are bookstore chains eating themselves?

[Fung Koo]

I definitely agree, RW. Peer-review is an extremely difficult quasi-democratic ideal. I was involved in the establishment of a hypermedia studies programme at a university that tried to use peer-review as a model for an intra-faculty publishing system. It was based on 4 tiers, with the highest review layer being done by the "professionals" -- which is to say the professors designated as in charge of the publication system. To say that it didn't catch on and was fraught with semantic hairsplitting and infighting would be a gross understatement.

There really is something to be said for the existing publishing system, and the concept of professional expertise in editing. I'm just not sure -- given your OP -- that the existing model will continue to hold up in the face of new technologies.

One publishing model that seems to be working -- and it uses a version of the indie music model -- is McSweeney's. They've taken the idea that short fiction lends itself well to internet distribution to promote the name of the publishing house, as well as to generate interest in upcoming novel releases. (It also has that indie-elitist sense about it, which draws a particular dedicated crowd -- though it can be fickle!) They do direct distribution, but they also farm out to the megastores.

I wonder how their profits break down between direct sale and distribution... At least someone appears to be making a viable system! Now all they need is a used book store of their own

 

[suciul]

I understand waht suciul is saying and I understand publishers or whoever is trying (maybe successfully) to extend copyright dates. But, suciul, do you have any actual information that there is any other legislation under consideration to change the " first sale doctrine "?

I do not think that legislation can accomplish directly this since courts repeatedly shot down the attempts to restrict it - but in the age of digital content things get tricky as the Wikipedia article I linked to makes clear, and ultimately public opinion will play a major role, so this is why it's important to understand issues rather than propaganda.

Regarding legislation, there is a major bill sponsored by the Hollywood Congressman Berman, that is possible to become law this year, sites like CNET and Ars Technica have more information.

 

[RimWorlder]

FK:

I'm currently working with a very highly regarded editor on implementing one of several models of a 'new/alternative' publishing methodology.

We believe that we are starting with a 'hot property' that will gain the project attention and will attract an existing market.

I can't/don't want to give away too much: I'm still waiting for some legal stuff to clear (several months away), don't want anyone to 'steal my thunder' - and of course there's always a chance that things will not work out and I 'dislike' looking like an idiot in public.

However, I will say that this forum is one of the places I plan on announcing the project when it goes public, and I do value the opinions of many of those here (especially the ones who agree with me, lol).

So, I can share some snippets and hopefully get some feedback.

One concern is that most writers are not self-promoters. Yes, they have egos, and often strong ones, but most either do not want to devote the necessary time away from writing, think that they'll get the recognition they deserve simply by writing or have issues with repeatedly yelling 'look at me! look at me!'.

Writers should write - not self-promote. Artists should art - not self-promote. Musicians should sing and play their instruments - not self-promote.

Writers currently give up the larger percentage of revenue in exchange for manufacturing, distribution and promotion to the traditional publishers. Additionally, publishers take an additional percentage because of the method of distribution utilized - they have to take back unsold product and give a significant discount to retailers.

This, in a market environment (for our genres) when most books have a print run of under 10,000 and the authors are getting about 5 to 6,000 bucks up front, at a measley 8 percent royalty rate. For a typical 7.99 book, that's 64 cents per copy or - 7800+ copies sold to cover the advance (before any residuals kick in).

Its obvious that 'cutting out the middleman' can change that equation mightily, but you don't want to lose the distribution and the promotion.

Use POD to take out the worry over print run. Give a much higher royalty to the author - and no advance. (Yes, its a leap of faith, but); then, always assign an additional percentage to promotion.

Let's wave a magic wand for a second. Let's say that with POD, your cost per unit of the book is 25% of the cover price - $1.99. Keep the cover price of 7.99. Give the author a 35% royalty - $2.80 per copy. Devote 15% to promotions - $1.20. The 'publisher' (before overhead) keeps $1.99 per copy.

But more importantly the author earns his typical $5,000 off the sale in as few as 1785 copies.

With a little twiddling, you can get that number of copies sold down to about 1500. Who doesn't think they can sell 1500 copies of a good book?

If the author and subject are popular and you end up with a series, you can 'bell curve' the sales price. People who order in advance get a discount. The closer to release date, the lesser the discount. You then go through a period of no discount sales and then, as you are ramping up for the next installment, you start discounting again.

Authors will have the luxury of seeing what their readers want - in advance. There's even a chance to let people 'subscribe' to their favorite authors or series, again, creating the synergy between consumer and producer. Imagine being able to ask your writer to create a particular story, or do a sequel, getting others to sign on and funding the project? Very much like the old patronage system - except that its much more democratic.

Authors can take advantage of it also: 'hey guys, I was thinking of writing a story about...'; if enough people like the idea, they can 'subscribe'.

There's a lot more and the above is by no means complete - or even the number 1 strategy.

 

[Davis Ashura]

I can't find a link that explains this legislative proposal, Digital Content Protection Act of 2006, in simple laymen's terms, but per the Wikipedia entry on the Recording Industry Association of America, this bill, if passed, would limit digital media, even under fair use guidelines. Also, the RIAA, since 2006, has petitioned the U.S. courts that ripping a CD onto a computer hard-drive, Ipod, etc., does not constitute fair usage, and that if a person buys a CD, that's fine. However, if they also want that music on their hard-drive, they should pay for it again. If they want it on their Ipod, they should pay a third time.
Is it silly? Yes, but hat doesn't mean that it isn't also extremely pernicious.