hardcover books: why?

[evelinaburney]

Just a random question for you publishing industry types: Why do some publishing companies insist on bringing out books first in hardcover? Wouldn't a hardcover book reach more readers if it were, indeed, paperpack and thus half the price, so that more readers could actually afford to buy it? I know NOTHING about publishing (clearly) so forgive me if this is a stupid question. Just curious.

Thanks!

[James D Macdonald]

Reviews are almost entirely of hardcovers.

Library sales are almost entirely of hardcovers.

Many publishers consider a hardcover to be an advertisement for the eventual paperback, starting the word-of-mouth about a year before the paperback release.

[evelinaburney]

Thanks, James. It sort of makes sense when you put it that way (pointing out that hardcovers wouldn't exist if there weren't some business-case-type reason). Though I don't completely get it; a reviewer could easily review something in paperback. The reason I asked this question, in fact, is because it's so annoying to read a book review, think "cool, I really want to read that," and then realize that you can't afford it because it's hardcover and thus costs $25. And waiting for the paperback is so boring. But it just made me think that publishers would get more mileage - immediate sales - out of reviews if the books were more affordable for more readers. Or is that factor balanced by the power of word-of-mouth?

But the library thing makes sense.

Right, stopping now on that particular issue. Wait, no, I have one other question - is it true that some novels "never make it to paperback" because the hardcover didn't sell enough? (Sorry, it's a very slow day at the office...)

[James D Macdonald]

Is word-of-mouth that important?

The number one reason anyone buys a book is that they've read and enjoyed a previous book by the same author.

The number two reason is that the book was recommended to them by someone they trust.

All the other reasons fade into single-digit percentages.

<HR>


...is it true that some novels "never make it to paperback" because the hardcover didn't sell enough?

Yes, it's true. It's also possible that the author was being a butt-head about it. Or the publisher only does hardcovers, and the author didn't think to try peddling paperback rights to a paperback house. I can see lots of reasons why a hardcover doesn't come out in paper.

[evelinaburney]

Thanks again, James.

Someone on this board (possibly you) once recommended a book about the nuts-and-bolts of the publishing industry, but I can't seem to locate the reference. Does anyone know what it was, or can you recommend a similar title? Having cracked the hardcover issue, I am now full of other burning, yet trivial, publishing questions and would like to learn more...

Thanks!

[maestrowork]

Thanks Jim. For example, I didn't know reviews are almost mostly on hardcovers. It's good to know.

How many copies (typically) are in the first hardcover run?

[vstrauss]

>>is it true that some novels "never make it to paperback" because the hardcover didn't sell enough?<<

Large publishers typically make hard/soft deals, where it's understood from the start that the book will be coming out in paper a year or a year and a half after hardcover publication. It's really in the publisher's interest to do this, because as Jim said, hardcover brings reviews and library sales, but many books don't become profitable until the paper edition.

- Victoria

[Jamesaritchie]

Hardcovers are also what those who collect books want, and those who have personal libraries. I personal library filled with hardcovers not only looks much better than paperbacks, it will last a lifetime and beyond with just a bit of care.

[sillysteph]

I think this interview with Patrick Nielsen Hayden (http://www.sfwa.org/bulletin/articles/pnh_ds.html) sheds some light on the hardcover/paperback issue, but the SFWA site (where the interview resides) seems to be fubared at the moment and I can't check.

[Flawed Creation]

(note: this is a guess. i may very well be wrong) i imagine it's the same reason that movies come out in theatres first, then videos. the paperback would interfere with the hardcover.

hardcover are more expensive, and thus most people would prefer the paperback. however, people do buy the hardcovers. if the paperback came out first, then the hardcover sales would vanish.

the people who buy hardcovers include:

reviewers

libraries

book collectors

fans who can't wait for the paperback

and people browsing bookstores who see a book they want, only in hardcover.

while some people, like you, elect to wait for the paperback, suppose you just HAD to read the latest book of some series. or you wanted to give it as a birthday present. you would cough up the 25$ for a hardcover.

they amkme enough money form the people who buy the hardovers to justify printing them (i miagine; why else print them?)

most people will only buy the book once. given this, the publisher would prefer that they buy the hardcover. so, they publish the hardcover, extract all those sales, and then the paperback.

(end guess)

[ElonnaT]

However, there do seem to be exceptions to this rule of "Hardbacks" first, if I am not mistaken? But it only seems to be with mega-selling authors. For example, JK Rowling, Nora Roberts from my experience are often released in HB and PB at the same time? Or am I crazy?

And if they didn't do reviews on the HB, how would all those review blurbs get into the front pages of the PB so you can see them when you are thumbing through trying to decide if you want to buy it or not ;)

[vstrauss]

>>For example, JK Rowling, Nora Roberts from my experience are often released in HB and PB at the same time?<<

It may seem that way because the author's last book is often released in PB around the same time their new book comes out in HC. The Brits release books simultaneously in HC and PB, but I'm not aware that's done in the US. There's usually a gap of a year to a year and a half between the hardcover and the paperback.

>>How many copies (typically) are in the first hardcover run?<<

My impression of print runs is that like advances, there's no such thing as "typical". It depends on a lot of factors--genre (a popular commercial author will get a bigger run than a popular SF author, simply because there's a smaller audience for SF), the author's popularity (or lack of it), the type of publisher (independent or academic presses typically do smaller print runs, sometimes 2,000 or even less), and the push the publisher wants to give the author. The issue is complicated by the fact that a publisher may announce a large print run to give the impression it's really enthusiastic about a book, and then hedge its bets by actually printing a much smaller number.

- Victoria

[Gala]

<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/image/posticons/pi_money.gif" />

Hardbacks can cost about the same to manufacture as paperbacks, yet retail for 3xs as much.

Profit margin.

<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/image/posticons/pi_money.gif" />

[maestrowork]

Why is there such a long time gap between HC and PB? Wouldn't they want to release the PB as quickly as possible (if the book sells) to make real profits?

[vstrauss]

>>Why is there such a long time gap between HC and PB? Wouldn't they want to release the PB as quickly as possible (if the book sells) to make real profits?<<

As Gala pointed out, there's a bigger per-book profit for the publisher on hardcovers. So they want to give the hardcovers as much time as possible to sell to whoever is going to buy them, without competition from the cheaper PB.

- Victoria

[Yeshanu]

For example, JK Rowling, Nora Roberts from my experience are often released in HB and PB at the same time? Or am I crazy?

JK Rowling's latest books were released hardcover first. The pb edition of her latest isn't even out yet, as far as I know. Her first book or three were released before she made it big, and because they were children's books, not adult books, the rules may be different. People are less reluctant to spend big bucks on a children's books. It was only once she became a fan of a lot of adults that her books became released in hardcover. (I think that's how it went. I may be wrong...)

Nora Roberts is a romance writer, so again, the rules might be a bit different, since many romances are sold through book clubs, and not stores.

Just my guess about those two, but it seems logical.

[Editrx]

Gala wrote:
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Hardbacks can cost about the same to manufacture as paperbacks, yet retail for 3xs as much. <hr></blockquote>
Where did you get those numbers? I'm a production manager for a major publisher, and I can assure you that hardcovers cost about 3-4 times as much to manufacture as mass market paperbacks. Sometimes more, depending on the cover, binding choice, and print run.

[Jamesaritchie]

Not at any publishing house I've worked for, they don't. If this was the case, hardcovers would have to cost sixty bucks or more. A typical hardcover does cost more than a typical paperback, but only a few dollars more. Usually no more than four to five dollars or so.

Your publisher is either paying way too much, or your hardcovers are far from typical. Or you haven't looked at the price of mass market paperbacks lately.

[Editrx]

Let's see ... I may have overstated myself a bit, and you're right, though I'd say that you may have understated it a bit. Now that I'm between painkillers (some idiot hit a nerve in my hand when trying to "help" a case of tenosynovitis I have in my wrist/thumb and it's agonizing without pain relief), I can think a bit more clearly....

My hardcovers right now are costing about twice my mass markets (not 3-4x, as I misstated above), but twice isn't just a few dollars. Are you costing in to your hardcovers:

1. cover (jacket)
2. cover art
2. binding
3. paper
4. editorial costs
5. acquisition (which the HC bears)
6. prepress production
7. freelancers for copyediting, proofreading, etc. (if you didn't count them in the prepress)
8. advertising (more and different than the MM, usually)
9. ARCs (advanced reader copies, often called bound galleys), necessary for reviews in most venues, particularly PW, Kirkus, School Library Journal, not to mention the Baker & Taylor ARC program (which requires a minimum of 500 [as of this month] for participation for selected titles)

HCs cost a lot more than their mass market children (I'm talking about HCs that become MMs, for this argument) because of all the up-front costs the HC versions bear that the later MM rides through for free (such as editorial, acquisition, copyediting, etc.). Plus jackets, more paper, binding, boards, etc.

If you would like to run hard numbers with me, I'll be happy to do it in mail or message, but the boards are an inappropriate place for in-house information of that ilk, methinks. Also, remember, paper went up again this year, after a dip in the past few years (after the huge increase before that).

Just curious: Where have you been? In the last twenty years, I bet we've crossed paths! (Feel free to email about which houses; again, this probably isn't the forum for that.)

Glad to meet another M.E. or production manager. Brother!