Mental Floss: an earlier American publishing revolution

[fjtorres]

Mental Floss (via teleread).

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/137715

From "The more things change..." dept:

Quantity was key. De Graff knew that if he could print 100,000 paperbound books, production costs would plummet to 10 cents per copy. But it would be impossible for Pocket Books to turn a profit if it couldn’t reach hundreds of thousands of readers. And that would never happen as long as de Graff relied solely on bookstores for distribution. So de Graff devised a plan to get his books into places where books weren’t traditionally sold. His twist? Using magazine distributors to place Pocket Books in newsstands, subway stations, drugstores, and other outlets to reach the underserved suburban and rural populace. But if Pocket Books were going to sell, they couldn’t just stick to the highbrow. De Graff avoided the stately, color-coded covers of European paperbacks, which lacked graphics other than the publishers’ logos, and splashed colorful, eye-catching drawings on his books.

Even with the success of Pocket Books’ test run, hardcover publishers scoffed at the idea of paperbacks for the masses. Still, they were more than willing to sell Pocket Books the reprint rights to their hardcover titles, if only to humor de Graff. “We feel we ought to give it a chance—to show that it won’t work here,” an anonymous publisher told Time shortly after Pocket Books’ launch. For every paperback sold, the hardcover publisher would receive a penny royalty per copy—which it split fifty-fifty with the author. Pocket Books would also make about a penny in profit for each copy sold.

Since de Graff offered refunds for unsold copies, carrying the books was a no-brainer. In 1939, de Graff told Publishers Weekly that he’d been deluged with requests from “out-of-town dealers.” And from the get-go Americans devoured every 25-cent paperback de Graff could feed them. By the time Pocket Books sold its 100 millionth copy in September 1944, its books could be found in more than 70,000 outlets across the U.S. They might not have had the glamour and sophistication of hardcovers, but paperbacks were making serious money. It wasn’t long before other publishers decided to jump into the game.

Once upon a time, publishers were happy with 4% royalties.
(One thing that *has* changed.

Fawcett was saddled with a distribution agreement that prevented it from publishing and distributing its own reprints of hardcover titles. Seeking to exploit a loophole, editor in chief Ralph Daigh announced that Fawcett would begin publishing original fiction in paperback form beginning in February 1950.

“Successful authors are not interested in original publishing at 25 cents,” Freeman Lewis, executive vice-president of Pocket Books said. Hardcover publisher Doubleday’s LeBaron R. Barker claimed that the concept could “undermine the whole structure of publishing.” Hardcover publishers, of course, had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. They were still receiving 50 percent of the royalties by selling reprint rights.

Fawcett silenced the skeptics by selling more than nine million copies within six months. Authors did the math, and writers of genre fiction—thrillers, Westerns, and romance especially—jumped at the opportunity to write paperback originals. Still, “serious” literary writers insisted on staying in the hardcover market for the prestige, and critics in turn declined to review paperback originals. Clearly, the stigma was still there.

[kennyc]

Interesting.

Thanks!

Can't Karma ya at the moment, will Catsup later!

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

That story does sound vaguely familiar...

[GA Russell]

My recollection from high school is that Pocket Books' first release was Lost Horizon.

[Requiem]

I had read this in the magazine and was interested in it as it relates to the current issues with publishing. The last part of this reminded me of J.K. Rowling with the Potter series going eBook. Though I wouldn't think she would see herself as a "literary type", it does beg the question whether it was for prestige or a marketing ploy?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Requiem

I had read this in the magazine and was interested in it as it relates to the current issues with publishing. The last part of this reminded me of J.K. Rowling with the Potter series going eBook. Though I wouldn't think she would see herself as a "literary type", it does beg the question whether it was for prestige or a marketing ploy?

Neither.
She is very protective of the Potter project and believes she has to control it as much as possible. And doing the Potter ebooks is a way to drive traffic to Pottermore--where she can build a monitored community--as well as offer an alternative to pirate editions. A bit late, the latter, but better late than never.

[Requiem]

I know she did it late, but it still caused some people that had already owned the books to re-buy them in a new format, just to have them portable. I am not convinced that it still isn't a marketing ploy, just like Pottermore is. (I also don't think it is necessarily "her" doing it, more likely it is the publishing company/agents/others who earn from the Potter universe driving it)

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Requiem

I know she did it late, but it still caused some people that had already owned the books to re-buy them in a new format, just to have them portable. I am not convinced that it still isn't a marketing ploy, just like Pottermore is. (I also don't think it is necessarily "her" doing it, more likely it is the publishing company/agents/others who earn from the Potter universe driving it)

All the reports are that Rowling is behind Pottermore.
Its mission is her mission.
And that mission is to provide a centralized alternative to the fan-based web sites. Its a matter of quaity control as well as IP control; new readers that go looking for Potter content will be more likely to go first to Pottermore and if they get their Potter "fix" there, they may not feel the need to go elsewhere.
Control, methinks; money for her and her corporate associates are secondary. She's made it clear she's managing Potter for the long term, not for the quick buck.