Things I Have Noticed

~giggle~ Me Too! :D


"I don't wanna grow up, I'm a Toys R Us kid..."

My sentiments exactly, although I generally think more in terms of "I do believe in fairies, I do, I do..." :)

On a more prosaic note, Booksquare has passed along her opinion on Amazon's latest gambit, which is to tell all POD publishers that their titles can only be printed through Amazon's own in-house press, Booksurge, or Amazon won't carry them anymore. This does not seem like a good thing to me, since part of the viability of these very small presses has been the ability to get their wares at least available to the general public through Amazon. If they're forced into switching printers, at who knows what cost structure, it puts one more impediment to success in their way. Thoughts?
 
Freedom of Speech is a wonderful concept, isn't it? Until it comes down to dollars and sense. I think they are begging Google to put them out of business. Not that that will be any big improvement. Or, they are begging the techno-junkies to figure out a way to beat their system. And someone will do it.
National Library Association ought to find their own POD house, build its capability, and then refuse to carry any books that aren't compatible with their printers.
 
Oh, that's brilliant. Makes it much easier for Amazon, scares the publishers silly, reduces the amount of stock they don't want, etc. I'm surprised they didn't do it earlier, but I guess up till now, they didn't want to bother. But they need to keep expanding in Web services and this is one way to do it.

However, it is in the long term a bad idea. It would make more sense if they just said they weren't selling anymore self-published inventory. When book retailers have tried to launch boutique printing and publishing ventures, they've usually not gone well. Borders tried to do it and I think they eventually dumped it. Printing services, even POD, are a losing proposition -- the companies doing POD usually go out of business in a few years. Of course, with Amazon backing, they could do it for longer, but why? It makes much more sense to concentrate on software or entertainment media sites/services. But they bought this new company, so tally-ho!

Small presses should not be that much effected, and have other sales channels besides Amazon that may be a lot more effective for them. In fact, this may cause an exodus from Amazon that is the opposite of what they're after. And Amazon is threatening to piss off Ingram's and you don't want to do that. Amazon does not have a monopoly online -- nowhere close. It has high name recognition and high placement -- it's like McDonalds'. But Ingram's has a monopoly in North America. Everybody in the entire system -- bookstores, online, wholesaler non-bookstore vendors -- is dependent on Ingram's. Publishers and booksellers do what Ingram's tells them. So if Ingram's is doing a big POD business, I wouldn't count on Amazon to win, even if the Kindle is doing well. (And e-books are not the same thing as POD.)

As for Google, they're apparently losing a lot of ground to Yahoo at the moment. They're trying to compensate by branching out into all these areas too, and that may or may not be effective.
 
Last edited:
I definitely agree that Ingram is the big player here. They're the Microsoft or Walmart of the publishing game, in terms of leverage. And Ingram locked up whatever meat was to be had out of the POD market with Lightning Source. So it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Is it really such a good thing though, that a lot of the POD players might be driven out? Granted, as with unrestricted POD in general (we're talking about the commonly-described business model of POD here, not the printing technology), there can be a lot of dreck. But it also opens up doors to more voices to be heard (okay, hard to do through the volume of dreck...). One of the purported benefits of POD is that it allows new writers to get their feet wet with a small (very small) audience to help them hone their skills. The accepted practice seems to be that you're supposed to write short stories and get them published in magazines in order to accomplish that. But if you're not wired to work well in short story (a la people like me), it's nice to think that there are avenues or outlets for a little commercial novel work that works down at the bottom end, i.e. not requiring large publisher investment and that can live with smaller sales. I'm not saying it's a great approach, and even though I did it early on I wouldn't want to go back there, but for those who haven't broken in or who might have good stories to tell but for one reason or another can't play the larger publisher game, it's nice to have. (Which is probably why it can go away, since nobody wants to pay for nice-to-have...)
 
Ingram's is bigger than Microsoft and Walmart, comparitively. Microsoft and Walmart have competition, even though they are the most successful. (Though Microsoft may well be losing to Apple.) Ingram's has no real competition. You deal with Ingram's for re-orders or you don't deal, plus they do a fair amount of the initial orders. Nobody cares about Ingram's because they aren't visible, yet they control pretty much how books are sold, certainly how they are distributed. And if publishing moves into POD or e-books, they'll work to keep that control.

In the late 1980's, the assumption was that print books would move on to electronic books via CD-Rom and books would become like the music business. You could load on stuff about Chinese history with an Amy Tan novel, and lots of features with non-fiction. But the book publishers were barely into the electronic technology as it was and couldn't handle it, and the electronics companies lost any interest they had in a no-money field. Then the Web killed it off completely.

So then POD was going to be the big thing. It had a lot of potential usefulness for publishers, plus could get them out of the returns problem. But there are enormous problems with POD and the booksellers don't want it. Online sales are still only a relatively small slice of the sales pie. The book retailers don't want to be in charge of and dealing with the cost of production, don't trust customers on the demand part, don't want to deal with computer glitches, and need piles of shiny books physically there in their stores to draw in shoppers. So POD hasn't really developed.

E-books is looking like it's the return strategy. It is a good way to lure in tech-savvy book readers and to get non-book readers to buy books, or at least to get them to download documents and magazines. People like gadgets. But they've got to work out a lot of logistical problems first if it's going to work on a broad scale.

And here's the weird thing I've noticed: almost all new tech strategies that get bandied about for taking advantage of online and computer worlds seems to get shifted from commerce to publicity, when it comes to the book biz. Tor, for instance, is giving away free online PDR copies of novels as a publicity stunt that is working very well, though I admit I haven't gotten around to reading my batch. And similar stuff is going on with other publishers. They're using e-books to market, not to sell. The small e-book market, like the Kindle, serves as sort of a supplemental sales/pr campaign.

So I really don't know if or which technology is going to emerge for books' next step. It may be that all these technologies will simply increase the market for print books through publicity, which we can certainly use. But there's the paper crisis and the energy crisis looming on the horizon, right behind the global warming/water shortage crises. So Amazon is covering all the bases, I guess.

This is not going to stop people from self-publishing, and may create more outlets for them to do so. Small presses and e-publishers who rely on POD may fail, but then they have a high turn-over rate anyway. The smart and lucky ones will continue. And Amazon probably won't stay isolationist for long.
 
Been listening to books in my car - books and Teaching Company courses - and what I've discovered is that I really enjoy listening to books rather than radio commercials but I find after listening to the book I want to go buy a hard copy because I want to reference the book or research its sources and I can't do that from an audio book. Listen to Freakonomics and Fiasco and you just have to have the author's bibliographies.
Makes me dread any suggestion that might lead to the elimination of actual books from my book shelves.
Paper shortage? Damn, damn, damn! Another research project.
 
At least two people at work have asked if I have audio versions of my books - they said they'd love to listen to them in the car during their commutes, but that they don't have time otherwise to sit and read books.

Of course, an unabridged audio reading of each book, I calculated, would take about 80 hours...
 
LOL, paper crisis, not paper shortage -- yet. Wood pulp -- increasingly expensive for publishers and a diminishing resource, not the least because the loggers won't plant enough new trees. Forests and rain forests reduced, effecting the environment. Pest and fungus blights destroying mass amounts of trees. Bees dying off, which effects pollination. Alternatives to trees for paper available and in use, but as agriculture pose problems for resources. Reduced rain forests and growing water problem, with predictions of drought -- means dead trees and fiber plants in the future. Recycling paper content helps, but everybody's doing really poorly at recycling. White paper is number one landfill item in North America and has been for awhile.

Or were you being cute? :)
 
No. assumed you were being serious and I just had not come across any indication there was a crisis. It seems to me that the solution to cutting trees is to cut the population, not somthing likely to happen. Ergo,
White paper is number one landfill item in North America and has been for awhile.
the solution seems to me to be lying waiting in those dumps.
 
The ad for Karen Miller's Empress that keeps showing up on sfworld seems to me something that you could have done, Kev. The style, coloring, and rendering all fit very well with your own style, coloring, and rendering. Are you familiar with the artist?
 
The ad for Karen Miller's Empress that keeps showing up on sfworld seems to me something that you could have done, Kev. The style, coloring, and rendering all fit very well with your own style, coloring, and rendering. Are you familiar with the artist?

Nope, can't say that I am. It does not appear to be a 'modelled' image, though - I think it was created using traditional methods. However, with the exception of the heavily-flowing clothing, I could certainly create a cover like that, with a somewhat forbidding looking foreground figure and background buildings.

I found it interesting that the 'recommendation blurb' on the front cover is from SFFWorld. First time I've seen that on a book! The Amazon reviews on the book were pretty mixed - sounds like it's not a particularly upbeat kinda story...
 
Went back and read Rob and Mark's reviews of this and her earlier work. I've read The Innocent Mage. Well, I read till I could read no more and then put it down. Probably won't go back.
Interestingly, even buried in the midst of other positive commentary, nowhere in the sffworld reviews do the words "master class" appear. Wonder that came from?
 
And no disservice to SFFWorld intended, but if a review from us here was the most prominent review one could find to put on the front cover, it might make me wonder a bit... WE all think it's the best place for SFF info, but I'm not sure the general reading population will be as quite in tune with it as we are (at least insofar as scoring points with the average bookstore browser is concerned...)
 
Well actually, we've evolved, you see. Quotes from SFFWorld have been popping up on a lot of books I've been reading. First time I've heard we've been on the front though -- that's a new step. I haven't noticed the ad. Karen Miller is a very big up and comer in England, and she's building up her audience here in NA. It's possible the phrase came from a review that Pat or another blogger did that was then posted on SFFWorld. I hope the boys are not getting misquoted.

SFFWorld is now one of the biggest SFF sites, it's international and the publishers are a lot more willing to put quotes from online sources on the books. They know that a lot of the fans are online and getting info from those main sources. And with the traditional press cutting back the amount of book reviews they do, even though SFF is getting more non-genre coverage, it's still a lot easier to get a review quote in time for the cover printing from online sources than to go without, waiting on the Los Angeles Times or even Locus to cough something up. We're a brand, baby!

Did my NYTimes bi-monthly list today and little Mr. Rothfuss was at number 11 with the paperback of Name of the Wind. So the new boy is officially moved from category bestseller to major bestseller, since the hardcover was also high. So another one for us -- yay!

It is wild to find that the list of top 35 spots for all formats of the NYTimes list, and the other national U.S. lists is now regularly 20-30 percent SFF. For people now, that's just normal and I don't think they even view it as that impressive, but in the 1980's, SFF was lucky to get 5 percent of the list, and that not every week. The growth over the last twenty years has been amazing.
 
This is one of those "yeah, but..." situations, KatG. The reviews for Karen Miller's works that are posted in the Lit section are by Rob and Mark. And they never use the words "master class" author. In fact, they are only middling enthusiastic about any of her books.
So, where did the quote come from?
 
Hmm, it's possible, since the quote is about the author, not the book, that it came from an earlier review of Innocent Mage. I'll check it out and let Rob and Mark know.

Just saw Iron Man -- lots of fun. Stay to the end of the credits if you go.

Edit: Just checked out the Miller reviews and the quote came from a reader review, not any of the official reviews. So that's a problem. I'll alert the staff.
 
Last edited:
Hi all: just popped in to say thanks for highlighting this.

I've had a word with Orbit and we'll see what happens. It may be that they were just not aware, but I'll let you know what they say with any return.

And as for SFFWorld quotes, it is very strange to see them, but they are happening, and increasingly so in the UK. I had a very weird experience a while back when, in a bookshop, one of my kids found a quote from a review of mine on the back of the paperback of Ilario by Mary Gentle. Of course, what they were doing with a copy of a book about a hermaphrodite, filled with sex and violence, is another matter..... ;)

but increasingly, it is happening! We don't write our reviews for that reason, but it is nice when it happens.

Thanks again for the heads up.

Mark
 
It was all a bit serendipitous discovering the quote, but if it highlights an issue, then I suppose it was a good thing. And I am glad if SFFWorld (official) review quotes do carry some currency in the marketplace - there certainly is no shortage of talented folks associated with it whose knowledge and opinions of things SF/F are second to none.

(And when The Pool of Shikama comes out, I'm gonna have to wrangle me one o' them reviews from somebody here...) :D
 
I also mentioned this to the US marketing contact at Orbit. But yes, the positive is that we have been seeing our blurbs (up until this one, all official blurbs by either Mark, Juzzza, Owen, or myself) on books. I'd say over the past year, it has been fairly regular. The first US printing of Justina Robson's Keeping it Real had a nice prominent blurb from Mark's review of the UK version of the book published about a year prior to that.

I guess our only "problem" with this one is that is a false positive. We wouldn't want folks thinking we liked something when (by my review, Mark's reviews, and what I've said in the forum about Empress) clearly it is the polar opposite of that particular blurb (a reader submitted review, which are often akin to amazon.com reader reviews).
 

Sponsors


We try to keep the forum as free of ads as possible, please consider supporting SFFWorld on Patreon


Your ad here.
Back
Top