Penguin Random House & TikTok Team Up

[idontknowyet]

I do agree there is a market for both paper and digital content. At this point i don't see paper completely disappearing soon.

If anything, tiktok is showing there's more of a market for paperback books then indies knew about or targeted. Many of us have spent soo much time marketing to people that buy ebooks we forgot readers like the feel of an actual book. Paper is easier on the eyes than many ereaders or reading on your phone. You fall asleep quicker reading paper vs a device. Etc.

The cool thing about being indie is that we can pivot with the market and avoid putting all our eggs in one basket.

At this point any platform selling to readers needs to provide as many forms as possible for readers to maximize their sales.

[Post-Crisis D]

This is why physical media is best:

Note: Buying a title adds it to My Stuff and will generally be available to you for download or streaming, but may become unavailable due to licensing restrictions or for other limited reasons . . .

Source: https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=GESDB6EUB6DPYST4


So, you can "buy" a title on Amazon's streaming service but you still won't actually own it since your access to it can be taken away at any time.

[Crystal]

The vast majority of people simply don't care (or don't know) they don't actually own digital content.

There's space for subscription models and ownership models, as there's space for print and eBooks and audio. Different things will work for different people.

Because of POD prices and quality, we don't have as much paperback potential as trad publishers, but we do have more than many indies assume.

[Bill Hiatt]

The vast majority of people simply don't care (or don't know) they don't actually own digital content.

There's space for subscription models and ownership models, as there's space for print and eBooks and audio. Different things will work for different people.

Because of POD prices and quality, we don't have as much paperback potential as trad publishers, but we do have more than many indies assume.

With regard to paperback potential, I think a lot depends on the type of material someone writes.

I have only anecdotal evidence to offer here, but as I've said elsewhere, the bibliophiles I know virtually all prefer print to ebook--but they also tend to be skeptical of self publishing and are often more interested in literary fiction than the general public.

I noticed during the pandemic that I was getting more paperback sales, I think perhaps because some bibliophiles were running out of their usual trad published supplies and were thus more willing to experiment. But the books I sold were not, for the most part, the urban fantasies that do well in ebook sales and on KU. They were the two mythology books that are somewhat closer to the classics and to literary fiction.

That's not to say that an author couldn't sell virtually any genre in print with the right approach. But I think it is true that print is a different market and that print reader tastes may be different.

[Crystal]

I think it's more the pricing. We can only appeal to the paperback readers who don't mind shelling out $12-15+ dollars. We have no way of appealing to the 9.99 buyer or the mass market buyer.

BUT we also have lower quality paperbacks, because POD is lower quality, most of the time, so we need the segment of $12-15 buyers who don't mind a paperback that isn't as well constructed / with possible POD errors.

A lot of designs simply do not POD well (oh, the pain of a concept with a pure white or very light background without heavy texture).

With one series, I have a very high number of paperback sales (for an indie), even without any sort of TT virality, but I am still limited by the price and the royalty. And I'm limited by where I can sell the print: I can sell it on Amazon. If I go with Ingram, I can sell it a few other places. I can't sell it in Target or Barnes N Nobles or anywhere else print readers shop.

Print readers are more likely to shop in physical stores than eBook readers. (Since they don't sell eBooks in physical stores, for the most part).

[PJ Post]

I understand the examples and opinions being offered, but they're just not consistent with the data I'm looking at - over a lot of industries/markets. Many companies are pushing subscription products or trying to integrate some form of subscription service into their branding (access in lieu of ownership). The software industry even has a name for it - SaaS (software as a subscription).


All I'm saying is that there's a tremendous opportunity out there.

Yes, the data in some industries supports your position. Part of the problem is that publishing industry data doesn't, as I've pointed out. Far more people seem to prefer ownership of books to access, as the discrepancy between print and ebook sales, as well as public opinion surveys, demonstrates. If you review your own earlier posts, you'll notice that you often support your position with data from the music industry, which is a considerably different animal. More recently, you've used the software distribution model--again, a significantly different animal.

You've also asserted more than once, without direct evidence, that people prefer access to ownership. However, there's considerable data even in this thread to suggest that it's not so much that people prefer access to ownership as that they can more readily afford access than ownership in some cases. But even though affordability is also an issue with books, KU, as far as we know, still hasn't overtaken sales on Amazon. And where purchase models are concerned, people still prefer print to ebooks in spite of the fact that ebooks are cheaper and create fewer storage concerns. It's clear that the trends in publishing are not as clear as they are in the other industries you're looking at.

I'm not suggesting that access will never overtake ownership in the publishing industry. I'm just not confident that we can be sure what will happen, especially with current trends in publishing being so different from those in other entertainment mediums.

The publishing industry isn't really an access market yet, so of course the data is limited/skewed - after all, e-books are still mostly ownership. But there is data available from adjacent markets. The music industry is a very close cousin to books and has a well-documented history, so yes, I think the data is analogous.

And I'm not suggesting that all people prefer access to ownership in all cases, just that it's a trend that is gaining acceptance in more and more industries: real estate (homes and commercial spaces, such as temp offices), transportation (cars, bikes), software/apps, cell phones, journalism, music (lots and lots of music platforms), tv, film, video, gaming and yes, even books, including other literary formats such as Substack and Patreon. The KU experiment is also doing fairly well, all things considered. Online shopping went through a similar period where no one thought it would survive for various reasons - brick and mortar this and that - but they were all astonishingly wrong in their assertions. As for evidence, it's easily found through google. It's also important to note that it's not just companies leading the way here, changing lifestyles and mindsets are driving this trend as well. 

To be sure, even though the trend is, in fact, crystal clear, it's not going to change the world overnight, but it will over the next decade, but by then it'll just be the new over-saturated normal. The opportunity is over the next few years, either by launching your own concept or by jumping onto the right platform from the beginning. But to each there own.

I suggest that everyone interested should do their own research, see what makes sense for them. Maybe I'm wrong and nothing in publishing will ever change, but if I'm right...

[Bill Hiatt]

I think it's more the pricing. We can only appeal to the paperback readers who don't mind shelling out $12-15+ dollars. We have no way of appealing to the 9.99 buyer or the mass market buyer.

BUT we also have lower quality paperbacks, because POD is lower quality, most of the time, so we need the segment of $12-15 buyers who don't mind a paperback that isn't as well constructed / with possible POD errors.

A lot of designs simply do not POD well (oh, the pain of a concept with a pure white or very light background without heavy texture).

With one series, I have a very high number of paperback sales (for an indie), even without any sort of TT virality, but I am still limited by the price and the royalty. And I'm limited by where I can sell the print: I can sell it on Amazon. If I go with Ingram, I can sell it a few other places. I can't sell it in Target or Barnes N Nobles or anywhere else print readers shop.

Print readers are more likely to shop in physical stores than eBook readers. (Since they don't sell eBooks in physical stores, for the most part).

These are all good points. Price, quality, and availability all no doubt contribute to the overall picture.

On the other hand, I think people are getting a little more used to POD. Small publishers and publishers of some titles that are only sold occasionally seem to be moving to POD more and more, so it isn't just indies who are using it. (It's even more common to see even large studios going to DVDs manufactured on demand, sort of the video equivalent.) It's also true that while largescale offset print runs have much cheaper production costs, the savings aren't necessarily passed on to the consumer. I can still see some trad books in the $9.99 range, but there are also a lot of titles that are of comparable lengths to mine selling for the same amount of money or even more. (The really popular authors are often priced higher, on the probably accurate assessment that their fans will pay more.)

It's certainly true that print readers are much more likely to frequent bookstores--when they can find them. In my area, there used to three Barnes and Nobles, four Borders, on Walden Books, and numerous used book stores. Now there are a couple of used bookstores and a couple of Barnes and Nobles, one of which has lousy parking and both of which now devote more floor space to nonbook merchandise than to books. I used to love browsing in bookstores, but I haven't done it in years. The book selection at my Target is barely worth looking at. So I think that factor is going to become increasingly less significant going forward, even though I say that with some regret.

[Post-Crisis D]

It's certainly true that print readers are much more likely to frequent bookstores--when they can find them. In my area, there used to three Barnes and Nobles, four Borders, on Walden Books, and numerous used book stores. Now there are a couple of used bookstores and a couple of Barnes and Nobles, one of which has lousy parking and both of which now devote more floor space to nonbook merchandise than to books.

In my area, we used to have a number of bookstores too.  Little Professor was just up the street from me.  I think we might have had a Walden Books and maybe a Borders.  I think there was a Half Price Books too.  There used to be a comic book store.  I think there were some used book stores too.  Now there's just Barnes & Noble and the books at Walmart or Target.