Is this good news or bad news?

jpfife · May 19, 2009

From thebookseller.com, link: http://www.thebookseller.com/news/85891-self-publishing-takes-the-lead-in-us.html

'The number of print-on-demand titles published in the US has exceeded the number of traditional books produced for the first time ever, according to bibliographic data provider Bowker.'

I wonder how long before this statistic pops up in vanity press publicity as a way of getting more people to pay for publishing?

Barrett · May 19, 2009

I read the article, but I'm still a little vague on one detail. Did POD actually print and deliver more books than those that were printed and bound for commercial sale, or...

did the number of books made available for POD exceed those intended for the retail shelves?

If it's the second, I'm not too terribly impressed. Just because hundreds of thousands of books are being made available through POD does not mean POD has been widely accepted by the consumer.

If anything, it means more people think they can write a book and make a career from POD, which may have an interesting impact on slush piles in the publishing houses.

bsolah · May 19, 2009

I'd be sceptical. I'm not surprised that POD has heaps more titles released. Anyone can publish POD. But out of those, I reckon more copies of traditionally published books were sold than copies of the POD books. POD simply doesn't have the marketing and people don't trust them.

Brindle Chase · May 19, 2009

I'd be really curious to see the data. According to Harlequin, they "print" 120 billion... yes, billion, books(not titles) annually... whether or not that includes eHarlquin.. who knows... but thats an awful lot of books.... given the average sales data for harlequin writers... it seems to me that Harlequin writers have more titles than the POD numbers in this article (not that I did the math... *lol*... too lazy) Anywho... I think the key word in the entire article is titles... they are talking about titles, not book sales... 285k+ new titles on POD, each selling an average of 100 copies(wild estimate) isn't much to celebrate about...???

I think POD is growing, but traditional book sales are still strong, particularly in romance and YA

Wayne K · May 19, 2009

This news is neither good nor bad, it's vague.

Izz · May 19, 2009

jpfife said:
From thebookseller.com, link: http://www.thebookseller.com/news/85891-self-publishing-takes-the-lead-in-us.html

'The number of print-on-demand titles published in the US has exceeded the number of traditional books produced for the first time ever, according to bibliographic data provider Bowker.'

Bolded 'titles'. Number of titles is quite different to number of books. I'm surprised this is the first-time ever. Anybody can self-pub.

cletus · May 19, 2009

Brindle Chase said:
285k+ new titles on POD, each selling an average of 100 copies(wild estimate) isn't much to celebrate about...???

I'd subtract at least 90 copies from your wild estimate to get a more realistic estimate. I doubt very few POD's sell more than a dozen copies.

bsolah · May 19, 2009

Brindle Chase said:
Anywho... I think the key word in the entire article is titles... they are talking about titles, not book sales... 285k+ new titles on POD, each selling an average of 100 copies(wild estimate) isn't much to celebrate about...???

I highly doubt this stat too. Which POD books are they counting because I'd think there would be plenty of POD books published on lulu.com for instance that don't even sell more than one or two copies.

jpfife · May 20, 2009

A little more information here. With data from 75,000 publishers (!) their stats do start to look a little odd.

Old Hack · May 20, 2009

The stats given in the article refer to numbers of titles using POD, not actual copies printed: given the numbers of books which have been self-published over the last few years perhaps it's not surprising. But I did think that the title of the piece was a little (!) misleading.

It's already been claimed elsewhere (and no, I'm purposely not going to provide a link) that this article proves that mainstream publishing is in decline, and that self-publishing is now more successful--which isn't the case at all.

The average number of sales for a self-published book ranges from 40 to 200 copies, depending on which set of statistics you look at.

Devil Ledbetter · May 20, 2009

Isaac Espriu said:
Bolded 'titles'. Number of titles is quite different to number of books. I'm surprised this is the first-time ever. Anybody can self-pub.

Does "titles" also include those that don't get an ISBN, such as when we use a publisher like Lulu.com to print a few copies for our beta readers? I've done this, but I have no intention of ever self-publishng my novel.

Brindle Chase · May 20, 2009

Devil Ledbetter said:
Does "titles" also include those that don't get an ISBN, such as when we use a publisher like Lulu.com to print a few copies for our beta readers? I've done this, but I have no intention of ever self-publishng my novel.

My guess would be yes. its likely Lulu.com reports there #'s by all titles published, regardless if they are registered with an ISBN. It makes them seem more impressive.

Izz · May 20, 2009

Devil Ledbetter said:
Does "titles" also include those that don't get an ISBN, such as when we use a publisher like Lulu.com to print a few copies for our beta readers? I've done this, but I have no intention of ever self-publishng my novel.

Good question. I'd hope not, but that's the optimist in me rather than the realist.

veinglory · May 20, 2009

I was surprised that this wasn't already the case (that is, more differenttitles publsihed POD than offset). I mean it is essentially free, and very easy, to make a POD available through a site like Lulu.

Is this good news or bad news?

jpfife

Barrett

bsolah

AW's Resident Commie

Brindle Chase

Dancing on the edge

Wayne K

Izz

Doing the Space Operatic

cletus

I'm a king bee

bsolah

AW's Resident Commie

jpfife

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman

Devil Ledbetter

Come on you stranger, you legend,

Brindle Chase

Dancing on the edge

Izz

Doing the Space Operatic

veinglory

volitare nequeo