Calm down. I'm not about to burn your libraries.

[mollyringle]

Okay, some clarification is needed, I feel. Here it is, adapted from a comment on my ebook-poll post...

Those of you who only want to read print books are welcome to get mine in paperback, when it's available. :) I plan to do the same! The paperbacks cost about twice as much as the ebooks at my press, but there's still something wonderful about a physical book. I have to admit, the reason I chose to submit to this publisher was because they had the paperback format alongside the ebook.

I should have made it more clear that I *don't* agree with their assessment of ebooks and "not print" being the future. It's good that they're seeking out the people who believe that, and targeting them as customers, and of course it's less cost and hassle for them. Still, I hope ebooks and print can coexist, and I want consumers to give the new form a chance.

I definitely don't want print books to disappear, though. Hell, I'm considering becoming a librarian someday, and another far-off dream for Steve and me is to own a used bookstore, so we absolutely want to continue the existence of ink and paper.

Also, piracy in ebook-land is just as much an issue as it is for mp3s. But I don't expect to get rich from writing, so I'm hoping the trade-off benefit is the same as it is for the music industry: namely, more fans in more places worldwide, even if the royalties don't climb as high as they legally ought to.

At least for authors, there's always money to be had in selling the film rights.

But while I'm defending the print industry, I also have some criticisms of it. Pass this along to those you know in the field, if you think they can change things. My biggest beef is their marketing focus on a handful of hugely famous authors, to the near-total neglect of newer and lesser-known ones. A related annoyance is the tradition of printing the first run in hardback--which is expensive and which practically no one wants, unless I'm talking to the wrong people--and only later releasing the book in the more convenient and affordable paperback. It ought to be the other way around. First print in paper, then, if the book is a big hit, print some special hardback editions for those who want them for their collection.

I should note that I've majored in social sciences, and have no business degree experience to back this up.

Comments

[astroman-rich.livejournal.com]

Dirae already answered the question of why the hardcovers come out first, so I'll move on to the other. :-)

Publishers say that the reason that they promote only the famous authors is because their business model is comparable to the film industry; The vast majority of titles lose money or make barely enough to cover the expenses, so they rely on the blockbusters to carry the business. Thus, they put the promotion money into the safer investment, while relying on not-yet-famous authors to take on the expense of promoting their own books.

And that sounds reasonable... to a point. There are obviously exceptions, because we've seen relatively large print runs and advertising campaigns for "unknown" authors. Presumably there are still a few editors out there who push for a bigger budget for books that they deem to have potential. So I guess the trick is for the new author to find out who those people are, and impress them. :-)

[mollyringle.livejournal.com]

Guess so...but how am I supposed to schmooze editors over lunch when they're in NYC and I'm in Seattle? :)

I plan to do local promotion as much as I can, and web-based too, without spending much if I can avoid it. But it's hard to know if it'll do much good. Fingers crossed.