper than the new release hard back -- are priced like all the other new release paper backs. They aren't sold for cheap just because the book has been out awhile. And this never seemed to bother people before.

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

It's just not a market they are going after very hard.

Really, that's okay with me. It probably helps me as an independent. But it doesn't help me at all as a reader...

As long is there is a prevailing notion that back list ebooks should be priced dirt cheap, I doubt that publishers will ever go after that market very hard.

Lee

[leebase]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Then why doesn't Coke charge 10 times what they do for their product, or 100 times? They'd make a lot more money, right? Who cares about the marginal customer, they aren't particularly profitable, anyway...

Trying to figure out how that follows from our discussions. But here goes. It is possible to price a product so high that no one will buy it. That's the other side of failing to come to a place where buyer and seller can do business.

So, now that you are at least acknowledging this, you should be able to understand that there is a price too low such that the producer will refuse to do the work.

Ah...I see the light begin to dawn in your eyes. I'm speaking about the reality that publishers need to see a good profit making potential for backlist works before they will engage in producing them.

Since backlist books, almost by definition do not sell loads of copies, the costs to produce them are higher per book, not lower. Arguing for backlists to be produced but yet they be priced extremely low -- is an argument against producing them at all.

It is entirely possible for a product that COULD exist, for which there is a demand for -- and yet the value to the purchases is too low to entice it's production.

Just as people can want cars, but not just "at any price" -- so car companies are willing to produce cars but not just "at any price".

Lee

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by leebase

When you are thinking of markets and not individual books, it is a "this or that" scenario. New books have a ton of competition already. From other new books, from last year's new books, from the classics, and TV, Movies, the internet etc.

No, you really don't have competition from those other things when a buyer is ready to buy books. It's all about giving the buyer something that entices them AT TIME OF PURCHASE. If I'm in the bookstore with 10 dollars, I'd rather buy two books than one. So I might look a little harder at the cheaper selections to find two book UNLESS I'm there for a "must have--just came out." And that is non-existent for me these days. I get on a library waiting list if that is the case or wait for the inevitable used copies to show up. I do buy new copies, but once it hits about 8 dollars, I simply don't. I can find them on the used circuit or the library.

Give me two five dollar books and I'll buy them both and feel good about it--and come back for more.

Of those who choose to entertain themselves by reading -- do you really want to offer them MORE material at marginal or no profit potential to you?

No one knows whether the profit is none or marginal. Lots of assumptions are being made but if a publisher sells enough copies, it's going to add into some decent profit.

And why have folks never been all that angry that the cheap MMPB is never released at the same time as the hard back? That's the "who can blame them" I was talking about. It makes perfect sense to put out your most expensive and profitable version first, and to withhold all other versions until after the sales for the premium product have had their run.

I have always despaired that the paperback copy took so long to come out. And sadly, I was rarely in a position to buy the hardback. Thus it was the library, used book stores--or in most cases, I waited. I'm not kidding. I waited a long time for some books and in the meantime, I was buying used or other paperback books.

[quote]
When a new book in a series comes out, publisher typically will put out the paper backs in new editions of the earlier books in the series -- caching in on the attention the new book is bringing and ringing up more sales and profits for themselves. But these new books, though cheaper than the new release hard back -- are priced like all the other new release paper backs. They aren't sold for cheap just because the book has been out awhile. And this never seemed to bother people before.
[\quote]

Nope, not true. Publishers do not 'typically" put out older books in the series. They can be darned hard to find. The only reason you'll see them is IF the publishers decides the older copies warrant an additional printing. There are loads of articles on this. It may appear that the publisher is putting out copies, but in reality, if there are copies available, bookstores may try to get copies in from the warehouse--not from new printings.

Older books in a series can be hard to come by if a reprinting isn't done--and believe me there are loads of complaints from people who are unable to find the "first and second." Nowadays with Amazon's used category it's a lot easier. But I well-remember the day I'd find a book in the store, go to the counter and ask about the first or second --and be told they couldn't get it in because it was no longer in print.


Times are changing, but the point is, I don't think large publishers are spending much energy to see where to put their efforts. That's really okay with me--but instead of saying, "We don't want to bother to sell at 5 bucks and if that is all the market will bear, forget it." They need to say, "We need to find a way to make money at 5 bucks a copy."

But that's just my opinion. I have to do what works for me.

[DMB]

I just bought a new non-fiction ebook for £15.99. The hardback has just come out at the same time and is priced at £14.74. Now this is more than I would normally want to pay for most books, but I very much want to read this book now.

I imagine that the publisher is charging the same price for hardback and ebook, but ebooks are subject to VAT, whereas dt books aren't. But I don't mind paying extra for the ebook. I regard it as paying for the convenience of having it on my Kindle rather than having a heavy, unwieldy hardback.

I wouldn't expect backlist books to be sold for the same as hardbacks, but perhaps about the same as paperbacks would be OK. I agree with the thesis that publishers are businesses that have to cover costs and make a profit. What I want is for publishers to have the incentive to issue backlist books in eformats. They won't do it just because readers feel they are owed something. OTW readers are loyal to writers rather than to publishers. Be honest now, do you always notice who has published a book you are reading?

[DiapDealer]

Be honest now, do you always notice who has published a book you are reading?

Almost never.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by leebase

Trying to figure out how that follows from our discussions. But here goes. It is possible to price a product so high that no one will buy it. That's the other side of failing to come to a place where buyer and seller can do business.

So, now that you are at least acknowledging this, you should be able to understand that there is a price too low such that the producer will refuse to do the work.

Ah...I see the light begin to dawn in your eyes. I'm speaking about the reality that publishers need to see a good profit making potential for backlist works before they will engage in producing them.

Since backlist books, almost by definition do not sell loads of copies, the costs to produce them are higher per book, not lower. Arguing for backlists to be produced but yet they be priced extremely low -- is an argument against producing them at all.

It is entirely possible for a product that COULD exist, for which there is a demand for -- and yet the value to the purchases is too low to entice it's production.

Just as people can want cars, but not just "at any price" -- so car companies are willing to produce cars but not just "at any price".

Lee

The gleam you see are my eyes glazing over...

What you keep failing to grasp, over and over, that for the backlist, I don't need the publisher! I'd like to have the publisher, I'm willing to pay a reasonable (to me) amount for the publisher, it would save me much effort to have the publisher, but I don't have to have the publisher.

Remember The Crystal Button?

Do I want to spend 40 hours of time scanning and proofing a book? No. But if I want it bad enough, I can.

The old days are over. If the publishers want to play Don Quiotxe, mourning Chivalry and tilting at windmills, be my guest. Doesn't change the current reality.

Many of the authors are getting it, and I happily do business with them, to our mutual benefit. I'll even give the middleman a reasonable cut, if they offer me what I want for a reasonable mark-up. What I define as reasonable, not them.

But the "good old days" of the publisher controlling what's out there, as they saw fit, with the only option being maybe you could find a particular book at a particular used book store are OVER. Stop the darknet. Bust every last scanner. Used bookstores have banded together in clearinghouses like American Bookseller Exchange (abe.com) and you can find virtually any book you ever heard of. Used. And that isn't going away. Not with a 1917 Supremem Court ruling backing it.

The control is gone with the wind....

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by DMB

Be honest now, do you always notice who has published a book you are reading?

With pbooks it was almost never, except for some specialty publishers.

With ebooks and the various issues like Geo Restrictions, not allowing library lending, massive errors and agency pricing I've become very cognizant of who the publisher is.