eBook sales are down 17%

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by MattW

The only "data" you provide is an article that is so polemic it borders on the ridiculous ("Lies, Damn Lies, and Book People Statistics" is the headline; how's that for unbiased reporting).

I love how some people think they somehow magically have the authority to just state something as a fact and that statement in itself is enough to end the discussion.

But what would I expect from someone who chose "the Great" as appropriate to describe himself?

[Is that too much? Am I at risk for being too uh, "direct" to an admin here?]

So, yes, I'll welcome a discussion about the substance but this "You're wrong because I say so, and I won't bother really engaging with the likes of you" innuendo doesn't give me a lot to work with.

Matt

Yes, that was a polemic; I was throwing caution to the wind that week and writing in a style that entertained me as much as informed the reader.

You're right, I'm not engaging well in this thread; my problem is that i m seeing the same nonsense arguments from two or three years ago, and i jut don't have the energy to repeat myself.

So I really should have dropped this discussion a while back.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by MattW

Fair enough. But in the music industry, sales of physical media are actually declining year by year. So there is no question that the digital market is having a real effect -- and while digital downloads are growing, you're right that in order to assess the market as a whole we have to take into account streaming services like Spotify.

But there are crucial differences, namely that (a) paper book sales are not trending downwards in a similar manner (in the UK, for example, print is up, see https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...-uk-book-sales) and (b) the structure of the publishing industry means that a lot of well-known authors are not on KU or other subscription services (whereas the artist who's not on Apple Music or Spotify is the rare exception).

The fact that print sales are increasing is in itself a very good indication that digital is not having a hugely detrimental effect on sales at the moment. You can make the argument (as it seems to me that you do below) that new sales channels have created a new market that wasn't there before, so that the market as a whole has actually increased. But that's fine, of course none of the Big 5 would want to compete with a $1.29 self-published indie if their sales are holding steady. Why would they?



Maybe if we go by sheer quantity of ebooks sold, the situation is a little different. Let's leave aside the not unimportant fact that print sales are doing very fine indeed, so we can't really say that they're "losing".

But what kind of metric is the one you're proposing? Isn't that comparing apples & oranges? Let's say that for the sake of the argument I grant you that the ebook market is slightly more than 50% indie & self-published (according to the Author Earnings website), that still leaves more than 40% for the Big 5 plus small/medium publishers.

And while the conventional wisdom here is that the Big 5 are all dinosaurs who don't know what they're doing, it seems to me that they have a point in the sense that as long as their market is strong (and it is), their need to lower prices is questionable at best.

I agree that the world of indie and self-publishing has enriched the book market. The fact that anyone can sell a book world-wide is a wonderful development.

I disagree on the effect that is actually having on the traditional (paper) book market. After an initial surge, ebook sales seem to have plateaud when it comes to traditional sales. Maybe we can sort of meet in the middle and agree that a new market has been created that is not served by the traditional publishing houses and is doing exceptionally well?

Matt

Uh...
The Big 5 print market isn't strong.
It is stagnant at best, going back to the last century and in steady slow decline at worst.
This past August was the worst in 20 years for bookstores precisely because of BPH front list weakness.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellendu.../#366e88b1a6e7

Last year they had the same problem but the establishment tried blaming it on the election.

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/...04e5-304500337

No such excuse this year.

Look closely at the "good" reports, like this one:

https://www.thebookseller.com/news/s...quarter-667946

...And you'll see an operation barely treading water obscuring their decline by buying smaller fading publisher's to add to the reported sales and not factoring in inflation into their numbers. Factor both in and that "Good" S&S report becomes a year to year decline, the latest in a series.

You are aware that the BPHs are phasing out the MMPB format, right? They are replacing sales of $8-9 mass market releases with $13-15 trade paperback releases, selling less books in the process. Which is something that started back around the turn of the century, long before ebooks became mainstream. This smokescreen, generated by reporting sales in unadjusted currency terms rather than unit sales is just one of the tricks they use to hide the decline of print.

So yes, print is in decline and has been for decades. Long before ebooks.

Traditional publishing has been in consolidation mode since the 1980's with less publisher's selling less books to ever larger populations. Tradpubbed authors have seen their income decline just as long in the UK, US, and Canada.

It is a sick industry.
Are the BPHs dying?
No. They are too big and control too much UP to die out any time soon.
But they are losing market share, market power, and significance much faster than the smaller tradpub and the Indies.

They are far from bellweathers anymore. And that is mostly because of their reactionary war on ebooks. Try comparing their unit market share today to their position in 2010 before the conspiracy. Repeat the exercise for small and medium publishers. You'll find that the gains made by Indie Publishers have come exclusively at the expense of the BPHs while smaller publishers have held steady or even grown slightly.

The ongoing disruption in publishing isn't a matter of e-book vs print or Indies vs tradpub. It is BPHs vs everybody else.

And the BPHs are losing. Losing sales, losing manuscripts, losing authirs, losing power.

Which is a thoroughly good thing.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

And the BPHs are losing. Losing sales, losing manuscripts, losing authirs, losing power.

Which is a thoroughly good thing.

It is very much in the public interest.

[GA Russell]

I've noticed that I don't see many mmpb's, but I did not realize that the BPH's had decided on a policy to do away with them.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

I've noticed that I don't see many mmpb's, but I did not realize that the BPH's had decided on a policy to do away with them.

This seems to abandon that entire market segment. Are they attempting to extract more money from those who want new print books? To make their ebook prices look more reasonable?

[DiapDealer]

To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't miss MMPBs one bit. I pulled one off the shelf the other day and couldn't believe how tiny the font sizes were, and how cramped the pages were. It was like there was more ink than whitespace on a page. There's no way could I read something like that these days. They may be more expensive, but I find trade paperbacks infinitely more readable. If not for ebooks, I'd be seeking out the trades whether mass-market paperbacks were still available or not.

[crossi]

I on the other hand, before I got an e-reader, greatly preferred MM format. It was easier to carry, store and cheaper. The trade PBs were too large, too expensive and of no better quality. And why if printing was an insignificant part of the cost were they so much more expensive anyway? Cost a nickel more to print and charge the customer $5 more. I for one would not be sorry for the end of the BPHs. Rip off customers, rip off authors. Let them die and smaller publishers take their place.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't miss MMPBs one bit. I pulled one off the shelf the other day and couldn't believe how tiny the font sizes were, and how cramped the pages were. It was like there was more ink than whitespace on a page. There's no way could I read something like that these days. They may be more expensive, but I find trade paperbacks infinitely more readable. If not for ebooks, I'd be seeking out the trades whether mass-market paperbacks were still available or not.

Interesting. For me, the trade paperbacks were always too big and floppy. If I have to read a big heavy book, I'll just go all out and read a hardcover.

Mass market paperbacks were my companions for years...they fit into my purse, they fit into my hand, they weren't so expensive that they felt like a big luxury.

Now, of course, my eyes are older, and my hands are older. If I were to read a mass market paperback today, I'd need my glasses, and my hands would start to ache pretty quickly, making me put it down. That's why ebooks are my companions now. I can make the font bigger so I don't have to wear my glasses (although sometimes I still do). They are lighter (or just as light) as a paperback, and I don't have to do that awkward thing with my hands where I'm using my thumb and pinky to hold it open. (this is what made my hand hurt the most) Of course, there's also the added bonus that I don't need a flashlight anymore to read in bed.

If ebooks had been a thing when I was a child, I probably would have slept a lot less than I did.

Shari

[pwalker8]

There is a whole lot of wishful thinking and projection going on in this thread.

The publishing industry is going through the same thing that the music industry did 10 years ago and we are seeing the exact same predictions that we saw back them. Those predictions, none of which came true, are about as likely to be accurate this time around. There was a lot of "at last those evil record companies are going to get what's coming to them".

In the music industry, we saw the market splinter quite a bit. The old record companies still exist and still make money, but there are many more options available to musicians. Some artists started up their own record label, something that had be an option for the big names, but finally became an option for the smaller artists as equipment costs went down and distribution options opened up. Before touring was a way of getting your latest record noticed, now artists make significant money touring Other bands make money on YouTube, via web pages, via streaming music, all sorts of ways. It's a very different landscape, but artists still make money and many of the same players are still around.

That's the process that the publishing industry is starting to go through. It's not real surprising that book sales in stores are down, because people are buying books online, are buying ebooks and the audiobook industry is booming. I'll buy both an ebook and an audiobook, but I suspect that I'm very much in the minority for that.

As technology and laws change, I expect that we will see the market fracture even more. The big name publishers will still be around, but I suspect there will be a lot of smaller publishers out there. Print on Demand is more and more affordable and better quality. We see more and more authors experiment with self publishing and different types of media. Authors are figuring out a lot of different ways to make money, and for the most part, it's all very hard to measure. We see the same issue in political polling. Polls are frequently wildly inaccurate because many of the assumptions baked into the polls are no longer accurate. People who estimate books sales have the same issue. Many of the assumptions that are baked into their models aren't particularly accurate.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by shalym

Interesting. For me, the trade paperbacks were always too big and floppy. If I have to read a big heavy book, I'll just go all out and read a hardcover.

Mass market paperbacks were my companions for years...they fit into my purse, they fit into my hand, they weren't so expensive that they felt like a big luxury.

Now, of course, my eyes are older, and my hands are older. If I were to read a mass market paperback today, I'd need my glasses, and my hands would start to ache pretty quickly, making me put it down. That's why ebooks are my companions now. I can make the font bigger so I don't have to wear my glasses (although sometimes I still do). They are lighter (or just as light) as a paperback, and I don't have to do that awkward thing with my hands where I'm using my thumb and pinky to hold it open. (this is what made my hand hurt the most) Of course, there's also the added bonus that I don't need a flashlight anymore to read in bed.

If ebooks had been a thing when I was a child, I probably would have slept a lot less than I did.

Shari

Yep. Same here. MMPB are for young eyes.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by darryl

This seems to abandon that entire market segment. Are they attempting to extract more money from those who want new print books? To make their ebook prices look more reasonable?

All of the above.
Also, to make hardcovers seem like a better buy.

Note that it is mostly the BPHs doing this.
Smaller publishers still release mmpb originals. But many publishers are reverting to the early model of relegating mmpb to windowed reprints of best sellers.

Their primary intent remains maximizing per copy revenue during the three month launch window. Which works fine for BPH competitors.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by shalym

Mass market paperbacks were my companions for years...they fit into my purse, they fit into my hand, they weren't so expensive that they felt like a big luxury.

Oh, same here (except for the purse part). It's only since ebooks that MMPBs have become unuseable for me.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by crossi

I on the other hand, before I got an e-reader, greatly preferred MM format. It was easier to carry, store and cheaper. The trade PBs were too large, too expensive and of no better quality. And why if printing was an insignificant part of the cost were they so much more expensive anyway? Cost a nickel more to print and charge the customer $5 more....

Yes to all of this. (Except I'm not championing the downfall of the BPHs.

[4691mls]

Being nearsighted, even though I am older, I can still see well to read without my glasses. The last time I read a paperback book I was frustrated because the font was too big and I couldn't shrink it! I do love being able to change the font size on my ereader.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

There is a whole lot of wishful thinking and projection going on in this thread.

The publishing industry is going through the same thing that the music industry did 10 years ago and we are seeing the exact same predictions that we saw back them. Those predictions, none of which came true, are about as likely to be accurate this time around. There was a lot of "at last those evil record companies are going to get what's coming to them".

In the music industry, we saw the market splinter quite a bit. The old record companies still exist and still make money, but there are many more options available to musicians. Some artists started up their own record label, something that had be an option for the big names, but finally became an option for the smaller artists as equipment costs went down and distribution options opened up. Before touring was a way of getting your latest record noticed, now artists make significant money touring Other bands make money on YouTube, via web pages, via streaming music, all sorts of ways. It's a very different landscape, but artists still make money and many of the same players are still around.

That's the process that the publishing industry is starting to go through. It's not real surprising that book sales in stores are down, because people are buying books online, are buying ebooks and the audiobook industry is booming. I'll buy both an ebook and an audiobook, but I suspect that I'm very much in the minority for that.

As technology and laws change, I expect that we will see the market fracture even more. The big name publishers will still be around, but I suspect there will be a lot of smaller publishers out there. Print on Demand is more and more affordable and better quality. We see more and more authors experiment with self publishing and different types of media. Authors are figuring out a lot of different ways to make money, and for the most part, it's all very hard to measure. We see the same issue in political polling. Polls are frequently wildly inaccurate because many of the assumptions baked into the polls are no longer accurate. People who estimate books sales have the same issue. Many of the assumptions that are baked into their models aren't particularly accurate.

No doubt you are correct. The hostility you see to the big publishers here stems from their actions to stymie the e-book market when it was just beginning to flourish.

You would think they would have watched what happened with the record companies and learned a lesson from it. They learned alright. But their reaction was way off, forcing popular bookselling sites to close and making Amazon even more powerful (the exact opposite of what they were trying to do),

I still think we need the big publishers and it does feel like less of a crapshoot buying a book from a new author published by them than one that is self published. They serve a purpose.