Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1
Marketing Loft [Public] / Re: Article: No one buys books
« Last post by Matthew on Today at 12:53:33 PM »
Interesting write-up, hadn't heard of The Trial.

This confirms a few things I suspected, mainly, even the big names hardly earn out their advances, and trad pub wants to spend as little on marketing as possible. The second point is why it never interested me. If I have to do all of the work of building up the audience to begin with, what do I need trad pub for?

The rest of the doom and gloom ... I think we could have expected.

So many interesting tidbits copied into that article. Thanks for sharing, it's worth the read.
2
Marketing Loft [Public] / Re: Article: No one buys books
« Last post by elleoco on Today at 07:56:39 AM »
From what I see on reader forums, there are voracious Romance readers determined not to pay anything for their books. They use Libby and other sources like that. At a guess some have no problem with piracy. However, I don't believe "no one" buys books. As a voracious reader myself I have a monthly book budget to keep it under control and do get ebooks from the library and KU, and also use up that book budget every month. There are even a few authors whose overpriced traditionally published ebooks I buy every year rather than wait until I can get them at the library. I also see a lot of posts on those forums by readers who are like me or who do buy hard copies of their books.
3
Marketing Loft [Public] / Re: Article: No one buys books
« Last post by Post-Crisis D on Today at 06:40:20 AM »
I haven't published traditionally, but from what I recall, publishers expected authors to do most of their own marketing.  And authors had to pay out of their own pocket (or advance) for most, if not all, of that.  That would be stuff like traveling to book signings, radio/TV promos/interviews where possible and whatever other means of marketing the author may do.

Even just a few years ago, self-publishing had a stigma despite the number of authors who had historically self-published.  There is no as much of a stigma against self-publishing anymore.  And, more and more people are opting for eBooks and self-published eBooks are pretty much identical to eBooks from big publishing companies.

So, I wonder if the big publishers have effectively experienced a "brain drain" where those authors that were successful at marketing their books just sort of cut out the middleman and newer authors just skipped the middleman entirely, both due to the ease of self-publishing these days and the growing loss of stigma around it.

Which would mean not that people aren't buying books but that people aren't buying very many books from the big publishers.
4
Marketing Loft [Public] / Re: Article: No one buys books
« Last post by R. C. on Today at 06:31:07 AM »
Wow.
5
I most often read on a sepia background with a contrasting font color. The built-in choice for font against the sepia isn't often dark enough, but the sepia background is a lot easier to read for long stretches at a time for me. So I read in apps that give me a choice of colors so I can find one that works best. I'm always looking for the least glare because I read so much and I do it for long stretches at a time.

But that can depend on lighting in the area too. Sometimes I do switch to a white background, and sometimes I switch to a black one if the room light is very dim.

For paper, I love the way white looks. But reading from it does seem to make my eyes tired faster. And reading outdoors on a sunny day is blinding if the paper is white. Since cream has been the traditional color expectation for fiction, I've stuck with it in my print books and will probably keep doing it.

But eyes are different. I don't think there's enough of a reason to choose one over the other. And I wouldn't think it weird if I saw a hardcover book with white paper. The paper colors of most paperbacks vary wildly even within the cream family. Who is to say it isn't just a really, really pale cream? :D

If I'm remembering correctly, the last time I got a good look at a large print book, other than having really thin paper, it was also bright, crisp white. So that could be the standard for helping the most people see clearly. I don't know. :)

I know this is getting off-topic, but here are some large print guidelines I found from The American Printing House for the Blind:
https://www.aph.org/resources/large-print-guidelines/

Quote
Paper

Paper that is white with black text is considered the best for contrast.
However, many people who have low vision have difficulty with white
paper because it produces glare in some cases. Other options are ivory,
antique white, eggshell, light beige, pastel yellow, or pastel pink paper
with black text. Other good combinations are light beige paper with navy
text, yellow paper with navy text, eggshell paper with dark brown text.
Gray paper is not recommended under any circumstances. Neither is gray
text. This is true for both print and electronic text.
6
Yeah, accessibility in other areas is a lot more straightforward.

Also, unless someone is a programmer, there are limits to how customization is available. You're basically stuck with what someone else has designed. And in a lot of cases, accessibility isn't really built in all that effectively.
7
Marketing Loft [Public] / Article: No one buys books
« Last post by German Translator on Today at 05:49:04 AM »
https://www.elysian.press/p/no-one-buys-books
No one buys books
Everything we learned about the publishing industry from Penguin vs. DOJ.


---Discusses the celebrity and beststeller-driven Big 5 and also mentions indy authors:
Quote
If publishing houses make minimal investment in marketing their authors and focus largely on celebrity books and their backlist, authors who can’t snag a large advance might have better luck building their own audience and publishing elsewhere.


Quote
The romance category has already gone independent.

Many of those heavy readers of romance novels at that time switched to self-published stories. A very different price point. 99 cents, $1.99, away from what we call mass-market trade paperbacks… The mass-market trade paperback is the sort of small-format mass-market book, like it is a trade paperback, but a smaller format. It has been declining for the last 25 years. But we had a step change around ’14, ‘15, with this trend that so many consumers went away from mass-market books into electronic ebooks in particular and self-published books.”

— Markus Dohle, CEO, Penguin Random House
8
The greater the contrast, the more likely a combination is to pass.

And that is one of the problems with ADA compliance on websites.  Websites weren't a thing when the ADA was passed and, because Congress (U.S.) didn't make new laws to cover websites, they went around Congress and claimed the ADA applied anyway.  And courts are using the accessibility guidelines for websites to determine whether a site is ADA accessible.  And that's the problem: they are guidelines.  Some of those guidelines contradict one another.  Some of those guidelines may not improve things.

The contrast issue is one example.  If you have black on white or white on black, that's the highest contrast and your site is going to pass, but as demonstrated here, that might not be the most accessible option for a lot of people.

But courts use the guidelines as if they were rules.

And then you have the problem of predatory lawyers looking for sites to sue.

It would be far better for everyone if web design software developers, web designers, accessibility device manufacturers and groups with accessibility needs all worked together to develop tools as well as guidelines to make it easy and understandable for web designers and developers and small businesses and individuals to build websites that are accessible to widest possible audience.

But instead we have a situation where you face potential lawsuits for not adhering to at times self-contradictory guidelines.
9
That made me want to see if the contrast is actually as good as it seems. I came across this, which was interesting reading. :)

https://veroniiiica.com/paper-colors-and-low-vision/
That's interesting. There are sites where you can check the different color combinations to see how well they meet accessibility guidelines. The greater the contrast, the more likely a combination is to pass. Think black print on a very light color or white print on a very dark color. Those pass. Anything much closer together than that fails. That's a little different from the advice given in the linked article. But perhaps the sites aren't considering the glare factor.

I just checked the options users can select on my website. Selected high contrast makes all the backgrounds black and default text white. Negative contrast still has a black background but makes all non-default text (like differently colored links) yellow. Light background setting makes all backgrounds white and all text black (which does indeed look a little too bright to me). Without any of those adjustments, most sections of the site pass anyway, but I'm still looking for a way to get the default text to be black instead of dark gray. Of course, there are also some monitor adjustments that will help.

Computer monitors in general are too bright for extended work. But I find even just wearing blue blockers (which deflect the part that's supposed to be bad for your retinas) helps me work longer without noticing the glare.

As Post-Crisis D points out, there is no one-size-fits-all approach, mostly because different vision problems may require different solutions.

I just checked the kindle app, which allows for three different backgrounds: white, black, and sepia.
10
The key is that there really is no one-size-fits-all approach.  I like colored papers for special projects or effects, but I still prefer black on white for paper.  I prefer non-glossy papers over gloss for readability.

When writing, my word processor doesn't have a lot of options without actually changing the color of the final result (or remembering to change back when finished).  There is a dark mode but I don't like dark mode.  Dark mode seems to strain my eyes more than normal mode.

My preference is yellow text on a dark blue background.  I used to write in a text editor years ago that had that as an option.  It didn't affect the document.  When you printed, the yellow text was black and the blue background was white.  The colors only affected what you saw on screen and not the actual document. Yellow lettering on blue is what I read years ago was the easiest for people to read in general when it came to viewing things on screens or projectors.  So, I tried it and got hooked.

But that software doesn't run on modern computers so isn't as much of an option anymore.  For a while, I used Atom which let me set those as my colors but, after an update, the preferences got whacked and I was never able to get them back to where they were.  And, as you may know, Atom is now history so that's another option gone.

So, when writing, it's black text on a white background.  And, for books, I still prefer the same.

As a disclaimer, I do have a coating on my prescription glasses that filter out UV/blue light and that helps with screens.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10