Do some publishers have any idea?

[theducks]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Thanks for the Karma, everyone. Perhaps I should codify this...

Durrant's Law: Any statement in a contentious online discussion is liable to generate a fresh argument.

I agree with you totally except for ...

[leebase]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

And maybe if you had said something precisely like that in the very beginning, no one would have taken issue.

Not from my experience on this forum. "Books aren't commodities" - even THAT was a point for debate.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

This is the original post that touched off the big argument (at least the big argument before the one on whether libraries are charities):
And you have been arguing against it for days. So either you misunderstood the point, or yes, you have been saying that.

Again....that was the RESPONSE post to a direct attack on folks who buy books during the new release window.

And it's TRUE...that folks paying for hard backs during the new release window are generating the lion share of all the revenue a book will generate. It's also true that each person who buys such a book is contributing more to the author than each person who buys a book during the paper back phase, checks the book out from the library, or buys it at a garage sale.

What's NOT true...is that AMONG those who buy a book during the "new release" pricing....paying the ABSOLUTE MOST (full retail) contribute more than someone who buys it on sale as the sale discount is a retailer thing, not an author thing.

But...you know...what's really bugging people is the notion that hunting for books for free or cheap cheap cheap is supporting authors less. But it is. And we all know it. And few care. And that's sad to me.

I don't see books as commodities. I don't support EVERY author I read. I get it. But I realize that there is a relationship between my buying an author's books and their ability to keep writing.

So, all of you who are thrifty should at least appreciate "the rubes" who buy newly published hard back books at "those ridiculous prices". They are subsidizing the books you enjoy. They are the patrons.

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by leebase

I don't see books as commodities. I don't support EVERY author I read. I get it. But I realize that there is a relationship between my buying an author's books and their ability to keep writing.

How about a dead author? Clearly there is zero relationship between buying one of their books and their ability to keep writing.

Are those books commodities?

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by leebase

So, all of you who are thrifty should at least appreciate "the rubes" who buy newly published hard back books at "those ridiculous prices". They are subsidizing the books you enjoy. They are the patrons.

And there goes the righteousness and patronizing again...

No, I don't appreciate those "rubes", as you call them. I just don't care how much anyone pays. Not at all.

And yes, books are commodities for me personally, no matter how much you argue they aren't. You mean they aren't for you personally. You can't speak for everyone else.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by leebase

And it's TRUE...that folks paying for hard backs during the new release window are generating the lion share of all the revenue a book will generate. It's also true that each person who buys such a book is contributing more to the author than each person who buys a book during the paper back phase, checks the book out from the library, or buys it at a garage sale.

That is absolutely not a fact that can be proven. Per individual? Sure, I give you that since it cannot be argued against. At least for traditional paper. As much as you want it to be true, your gut feeling cannot be proven to be right without facts that nobody has, except the publishers themselves. Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true either.

ETA: You want a really good example where your theory is dead wrong? Harry Potter 1, 2, and 3. Very low sales at release for each. Then comes Harry Potter 4, and BOOM. The series takes off and starts selling like hot cakes. Including everybody that needs to catch up and get the first three in a hurry. Definitely not in the new release window.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by leebase

Not from my experience on this forum. "Books aren't commodities" - even THAT was a point for debate.

I and others indeed regard all or most books as commodities. You don't? That's fine. It's even fine if you want to feel that this somehow makes you superior or deserving of praise. But don't be surprised that others don't agree with you when you choose to signal your perceived virtue.

Originally Posted by leebase

Again....that was the RESPONSE post to a direct attack on folks who buy books during the new release window.

And it's TRUE...that folks paying for hard backs during the new release window are generating the lion share of all the revenue a book will generate. It's also true that each person who buys such a book is contributing more to the author than each person who buys a book during the paper back phase, checks the book out from the library, or buys it at a garage sale.

What's NOT true...is that AMONG those who buy a book during the "new release" pricing....paying the ABSOLUTE MOST (full retail) contribute more than someone who buys it on sale as the sale discount is a retailer thing, not an author thing.

But...you know...what's really bugging people is the notion that hunting for books for free or cheap cheap cheap is supporting authors less. But it is. And we all know it. And few care. And that's sad to me.

I don't see books as commodities. I don't support EVERY author I read. I get it. But I realize that there is a relationship between my buying an author's books and their ability to keep writing.

So, all of you who are thrifty should at least appreciate "the rubes" who buy newly published hard back books at "those ridiculous prices". They are subsidizing the books you enjoy. They are the patrons.

More chanting with no engagement. I previously posted:

If you must stay in the discussion, please stop chanting long enough to engage. Your mantra is obviously true in the case of Indies. Yet you choose to ignore various features of the tradpub market which have been pointed out which make it untrue in the case of most if not all tradpub books. If these features of the market are not accurately described then please point out the inaccuracies. I'd be grateful to have my ignorance cured, if ignorance it is. Just please stop the chanting. It's giving me a headache.

I have enjoyed some of your posts in the past, but am starting to wonder if they are not now better ignored. Please stop repeating your mantra endlessly and engage. Some facts backed up with links and references would be very nice.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

ETA: You want a really good example where your theory is dead wrong? Harry Potter 1, 2, and 3. Very low sales at release for each. Then comes Harry Potter 4, and BOOM. The series takes off and starts selling like hot cakes. Including everybody that needs to catch up and get the first three in a hurry. Definitely not in the new release window.

Wow....an exception. Surely that must mean "there is no rule". For after all, the phrase "the exception that proves the rule" has never been uttered before because nobody has ever experience the situation where a general truth doesn't mean exceptions don't exist.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by darryl

I have enjoyed some of your posts in the past, but am starting to wonder if they are not now better ignored. Please stop repeating your mantra endlessly and engage. Some facts backed up with links and references would be very nice.

That's what the ignore button is for. But the REASON I repeat "support the art you love" is because the bajillion completely bogus directions people keep trying to drag this conversation into

"Do books make the most money at new release"? - Support the art you love.
"Are libraries charities" - Support the art you love
"Don't my taxes mean I'm really paying for my library books" - Support the art you love.
"What about books that don't earn out their front payment" - Support the art you love.
"What about books that sell during the new release window, but are put on sale?" - Support they art you love
"You're saying we are morally obligated to pay the highest prices" - Support the art you love.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

...
ETA: You want a really good example where your theory is dead wrong? Harry Potter 1, 2, and 3. Very low sales at release for each. Then comes Harry Potter 4, and BOOM. The series takes off and starts selling like hot cakes. Including everybody that needs to catch up and get the first three in a hurry. Definitely not in the new release window.

That's not actually true, which if you think about it, should be obvious. If Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone had low sales, there wouldn't have been a Harry Potter 2. Each of the books were best sellers when released. Of course, there is a big difference between being a best seller (HP1 had an initial print run of 5000 books and sold over 100,000 in the first year) and become the huge seller that it became. Actual sales figures are a bit confusing since the US edition of HP1 came out about a year after the UK edition. The US publisher of HP1 paid Rowlings a $100K advance, a very high amount for a first book.

The series exploded in 1999, i.e. after HP3, not HP4. That is when I was introduced to the books by a friend. I went to the release party for HP4 at B&N in 2000. It was the first HP book that was released at the same time in the UK and the US. It sold over 3 million copies in the US on the first weekend.

(yea, I'm a HP fan. What can I say? My favorite Harry Potter trivia - Bloomsbury bought the first book for a 2500 pound advance because the CEO's 8 year old daughter really liked it. )

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by leebase

That's what the ignore button is for. But the REASON I repeat "support the art you love" is because the bajillion completely bogus directions people keep trying to drag this conversation into

"Do books make the most money at new release"? - Support the art you love.
"Are libraries charities" - Support the art you love
"Don't my taxes mean I'm really paying for my library books" - Support the art you love.
"What about books that don't earn out their front payment" - Support the art you love.
"What about books that sell during the new release window, but are put on sale?" - Support they art you love
"You're saying we are morally obligated to pay the highest prices" - Support the art you love.

Most of the books I buy aren't "art I love".
They are largely interchangeable genre fiction that I'm reading because I enjoy the act of reading, and am too tired to read something 'good'.
I have a handful of favourite authors I still buy the paperbacks of, even though I'll probably never read them, but other than that I'll buy whichever eBooks look like they might be interesting and are currently on sale, and at some point I might around to reading them.
The rest of the books are fungible, as far as I am concerned.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by leebase

Wow....an exception. Surely that must mean "there is no rule". For after all, the phrase "the exception that proves the rule" has never been uttered before because nobody has ever experience the situation where a general truth doesn't mean exceptions don't exist.

See, you don't even know. Your "rule" applies to which books? Do you have any example that will show that it follows your rule? You know what I think? A successful book will generate a lot more money from mass market than hard cover. It is in the name already, as it is not only mass produced, but also for the masses.

There is book lovers that love the physical object, and there is book worms that just love to read. Book lovers will have a library full of first edition hard covers on display, while book worms will have tons and tons of boxes crammed full of paperbacks.