New AAP data: ebooks outsell hardcovers

Minwind · Jun 19, 2012

The Q1 2012 AAP data is out and there is some fascinating stuff.

ebook sales: 282.3 M
hardcover sales: 229.6 M

But what I find even more interesting than this is that ebooks now outsell mass market paperbacks 3 to 1 (mmpb sales: 98.9M). If I recall correctly the Jan 2012 mmpb numers was around 30M and at this rate I wouldn't be surprised to see publishers giving up on MMPB altogether and doing just hardcover and trade paperbacks. The new "low price-point" option will be ebooks.

Old Hack · Jun 20, 2012

Minwind said:
I wouldn't be surprised to see publishers giving up on MMPB altogether and doing just hardcover and trade paperbacks. The new "low price-point" option will be ebooks.

According to the article you linked to, in 2012 (year to date) the mass market sector brought in $98.9m net.

Agreed, it's down from the previous year, which saw figures of $124.8m; but ignoring that downturn for the moment, why would publishers quit publishing a format which has earned them nearly $100m net (not gross) so far this year? So long as the format continues to be profitable publishers will continue to publish books in that format.

Even if that downturn continues at the same rate (which is not likely to happen--levelling off will happen) it is highly unlikely that e-books will completely take over from print editions in the next decade: too many people like print books; too many people can't use e-readers; and so long as print books remain profitable, publishers have no reason to stop producing them.

There's no obligation for publishers to choose between mass market and e-book; some genres and some publishers publish paperbacks only in trade format, or only in mass market format, and I doubt they'll all throw their print lines away in favour of e-books now. Not everyone has an e-reader; not everyone wants to read digital editions. And there's room for both in the market.

Minwind · Jun 20, 2012

Old Hack said:
According to the article you linked to, in 2012 (year to date) the mass market sector brought in $98.9m net.

Agreed, it's down from the previous year, which saw figures of $124.8m; but ignoring that downturn for the moment, why would publishers quit publishing a format which has earned them nearly $100m net (not gross) so far this year? So long as the format continues to be profitable publishers will continue to publish books in that format.

Even if that downturn continues at the same rate (which is not likely to happen--levelling off will happen) it is highly unlikely that e-books will completely take over from print editions in the next decade: too many people like print books; too many people can't use e-readers; and so long as print books remain profitable, publishers have no reason to stop producing them.

There's no obligation for publishers to choose between mass market and e-book; some genres and some publishers publish paperbacks only in trade format, or only in mass market format, and I doubt they'll all throw their print lines away in favour of e-books now. Not everyone has an e-reader; not everyone wants to read digital editions. And there's room for both in the market.

Data is net sales not profit. This just means that it is what the publishers brought in. (distribution fees taken out) That is a long way from profit considering high returns, print costs, and overhead. I'm not saying print will leave there will still be trade paperback and hardcover. But mmpb was the "cheap book" alternative and I think ebook will take that title.

Old Hack · Jun 20, 2012

Minwind said:
Data is net sales not profit. This just means that it is what the publishers brought in. (distribution fees taken out) That is a long way from profit considering high returns, print costs, and overhead.

Yes, I know that, which is why I wrote, "why would publishers quit publishing a format which has earned them nearly $100m net (not gross) so far this year?" I note that you didn't answer my question.

Net income is a lot closer to profit than gross income, isn't it? And "net" doesn't automatically mean "turnover with distribution fees taken out": it all depends on how one defines "net". I've often seen it used to describe turnover minus the cost of doing business, but without tax being accounted for, for example.

If you do want to stick to your definition of net, please remember that the cost of distribution is a sticky thing to pin down. Some publishers take care of some of their own distribution, some hire the whole thing out, while others don't have full distribution, so the percentages involved there are very variable.

I'm not saying print will leave there will still be trade paperback and hardcover. But mmpb was the "cheap book" alternative and I think ebook will take that title.

I'll repeat my question to you.

Why would publishers quit publishing a format which has earned them nearly $100m net (not gross) so far this year?

mscelina · Jun 21, 2012

THey wouldn't.

The oft-pronounced death of the MMPB or the hardcover or all of print publishing in general is so out of left field it's not even funny. And, considering that for the Big Six, ebook prices are actually MORE than or equal to the MMPB price, it's not necessarily the "cheap book" alternative.

Minwind · Jun 21, 2012

Old Hack said:
Yes, I know that, which is why I wrote, "why would publishers quit publishing a format which has earned them nearly $100m net (not gross) so far this year?" I note that you didn't answer my question.

Net income is a lot closer to profit than gross income, isn't it? And "net" doesn't automatically mean "turnover with distribution fees taken out": it all depends on how one defines "net". I've often seen it used to describe turnover minus the cost of doing business, but without tax being accounted for, for example.

If you do want to stick to your definition of net, please remember that the cost of distribution is a sticky thing to pin down. Some publishers take care of some of their own distribution, some hire the whole thing out, while others don't have full distribution, so the percentages involved there are very variable.

I'll repeat my question to you.

Why would publishers quit publishing a format which has earned them nearly $100m net (not gross) so far this year?

Publishers reporting to aap report "net" as money they receive. To answer your question I don't think 30 m net is enough to make them want to keep doing mmpb long term. I think we'll see ebook only releases for what used to be put out in mmpb. A good example... Bandit King and Hedgewitch Queen had ebook only releases from a trade publisher who usually has done a good number of mmpb in the past.

Minwind · Jun 21, 2012

mscelina said:
THey wouldn't.

The oft-pronounced death of the MMPB or the hardcover or all of print publishing in general is so out of left field it's not even funny. And, considering that for the Big Six, ebook prices are actually MORE than or equal to the MMPB price, it's not necessarily the "cheap book" alternative.

You are correct mmpb and ebook are same price but the profit on ebook is much higher....signicantly less returns, no printing, no warehouse. Margin is 30% instead of 50 -60%. Publishers would rather have an ebook sale rather than a mmpb sale. Many returns run as High as 50%.

MartinD · Jun 21, 2012

There's a significant segment of the audience who will never read an ebook. Paperbacks and hardbacks will continue to be there.

...but possibly not in my house. The last hardback I wanted to buy was in the $30 range. The last paperback was $9.99. Ouch.

GeorgeJames · Jun 21, 2012

Old Hack said:
According to the article you linked to, in 2012 (year to date) the mass market sector brought in $98.9m net.

Agreed, it's down from the previous year, which saw figures of $124.8m; but ignoring that downturn for the moment, why would publishers quit publishing a format which has earned them nearly $100m net (not gross) so far this year? So long as the format continues to be profitable publishers will continue to publish books in that format.

Even if that downturn continues at the same rate (which is not likely to happen--levelling off will happen) it is highly unlikely that e-books will completely take over from print editions in the next decade: too many people like print books; too many people can't use e-readers; and so long as print books remain profitable, publishers have no reason to stop producing them.

There's no obligation for publishers to choose between mass market and e-book; some genres and some publishers publish paperbacks only in trade format, or only in mass market format, and I doubt they'll all throw their print lines away in favour of e-books now. Not everyone has an e-reader; not everyone wants to read digital editions. And there's room for both in the market.

Hi Old Hack

One big problem with the continuation of paperback publishing is outlets for paperbacks are closing all over because of ebooks/ibooks. Maintaining staffing levels and full book shelves along with normal overheads is putting a lot out of business.
While I agree a lot of people like to have an actual book in their hand and maybe are not in the market for ereaders the majority of sales of paperbacks now are direct from publishers not book stores.
Some of the biggest book stores in Australia have now closed and those remaining open are generally small staffed or proprietor only. The rest are now online trying to compete with ebook/ibook distributors in a losing battle.

Regards

GJ

Old Hack · Jun 21, 2012

Sales moving from physical bookshops to online ones doesn't automatically signal the end of printed books.

This idea that e-books will bring about the end of printed editions reminds me of how the PC was supposed to bring about the paperless office.

In the years I've been involved with publishing I've seen similar discussions regarding the end of the hardback because of the paperback; the end of the mass market edition because of the trade paperback; and so on. Yes, sales levels jiggle about a bit and things always change: but not to the extent that many people like to suggest.

shadowwalker · Jun 22, 2012

If something is earning one decent money, not losing it, why drop it?

Or am I oversimplifying?

Old Hack · Jun 22, 2012

I think you've got the gist of it, Shadow.

quicklime · Jun 29, 2012

shadowwalker said:
If something is earning one decent money, not losing it, why drop it?

Or am I oversimplifying?

no, this is why we no longer manufacture manual-transmission autos, actual desktop computers, fliptop cell phones....wait, nevermind.

it amazes me how many folks believe companies would just opt out of anything that makes money; we have lines here I have hoped they'd kill for years, but as long as there's even a few thousand dollars in net, there's no reason to do so. and as for brick bookshops closing....that has more to do with online sales, which are pretty damn robust for physical books *headdesk

Minwind · Jul 1, 2012

There is no way to know if they are making money or not....the data shows net receipts to the publishers...add returns, editing, royalties, and all he other overhead and my guess is Some may be profitable but others are not.

Minwind · Jul 1, 2012

Just did a quick search and fond this nyt article http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/b...backs-fading-from-shelves.html?pagewanted=all

Old Hack · Jul 1, 2012

Minwind said:
There is no way to know if they are making money or not....

If publishers are still publishing mass market paperbacks it's because they're still making money by doing so. If they weren't making money at it, they would stop it. Simple.

the data shows net receipts to the publishers...add returns, editing, royalties, and all he other overhead and my guess is Some may be profitable but others are not.

Please explain why a publisher would continue publishing a format which wasn't profitable. Because last time I looked, publishers were happy to continue to publish this format.

Minwind said:
Just did a quick search and fond this nyt article http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/b...backs-fading-from-shelves.html?pagewanted=all

The article is short on citations, and the journalist seems to have a bit of an agenda there, don't you think?

I'm sure that if we searched round we could find articles which supported just about any viewpoint we wanted, but that wouldn't change the fact that so long as mass market paperbacks are profitable publishers will continue to publish them. It's logical and it makes good business sense, despite your eagerness to insist that this is not the case.

New AAP data: ebooks outsell hardcovers

Minwind

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman

Minwind

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman

mscelina

Teh doommobile, drivin' rite by you

Minwind

Minwind

MartinD

Thought I'd stop by

GeorgeJames

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman

shadowwalker

empty-nester!

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman

quicklime

all out of fucks to give

Minwind

Minwind

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman