What ifWhat if the publisher printed copies on demand? Or what if the publisher just used print on demand for the more speculative literary fiction? Wouldn't that keep the cost down and posibly bring a small profit? If the advance is small, a modest number of books sell, but only those books that sell are printed, wouldn't this change the way of looking at non-blockbuster books?

Great series, and an explanationThanks for a *great* rundown of publishing financials. I learned a few things!I think that the short answer to the question, 'why high-priced hardcovers leading paperbacks,' is this: 1. Publishers could care less about literature. They are in business to make money. 2. The present hardcover-then-paperback model makes more money than other models.Anything else is wishful thinking. (Wish it were different!)

I think I know the answer to this one. After spending lots of money on advertising, the last thing anyone wants is for potential customers to show up at the bookstore, only to be told that the book must be ordered. Indeed, a big display, with posters and cardboard standups, and a big stack of books, like ripe tomatoes, ready for plucking - that's what moves a lot of product. Am I right, experts? I know, because I use print-on-demand, and everyone keeps saying I need to do a book signing at Barnes & Noble, and that means I have to purchase, like, 100 of my own books. Even with the author's discount, this is not so easy.

I think you're getting it, Dan, but I would spin the results slightly differently.Traditional hardcover->paperback publishing may make more money than trade paper original if we agree that the same number of copies are sold in either case, but considering how few copies are sold of most hardcover literary fiction, it's no stretch to imagine that we might sell significantly more in paperback.Also, as technology improves, the options are not as white/black (or, hardcover/paper) as they used to be. I definitely have hope that the major publishing companies will evolve how they publish literary fiction. Times are changing and the industry will have to change as well. The advent of electronic books alone is likely to force some changes. I remain hopeful that things will get better.

Michael, funny you should ask, since Levi brought up these very questions as I showed him drafts of the spreadsheets.First of all, publishers are in the business of publishing rather than printing. Back in the day they used to run their own presses, but it's cheaper to outsource to printers who are able to offer lower prices due to volume (like on buying paper, ink, creating plates, etc.).For example, let's say SC&RD publishes 200 books each year. If they wanted to produce these books themselves, they'd need to invest in a printing press, paper, skilled employees, a manufacturing plant, etc. However, Joe's Printing & Binding is in the business of just printing. This is all he does, so he has the resources to print 2,000,000 books each year. Thanks to volume, Joe's costs would be around 10,000 times less than SC&RD's in making those 200 books.POD technology is still fairly slow and expensive. I think I read that the $100,000 Expresso machine can make a single paperback book in 8 minutes with a PP&B of a $1. A printer with a high-speed press could probably make that same book in half the time for half the amount. For big publishers like SC&RD, POD isn't yet at the point of providing them with any cost/time savings. Small presses with small print runs, on the other hand, are another story. However, raising the capital to buy a POD machine might be stretch since many of them operate with smaller margins than the typical 10%.

Bill, although I think POD isn't viable yet for publishers, I see it as being a great resource for book retailers. Let's say you walk into your local B&N and they don't have a particular book on the shelves. With an on-site POD machine and a link to the publishers' proofs, they could offer the option of printing it while you wait. No customer would ever walk away unhappy about not finding a book!

Dan, regarding your first point, it's my feeling that this is where the actual dysfunction in publishing lies. (Rather than in pricing; no offense, Levi!) Although the corporate muckety mucks see books as a product, the editors do their jobs because they love literature. Making money and producing art might be a conflict of interest, but they do what they have to do in order to stay in business.Even though they may be churning out pulp fiction to keep the investors happy, the next Moby Dick could possibly slide across some lowly editor's desk. Ironically, though, a truly great work of art has a life/selling span of forever. If you look at the long view, it has the potential to earn more money than any flash-in-the-pan mass market sensation.

Hi, MaryDell -- I haven't been directly involved in publishing for more years than I'm willing to say. Are there really editors left who love literature (other than at small independent presses)? I'd love to think so. I thought that that was all gone; Max Perkins replaced by Donald Trump.Why would the suits who run publishing conglomerates waste time and money on a 'softie' who loved books when he could invest in a corporate bean counter "editor" with an eye on the bottom line?

the love of literatureI believe many people in the publishing business do love literature, and that's why they got into it in the first place (not always, but a lot of the time). Somewhere along the line, it gets complicated.I see these kind of conflicts every day. The social worker, who wants to help people but gets buried under a mountain of case files, and must resort to an "assembly-line" approach. The doctor who works for an HMO that limits him to an average of 15 minutes per patient.Of course, Levi's point, if I understand correctly, is that publishers could make MORE money if they would release paperbacks & hardbacks at the same time.

That is exactly my point, Bill -- thank you for stating it clearly.I agree that many people in the book business love literature. I am friends with enough of them to know this for sure. It's also true, though, that you are never likely to find a more jaded and cynical group of book lovers than you will find working for the major corporate publishing companies.

Dan, to be perfectly honest, I never met anyone involved in publishing who didn't love books in some way. Starting salaries for entry-level editors are pretty low. So when someone with a higher college degree signs on to slave over another person's manuscript while taking home peanuts, they must be doing it for something other than the money.The corporate bean counter you mention does exist, usually in the form of the managing editor. The ME usually has ultimate control over what's published and works closely with the publisher (the big boss) to guide the company's list toward whatever the goal is (like how some publishers specialize in certain kinds of books). All of the little editors report up through chains to the ME, who also was once one of those little editors who love books.

That's great to know, MaryDell. Thanks for your comments and your articles. And thanks to Levi for putting this together.