HarperCollins to try new type of book retailing policy

[GA Russell]

This Wall Street Journal excerpt is so short that there isn't much point in my summarizing it. I guess they will depend almost entirely upon good reviews in the newspapers, the Book of the Month Club and its competitors and word of mouth.

Maybe Berigan will give us his opinion.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1207236315...=googlenews_wsj

Marking a radical departure from traditional book-publishing practices, HarperCollins Publishers says it will launch a new book imprint that won't accept returns from retailers or pay advances to authors.

To be headed by veteran publishing executive Robert S. Miller, the imprint also likely won't pay for more desirable display space in the front of bookstores, a common practice. Instead, the as-yet-unnamed unit will share its profit with writers and focus much of its sales efforts on the Internet, where a growing portion of book sales are shifting.

Edited April 4, 2008 by GA Russell

[ejp626]

HarperCollins Publishers says it will launch a new book imprint that won't accept returns from retailers or pay advances to authors.

Then they may well have to make it on 100% internet sales, since I can't imagine any retailers agreeing to this. This would undermine traditional stores, and they might well decide to boycott the new imprint so that other publishers don't try it. There have been a handful of publishers that do print on demand, i.e. they don't have any physical stock laying around, but that's a very niche thing.

[seeline]

The idea is completely insane - and (to be honest) just plain stupid.

signed,

longtime (former) bookstore employee

Edited April 4, 2008 by seeline

[wordsandsounds]

And yet, I received a complimentary copy of one of their books in the mail today for evaluation and implementation in comp classes....

[Tom Storer]

And yet, I received a complimentary copy of one of their books in the mail today for evaluation and implementation in comp classes....

But was it a book from this "new imprint" or just a HarperCollins book?

It makes sense for this new imprint to discourage bookstore orders, if they plan to rely completely on Internet sales. It's the bit about "sharing profits" with writers but not paying advances that I wonder about. I'd be interested to hear the details of that.

[seeline]

Not accepting returns from bookstores is just as screwy...

[wordsandsounds]

And yet, I received a complimentary copy of one of their books in the mail today for evaluation and implementation in comp classes....

But was it a book from this "new imprint" or just a HarperCollins book?

It makes sense for this new imprint to discourage bookstore orders, if they plan to rely completely on Internet sales. It's the bit about "sharing profits" with writers but not paying advances that I wonder about. I'd be interested to hear the details of that.

I'd have to double check, already added it to the random library. Box of multiple books to a professor who no longer works with us. Publishers complain about book buyers and comped copies but their reps are often the major breakdown quite frankly.

[Alexander]

HarperCollins Publishers says it will launch a new book imprint that won't accept returns from retailers or pay advances to authors.

Then they may well have to make it on 100% internet sales, since I can't imagine any retailers agreeing to this. This would undermine traditional stores, and they might well decide to boycott the new imprint so that other publishers don't try it. There have been a handful of publishers that do print on demand, i.e. they don't have any physical stock laying around, but that's a very niche thing.

Not only that, but they will seriously undermine their ability to put books on the bestseller lists, since the sales counted are not those at the register, but the wholesale sales to book retailers. And the reason retailers buy so many copies is that they can return the (many, many) unsold copies once the book has run its course.

[seeline]

Not only that, but they will seriously undermine their ability to put books on the bestseller lists, since the sales counted are not those at the register, but the wholesale sales to book retailers. And the reason retailers buy so many copies is that they can return the (many, many) unsold copies once the book has run its course.

Exactly - I can't help wondering if this whole thing is meant as some sort of tax write-off loophole (or something). From a retail perspective, it makes no sense whatsoever.

[Tom Storer]

Not accepting returns from bookstores is just as screwy...

Not if they're not selling to bookstores. Apparently the whole point is to sell over the Internet more or less exclusively.

Not only that, but they will seriously undermine their ability to put books on the bestseller lists, since the sales counted are not those at the register, but the wholesale sales to book retailers.

Really? In France the sales counted are those at the register.

[BERIGAN]

The idea is completely insane - and (to be honest) just plain stupid.

signed,

longtime (former) bookstore employee

Agreed. From another LFBE! (Waldenbooks, Borders a for just a few months, Books a Million for me, what for you?)

The only thing that makes sense(and not much) is focusing on the web. But, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot, and several other places. Much moreso than with music purchases,(except for listening to sample, they are not easy to access at a store) people do want and do need to see and read a bit of book before they buy. If a book isn't reviewed, or isn't by someone's favorite author...how will they ever stumble upon it???

And the article said...they "won't pay for more desirable display space in the front of bookstores" Well, no push means the books will likely be spined out, never seen...and the bookstores can't get rid of them...a perfect plan.

[Tom Storer]

I repeat, they obviously don't want to sell this imprint in bookstores, so they have no need to pay for display space.

Edited April 6, 2008 by Tom Storer

[ejp626]

Not only that, but they will seriously undermine their ability to put books on the bestseller lists, since the sales counted are not those at the register, but the wholesale sales to book retailers. And the reason retailers buy so many copies is that they can return the (many, many) unsold copies once the book has run its course.

Exactly - I can't help wondering if this whole thing is meant as some sort of tax write-off loophole (or something). From a retail perspective, it makes no sense whatsoever.

I wonder if it is a way to cash in on the vanity-press movement. Let the authors essentially pay for the HarperCollins imprint but do nothing that would actually help move books and actually impede their sales in retail outlets. Again, the fact that these books will never be on best sellers lists is a major clue that this isn't going to be the wave of the future in book publishing. Perhaps one day the Amazon best seller list will matter more than the regular best-seller lists, but not currently.

[seeline]

I wonder if it is a way to cash in on the vanity-press movement. Let the authors essentially pay for the HarperCollins imprint but do nothing that would actually help move books and actually impede their sales in retail outlets.

I think you've got it! That would definitely make sense re. the "no advance" policy, for one...

Berigan, I mostly worked for independent stores, though I have done time at 2 chains as well (Brentano's and B. Dalton).

Edited April 6, 2008 by seeline