Times may be changing.
David Nicholls’s novel “One Day” came out as a paperback original over in England. There are now 300,000 copies in print.
The lower cover price would make it more appealing to the 20-something target audience and buyers in general. Publication was held off until June not only to give the favorable press about "One Day" ample time to reach American shores, but to echo the summer setting of the novel. Then came word—here's the dumb luck part—that Anne Hathaway had signed on for the movie.While some agents see paperback originals as a way to sell at a lower price and thus draw in loyal readers, reviewers have a tendency to shun them and focus on the big hardbacks. But a few of the big reviewers are now covering the paperbacks.
Frances Coady, the vice president and publisher of Picador, the paperback imprint of Macmillan, said: "You have to ask yourself questions like, 'Is it better to sell 5,000 or 8,000 copies in hardcover and try to reinvent the book in paperback?'—which, unless there's some extraordinary piece of luck, is really hard to do—or 'Is it better to sell 50,000 in a paperback original?'"I know what my answer would be. I’m guessing it would also be the answer of a lot of you. But...maybe not. Tell us your opinion in the Comments section.
I've bought very few hardback books. Usually I get them from charity shops, anyway. I like a book that I can carry with me as I'm out and about. So, papaerback original, yes.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree, I prefer paperback. Hardback is too heavy.
ReplyDeleteMy Darcy Mutates…
I have bought hardbacks, but not many. Mostly ones where I got the author to autograph and knew I'd keep on my shelf.
ReplyDeleteI always have a book in my purse. I much prefer a paperback.
ReplyDeleteWe could call it the purse correlation theorum:
cost of hardcover + weight of hardcover = preference of paperback edition [ergo] lighter purse, heavier wallet
PS I'm not a mathematician nor have I ever played one on tv
Does the 6x9 trade size count as a paperback? I see a lot of books coming out in paperback these days.
ReplyDeleteI prefer paperbacks, but I buy hardcovers to support writers. I used to buy from a second hand store because books in Australia are too expensive, but once I'd decided to become a writer I bought new.
ReplyDeleteI like the paperbacks. They are much easier to carry around. I've bought very few hardbacks, but generally I wait until the book comes out in paperback. Hardbacks are lovely on the shelf, but they take up more space. I can have two short shelves of paperbacks or one tall shelf of hardbacks. I go for two.
ReplyDeleteMason
Thoughts in Progress
I think most consumers don't even realize when a book comes out as paperback originally and many of the big reviewers are disappearing, so I see no problem with a paperback original.
ReplyDeleteVERY seldom read or buy hardbacks. Too uncomfortable to hold. And always prefer buying something that reads the same and costs less--hey that way I can buy more books!! LOLSylvia Dickey Smith
ReplyDeleteI love your math, Karen!
ReplyDeleteAlex, the trade paperback sells for more, but it is a paperback.
Simon, it does change your viewpoint when you become a writer, doesn't it!
Mason, I'm at the point of shrinking shelves that I'm going to have to cull books.
Bermudaonion, most of my books are paperback, as well.
It's all economics to me. I can't afford hard-covers! That said, it's all going to moot when E-readers take over for good. Even before they do, I'm guessing hard covers use more paper...I'm surprised they aren't disappearing as a result of environmental concerns.
ReplyDeleteIn this economy paperback books simply make sense. I also prefer them because they fit in my purse so I can take them everywhere. I hope my publisher reads this article.
ReplyDeleteSign me up for 50,000 in a paperback original. Where do I sign the contract?
ReplyDeleteI buy hardbacks, but I'm always excited when a new book comes out in paperback. It increases the chance I'll buy it, especially if it's a new author.
ReplyDeleteI'd love to have a good paperback original contract.
ReplyDeleteI haven't bought a hardcover book in years. Paperbacks are more economical and easier to carry around.
ReplyDeleteWithout looking at any input from the commenters, I would rather go foe volume. Easy decision to make. I want to reach people, and in this context I'd rather make a smaller amount off a larger volume of sales.
ReplyDeleteStephen Tremp
I have a moderate collection of hardcover books. I have all of Anne McCaffrey's in hardcover and few other authors, some collected over many years.
ReplyDeleteTruthfully, I prefer paperbacks. I'm one who carries a book where ever I go.
I've never been on the "as not being good enough for a hardback version" and rarely look at hardcover books in the book store unless it's something special I want like an illustrated Celtic lore book or some reference books like my Ancient Myths and Cultures.
There are very few books I've purchased in hard cover. Truthfully I think, in the last year, I've only bought one new hard cover book. Others I've bought of eBay because I already read my library's copy OR at this great used book store in my state. For my own publication preference... It's tough. I would prefer a paperback if it would get the same publicity as the big guns who get released in the hard covers, but as a debut I think the soft backs would be much more advantageous. So - I guess that's my roundabout way of saying soft backs!
ReplyDeletePaperback - for all the reasons listed above. Plus, it's much easier to read a paperback in the bath.
ReplyDeleteI can so rarely afford hardbacks, that I often get on the waiting list at the library and never buy AT ALL, so I think in this economy, the stigma may begin to wane, especially if there are claims (as in that case) that the target audience needs it to be cheaper so the publisher is being CONSIDERATE (though the idea makes me snicker a little)--it's possible eBooks (priced closer to paper price) will also skew us as to what a book is worth, and hard covers will get more rare.
ReplyDeleteGood point, Liza.
ReplyDeleteJoanne, you can sign right there below my name.
Stina, I think most of us are more likely to pay for a hardback with an author we love and read, but paperback for someone new and unknown.
Me, too, Stephen.
Sia, the most I ever spent on a hardback was for a huge book called Oceans. The pictures are gorgeous.
Unfortunately, Kimberly, the hardbacks still get the most publicity, in newspapers and on TV.
Laurita: ;-)
You could be right, Hart.
My books all came out as trade paperbacks first, as do a lot of the YA fiction. It's not less honorable - it's less wasteful!
ReplyDeleteAgreed, Diane. Trade paperbacks sell.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post, Helen. I had no idea that the stigma for paperback was still so strong. I have liked the idea that my books were in hardback first, and one of my nonfiction books did sell quite well, but I would still have preferred the numbers of the paperback sales. However, 50,000 is not a good number for a mid-list author and often they will get dropped. So we are really between a rock and a hard place in this publishing biz.
ReplyDeleteWow. Such a great observation. I hope softcovers overcome this stigma! They may dogear easily, but they're cheaper and lighter!
ReplyDeletePaperbacks for me. I'll take hardbacks out of the library to read, but when I buy I buy paperback. I don't need to spend three or four times the money for the same read.
ReplyDeleteI rarely buy hardbacks unless they are a book that I might read more than once and from Half Price Books or discounted. Paperbacks are so much easier to handle and carry around with you. As I read so much cost is a big factor.
ReplyDeleteAnn