Espresso Book Machine? this can't be a good idea for the publishing world, can it?

Expresso

These things have been around for years and years. A new version comes out every so often. So far, they've been useful, but not a problem.

Why would they be a problem?

If they ever got them to work at a reasonable price I think it would be great. Books could stay 'in print' much longer and be available everywhere.

I misread the title, thought this was a post about a coffee-table book of espresso machines. That would be a good idea!

That looks like something out of an H.G Wells novel.

Anytime someone touts "this will revolutionize books!" I think, there's someone who needs a deep breath, a lie down, and some perspective.

I read about Espresso Books a few years ago. I like the technology, but the price! There used to be an Espresso Books machine at the NY Public Library on 5th Av. Don't know if it's still there - haven't been there in a while.

Lately, I'm hearing a lot about book vending machines. They're just like vending machines for candy, chips, and soda, but the slots are bigger/wider and stocked with books, magazines, pens, pencils, highlighters, note pads, and other inedible items instead. You can find them at bus and train terminals, kiosks at malls, stationery stores, and some coffee and smoke shops.

I'm currently in negotiations with a guy who wants to stick a couple copies of my self-pubbed book in a few of these machines he owns throughout Connecticut. His terms are just like a physical bookstore: returnable, 40% off cover price with Net 60 payment. Sounds to me like this could be another viable avenue for selling books, especially self-published ones - without having to stand on a corner.

print

veinglory said:

If they ever got them to work at a reasonable price I think it would be great. Books could stay 'in print' much longer and be available everywhere.

Click to expand...

The worst possible fate that could befall writers is having books stay in print longer, unless number of sales also stays very high. One of the biggest battles going on in publishing right now is the battle to make publishers stop keeping books in print after sales are essentially gone.

Gigi Sahi said:

I read about Espresso Books a few years ago.
...

Click to expand...

Not sure if they were Espresso or what other brand names might have been, but like James, I've seen announcements of such all-in-one book printing and binding machines for the past ten years or so. They're definitely useful for short-run/POD books. One of the best-fitting applications I've heard of is for college textbooks which may sell only dozens or hundreds of copies depending on how many professors pick it for their classes, but the cost per unit and/or quality are yet to match a high-volume print run by traditional printers. If it COULD match, no doubt every bookstore would have one of these running 24/7 in the back room, and the warehouse would be full of blank paper and other supplies for this machine instead of copies of "(if) I DID IT."

Even five sales a month buys me a bowl of soup. I guess I just don't see the down side if I have nothing else to do with the book and a time-limited contract (which in my case is true, and true).

Jamesaritchie said:

The worst possible fate that could befall writers is having books stay in print longer, unless number of sales also stays very high. One of the biggest battles going on in publishing right now is the battle to make publishers stop keeping books in print after sales are essentially gone.

Click to expand...

Could you explain that please? I've never heard an author complain about a book staying in print before. The ones I've seen comment on it were quite happy when that happened, so I'm puzzled.

Exactly what would be the downside?

From the reader perspective, this would allow them to find books that are not otherwise readily available but that they would like to purchase. For example, books that they read as children and would like to revisit.

J. R. Tomlin said:

Could you explain that please? I've never heard an author complain about a book staying in print before. The ones I've seen comment on it were quite happy when that happened, so I'm puzzled.

Exactly what would be the downside?

Click to expand...

Well, far be it for me to answer for JAR, but I suspect what he's getting at is this: if a book stays "in print" but with few to no sales, that means the publisher retains the rights; they don't revert to the writer. Which means that the writer can't re-sell those rights to another publisher, who might otherwise be swayed in a potential deal by the possibility of picking up backlist as well as a new work.

There's no downside to a book going out of print if it's not selling -- the rights revert to the author who then has another asset in his pocket for the future. With technology like this, though, books can be kept theoretically active and in print without any outlay from the publisher (ie, the cost of an actual print run), which essentially screws the writer out of an asset...

willietheshakes said:

if a book stays "in print" but with few to no sales, that means the publisher retains the rights; they don't revert to the writer.

Click to expand...

This is one of several topics to be discussed with the agent when she's negotiating your contract with the publisher.

One way an agent deals with this, (and, to be fair, it's boilerplate in contracts with the bigger publishers,) is to set a minimum number of sales that must be made per year, by any means -- including e-books and POD technology -- for the book to remain 'in print'.

Protecting the author from 'rights hoarding' is the agent's job -- and part of the reason a writer needs one.

Jamesaritchie said:

The worst possible fate that could befall writers is having books stay in print longer, unless number of sales also stays very high. One of the biggest battles going on in publishing right now is the battle to make publishers stop keeping books in print after sales are essentially gone.

Click to expand...

I'm missing this too. One reason that publishers sometimes keep books in print despite near-zero sales is that they think the writer is good enough to score a major hit someday. If that happens, all his/her previous books are back in play, sometimes in a very big way. Jonathan Kellerman's first novel tanked, but now it does better than a hundred thousand copies a year because of the success of his later works. The same goes for James Lee Burke, John Sandford, and a host of others. In those cases, the same publisher published the newer works of the author, even though the author had not yet shown any track record of success. If the publisher is willing to take this risk, it should have the right to keep these in print.

And as is also clear from the above, the only time an author's sales are genuinely gone is if he/she never writes a successful novel in future.

dantem42 said:

I'm missing this too. One reason that publishers sometimes keep books in print despite near-zero sales is that they think the writer is good enough to score a major hit someday. If that happens, all his/her previous books are back in play, sometimes in a very big way. If the publisher is willing to take this risk, it should have the right to keep these in print.

And as is also clear from the above, the only time an author's sales are genuinely gone is if he/she never writes a successful novel in future.

Click to expand...

You're missing this part -- if the author is now successful, he/she is in a stronger bargaining position. Which means, had the rights to the original works reverted back to her, she could sell them for a better deal this time around. And that doesn't just mean money. It means other factors that authors sometimes want to control/influence, from release dates to covers, etc.

Nora Roberts stopped writing new material for Silhouette because they wouldn't stop releasing her old stuff the same month as she had a new release coming out from another publisher. (Which thereby confused her fans and lead to a canniblizing of the sales of the new work.)

Silhoutte kept the rights to her earlier work by keeping them in print. Now, had some of those rights reverted to her, she could have sold them to another publisher, and gotten control of release dates, so that the re-release of old material didn't interfere with the release of her new material. (So that also shows that sometimes, no matter who you are, you don't have the clout to get them to do what you want. If Nora couldn't influence this... well... But if she'd had the rights to the earlier works, other publishers would have listened to her when she said she'd sell them rights to publish the books, but on her terms.)

She solved her problem by coming up with a special logo for the covers of her new books that tell her fans which books are new releases.

The problem NOW is with the definition of "in print." For example, Harlequin now releases all new books as ebooks as well as print books. If the contracts allow for the ebooks to count as "in print" then the rights will never revert back to the author - Harlequin could just offer it for sale as an ebook, never actually push the book, never actually sell many copies, and yet, the author is stuck.

An attorney from the Author's Guild whom I've heard speak to a number of different writing groups recommends that in-print clauses in contracts now have some sort of minimum sales number to define "in print." The book is in print as long as the author is making X dollars in Y amount of time frame.


Susan G.

job said:

Protecting the author from 'rights hoarding' is the agent's job -- and part of the reason a writer needs one.

Click to expand...

Just like to reiterate that point again, for emphasis. You should absolutely have an agent. That puts someone with both experience and an understanding of how contracts and rights both work and don't work firmly in your corner.

Because if the rights revert back to you and your agent sells it again, later, for better money then it benefits the both of you. Get an agent!

Susan Gable said:

You're missing this part -- if the author is now successful, he/she is in a stronger bargaining position. Which means, had the rights to the original works reverted back to her, she could sell them for a better deal this time around. And that doesn't just mean money. It means other factors that authors sometimes want to control/influence, from release dates to covers, etc.

Click to expand...

I can understand the concern with publishers who act somewhat underhanded in their dealings. Nonetheless, I tend to sympathize with publishers more than some others. If you are an unknown author, it is the publisher who is taking the lion's share of the risk in an area where strikeouts aren't all that uncommon. In my own case, I am an unknown in the process of being published by a successful indie. It costs me next to nothing, but the publisher is committing significant resources. My take is that if my sales are mediocre this go-round, if the publisher wants to keep it in print, they are entitled to make some serious money if later I publish a successful novel. After all, they took me on when no one else would.

Publishers, especially smaller ones, need windfalls like this to justify their activities. As it stands, almost all publishers basically "subsidize" relatively new, unknown authors from the money they make off their blockbuster authors. The less money to eventually be made from these unknowns, the greater the tendency to stick with the tried and true.

I'll also say that on the other side of the coin, some authors once successful act with the height of arrogance, often ditching the agent that brought them to where they are simply because someone else has a bigger name, and jumping publisher to publisher every time someone sweetens a deal. It takes the concerted efforts of authors, agents and publishers to make for a successful string of novels.