Publishers Package Literature as Original Paperbacks to Lower Prices and Slow Returns
Excuse me while I try not to spew my pricey coffee onto my pricey laptop over this one.
According to the article “Paperback Originals Are a Growing Niche for Literary Novels” in The New York Times today, publishers are adopting a “different model” from the hardcover-first, paperback-second publishing norm. Now they plan to publish paperback-only editions of “literature” written by unknown or, as the article says politely, “lesser-known,” authors. Publishing companies would be willing to forgo “the higher profits afforded by publishing a book in hardcover for a chance at attracting more buyers and a more sustained shelf life” for these books.
What profits? “When you’re taking back 50 to 70 percent of the hardcover copies you shipped,” to quote Morgan Entrekin, the publisher of Grove/Atlantic, I don’t think you are seeing much “profit.”
Once again the publishing industry is stepping over and around the giant elephant (you mineral-water-swillin’, 12-step programmers know what I’m talkin’ about) in the penthouse of publishing–the returns policy–that huge, looming, light-blocking, and oxygen-depleting pachyderm for which everyone keeps making excuses.
What’s it going to take to change this absurd returns policy?
If the cost of shipping and handling (in and out and in and out) of the distribution centers was eliminated because publishing companies did not accept returns, the wholesale price of the book to the bookstores could be reduced dramatically. This savings could also be passed along to the customer in a lower price at the cash register. (I’m struggling to see the downside of this.) When I priced out ”special sales” at Barnes & Noble Books, the price per book dropped significantly when a book could not be returned. A sale was a sale. Period. In exchange the book buyer got a fabulous deal.
What’s it going to take to convince editors and marketing departments in publishing companies that throwing a book up against the wall to see if it will “stick” and sell, rather than carefully marketing a title, is causing the returns problem, too?
How much more shelf-staying-power will there be in bookstores when a book, packaged-down to original paperback or not, still has to rely primarily on browse-and-buy amid the crammed stacks and overloaded display tables to make it to checkout?
March 23rd, 2006 at 9:20 am
Remind me not to read your blog first thing in the morning.
Your passionate prose makes me tired.
In a good way of course.
Just another bolt on the door of that mean old world of publishing for us
‘unkowns’. It’s almost getting to the point of ‘why bother’.
I shall go in search of my thicker skin now…I’m sure I have an extra one growing around here somewhere…
March 23rd, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Without a returns policy none of these books would make it into stores. Chain stores are not going to buy 2,000 non returnable books from a “lesser known” literary author.
March 23rd, 2006 at 5:00 pm
I’m against pretending books are “sold,” when they are really sitting on a shelf “on consignment,” given the returns policy. What would you recommend to stop the flood of returns. Sure 2,000 books go out, but 50 to 70 percent come back. Is that okay with you? How would you handle returns in your ideal world of book selling? Let’s hear your suggestion for remedying the problem.
March 23rd, 2006 at 8:01 pm
The problem is not necessarily the consignment model and the rate of return.
The rate of return is a symptom. The actual problem is that bookstores and publishers consistently overestimate the potential market for books. They then compound this by spewing forth far too many books which are not advertised, promoted, or reviewed.
Publishers refuse to do the work and $pend the money to create a demand for their products or at least create an awareness of their product among the book’s potential readership.
The unsold copies are the result of this failed strategy and are the end point of the dysfunctional process.
Note from the Wicked Witch of Publishing: Peter, right you are. And let’s not forget the territorial imperatives and internecine feuds that go on behind closed doors in high places and by the watercooler in lower places in publishing companies. The result is a paralysis that renders change virtually impossible. Publishing needs a hero–someone who is “admired for his achievements and noble qualities, and shows great courage.”
March 23rd, 2006 at 8:30 pm
“Now they plan to publish paperback-only editions of “literature” written by… “lesser-known,” authors.”
Firstly, if 50 to 70 percent of their books ARE coming back, maybe they should send out 50 to 70 percent less? Why do I think in such simplisitic terms…I’m just old and dumb, I guess, and I don’t buy 20 gallons of ice cream when it won’t fit in my freezer.
I love it–they have suddenly discovered there is “literature” out there that they are going to print in paperback (but they will continue to crank out “My Friend Leonard” and “Lipstick Jungle” in hardback). I hardly think so. Publishers are interested in salability–don’t try to convince me they suddenly have an interest in “litrah-tour” (in paperback, remember).
March 24th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Too many books for too much money vying for the attention of too few people, in too few ways, over too short a period of time. Expectations too high, marketing budgets too low. Too few American adults graduating college (25%), too many entertainment alternatives — to say nothing of too many better stories, of comedy and tragedy, on television.
At least original paperbacks lower the price of books somewhat. That gives a new book a chance at a ball instead of a strike.
March 24th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
I think it all comes down to merchandising in the chains. If the only way to get a book in on the tables is to overprint it and hope for the best, then that’s what publishers are going to do. Unfortunately, it’s better to have a stack of books in a store (even if half of them come back) then to have a few books hidden in the stacks. And since it’s often cheaper to overprint than to try and match what you think the market will bear, it’s logical that publishers err on the side of excess.