Things I’d Love to See #4

STOP STARTING WITH HARDCOVERS

(I began the series with Three Things I’d Love to See, but in the midst of a failing economy I think there are probably going to be quite a few more – you know, about 16. This one I’ve thought about for years and could easily have made the top three.)

Here’s why I know a book industry era has come to an end: One publisher after another keeps referring to hardcover books as “promotional copies for the paperback edition.”

Yes, hardcover books are selling so poorly that their only use for publishers is to get reviews, book interviews for the author and pave the way for a trade paperback edition that the real audience can afford.

True, the few hardcover books that hit bestseller lists can pay off big time, but these are known commercial hits that are worth giant marketing budgets from the beginning. Or so publishers think.

It’s a much more dangerous risk to try making an unknown author’s book a bestseller, which is why “The Story of Edgar Sawtelle” (before Oprah) was so thrilling: Ecco/Harper knew exactly how to manipulate the formula of big-sprawling-summer-novel+Hamlet gimmick+beautiful-writing+struggling author backstory+DOGS DOGS DOGS = Must Read.

A larger truth, however, is that mid-list and serious literary books by lesser-known authors rarely find their audience in hardcover. Those adventurous readers who watch and clip reviews, look for new voices and love heated book-group discussions most often wait for the paperback, and who can blame them? The cost of a hardcover book after sales tax is about $30. The cost of a trade paperback after sales tax is about $15.

Every few months or so I like to save up $100 and spend it on books that call out to me in an independent bookstore. I never ask myself: Would I like to purchase 3 books for that amount, or 6 books. (Okay, granted, I often end up spending $200 for hardcovers I can’t wait to read but that’s another story.) 

Reasons to Stop

What would it take to stop publishing hardcovers right off the bat and start with the trade paperback as the original first edition? 

First off, it would save a lot of money at the bindery. Publishers could print enough sheets to cover a small hardcover printing for the institutional (library, etc.) sale. They could release the trade paperback with pride as the first and most affordable horse out of the starting gate. The more copies it sold, the more it would become what we used to call permanent backlist (trade talk for a long-term spot in every reader’s heart). As people began to buy the hardcover edition – for gifts,  or for their personal libraries (yes, readers still have them) – the title would begin to earn its way into increased hardcover publication.  

Years ago in the 1980s a number of publishers established original fiction lines in trade paperback and tried to market their young, unproven authors to  young, adventurous readers. As I recall, the experiment was a disaster because the process became so labor intensive (just to build up sales from ones and twos) that publishers decided the whole procedure got too costly. What they missed was that too many houses went after too small an audience at the same time. 

This is the sour taste that’s still in their mouths when publishers look at me aghast and say, “Stop starting with hardcovers?” Why, you can’t reverse the system so abruptly; it would take millions to reeducate the audience, let alone the media; the few book reviewers/interviewers left wouldn’t take the book seriously; booksellers would kill us; Oprah would hate it; agents would leave us, and so on.

In other words, more defenses, but come on. Oprah would love to tell her viewers they can save money on the books she loves from now on. Booksellers I’ve talked to say that if the original trade paperback “turns” twice as fast as the hardcover, no problem. Agents want higher numbers than hardcover sales can produce. Book bloggers are readers and they love trade paperbacks, as much as their audience. And besides: What book reviewers? What media? 

How to Start

One way is for publishers to start cutting back on selected hardcovers – and I don’t mean the ones they pile up in stacks at the front door of chain bookstores (and pay through the nose to do it) in the deluded belief that people buy more copies when they see big mountains of the things on the sales floor. 

I mean the titles that independent bookstores still buy in twos and threes with little hope of getting them unloaded. I mean the books that publishers know are going to make it or break it in trade paper, not hardcover. I mean keep decreasing the first printing of hardcovers and put whatever promotion you can afford behind the trade paperback. We used to call these “simultaneous” print runs, and with today’s inventory and printing technology, a close watch on sales can cover all the bases.

I think one of the most painful experiences for any customer today is to walk around the New Release table and drool over unknown new hardcovers that just aren’t worth the risk. 

But one of the flat-out joys for that same customer is to walk around the New Releases in trade paperback and start picking them up with anticipation because for 15 bucks, at least one unknown title that looks promising and special is going home with a very excited reader.

P.S. I just want to add that I’m a big fan of hardcover books in the old way, which is to say that even when trade paperbacks caught on, hardcover books were cherished for their durability and permanence, gave the publisher some security with automatic library sales and made a statement about posterity just by being bound. 

That statement to prospective authors was this: You can write a very good piece in a newspaper or a very good article in a magazine. But when you write a full-length book with sewn signatures and (sometimes even leather) bindings, not to mention expensive jackets just to keep the dust off, you are writing for the ages, and you better be great.

13 thoughts on “Things I’d Love to See #4

  1. Dana King

    I couldn’t agree more. Why booksellers lead with their least accessible product is beyond my comprehension. I like a well put together hardcover as much as the next guy, but what I really care about are the words inside. The more of those I can get on a finite budget, the better I like it.

    By the way, I’m fairly new to your blog, not sure how I heard about it. I’m a regular now, I always enjoy your thought provoking posts.

    Reply
  2. angry young man

    As a consumer, I entirely agree that the cost of books is out of hand. Oddly enough, the cost of most trade paperbacks today is closing in on the cost of most hardcovers 20 years ago.

    But the economics of turning what are today’s hardcovers into tomorrow’s trade paperback originals are lousy. For instance, a $25 hardcover that you expect to sell, say, 10,000 of, throws off an advance at standard royalties of $28,125. A $15 trade paperback with the standard 7.5% royalty that sells the same 10,000 throws off $11,250, which an author wouldn’t be nearly as inclined to accept, plus the book likely has a gross income that won’t t work on a major publisher’s bottom line.

    You will argue that the publisher might sell more of the trade paperback. In that case, to equalize at least the advance, the publisher would need to sell 25,000 copies. How is the publisher going to pull that off? What store is going to take that many copies of a book from an author who, by the terms of this model, must not have much of a platform?

    It’s true that Barnes & Noble will sometimes take more copies of a book if a publisher does the book in paperback, but unless that’s a big number which can offset the change in revenue, it’s not worth doing.

    Reply
  3. IreneJHarvey

    I read with great interest your article on the fact that hardcover books are, for the most part, becoming a thing of the past, except for a few well known authors.
    I have just written a children’s book, which was published in the US in December 08. It is fully illustrated, and when we got to the final stages of the process, I was informed that hard cover was not available on ‘Children’s books’ or ‘Illustrated books’.
    This did not cause cause me any problem, as I had already decided I wanted a soft cover for my book, but I did not realize it had any significance.
    I will check your site again. I am always very keen to learn anything which will help my (hoped for) writing career.
    Irene J Harvey
    http://eloquentbooks.com/WilliamtheFairgroundCar.html
    i.j.h@live.co.uk

    Reply
  4. Pingback: Hello Choir, I’d like to talk about hardcovers « Unabridgedbookstore’s Blog

  5. Pingback: Sloganeering.Org » Blog Archive » Pat Holt Talks Sense About Hardcovers

  6. Pingback: No More Hardcovers? « Littérateur

  7. Pingback: Just Interesting Stuff - Resource Tuesday Roundup

  8. Pingback: Rob Monroe Is Behind You › Why publishers should start with paperbacks

  9. mconahan

    I think that at some point in the history of the book, hard covers were a custom add-on. A soft or unbound book was taken to a bindery who would produce a fine durable addition to a person’s library. A book would need to be valued enough to justify the expense and effort. That would not be a bad thing to return to. Mass market hardcover books of today are mostly just crappy perfect-bound book blocks with a cheesy paperboard cover barely more durable than paperbacks. If the publishers would provide the books as a sewn structure on quality paper, I’d be happy to give up their marketing-driven wrappers.

    Reply
  10. Pingback: Weird Stuff Online » Replace Hardcovers with a Bunch of Big Signs

  11. Pingback: Bookninja » Blog Archive » Halt the hardcovers

  12. Pingback: Pondering hardcovers vs paperbacks at Sassymonkey Reads

  13. Pingback: Book Ends < A Fool’s Wisdom

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>