You are exactly right, Paul! Paperbacks are ideal for introducing new authors and books- they cost less upfront, and are therefore more easily accessible. I love hardbacks, but in my personal collection, I only buy them for special books- books I really love and want to keep, and authors whom I can count on to bring the goods. But for actually reading, I prefer paperbacks- they're easier to handle, lighter and less precious- you don't feel like you have to be so careful with them. If the A Dance with Dragons had been out in paperback, that would've been great- that tome is HEAVY!!!!

I don't think the publishers or author of Dance with Dragons would like to throw away the millions of dollars they've made from hardcover sales. The paperback sales will come later.

The question is: will paperback sales be sufficiently higher than the hardcover sales to make up for the lost per-copy revenue? This is business 101 -- maximizing revenue. It's no different than the Mariners trying to figure out what to charge for their seats, or any other business. It's not a question of just "quantity", it's HOW MUCH quantity.

The amount of sales for "collectors and book-as-object enthusiasts" is trivial, the equivalent of zero for almost all books. The sales of hardcover editions is, still, not.

I think shortening the period makes a lot of sense, but eliminating it entirely does not.

It's been the UK/commonwealth model: publish hardcover in limited quantity, bolstered with sizable tradepaper, & 6 months down the line release cheap paperback. Sometimes they'll do simultaneous release of all types to cater to all reader tastes. For US publishers it really should be about capitalizing on the initial marketing they do for books in those first few months... How many times have I heard, when asked about a well-hyped book, 'no, I'll wait for the paperback'. Frustrating.

Um, you stanch a wound. "Staunch" is a different word.

I agree with you, Paul. I think putting out hard-cover versions of the vast majority of books publishers put out each year don't make much sense. Yes, you have your George R.R. Martins and such, but probably about 80-85% of the books an average mainstream publisher puts out would likely sell better initially as a paperback, with limited release hard-cover versions available. I suppose my own experience is anecdotal, but here's what happens with me: I just about never buy the hardcover version of a book, EVEN if it's by an author I love...and in fact, if it looks like the publisher is holding back on the paperback release to try and get more hardcover sales (meaning, the paperback isn't coming out in less than 6 months), I'll usually just get the hard-cover version of the book out of the library, read it, and not end up buying it. And if I do buy it, I wait for the paperback.

Yes, publishers get more money for hard-covers, and they could be assumed to be more profitable, but I question that always holding true, especially when you put in the costs of processing returns for/pulping/remaindering the unsold stock of hard-covers once you put out the paperback. Doing hard-cover/paperback/mass-market for most every book you publish simply seems unsustainable and foolish.

If publishers aren't sorting out how to adjust their print runs to make paperbacks available more quickly or even initially, but instead just pumping more money into continuing to marketing hard-covers in any except their big name authors, I think they are sorely mistaken. And sometimes they will gamble wrong. But it seems smarter to me to be more agile and potentially leaner than just doing the same old, same old.

Publishers could learn a lot by listening to folks at bookstores, esp. independent bookstores; bookstores have to be and tend to be aware of what gets folks excited about a book enough to buy it in a different way than publishers & marketers. I think they are scared to give up their power, but if publishers & marketers don't start thinking more like bookstore owners or booksellers, they are going to continue to struggle with profitability.

They need to release hardcover e-books as well as paperback e-books. Restricting both formats from the bold new frontier of publishing is a foolish decision. E-books are the FUTURE and publishers need to get with the times before the hand of the free market does 'em in like it did in Borders.

Yes! I have been advocating this for years to anyone who would listen. Most people just want to read the book, they don't really care about the packaging: hence the popularity of mass market paperbacks and e-books. So put out the paperback first, then if demand warrants, print hardcovers for the die-hard fans who want it. I only buy hardcovers of books I've already read and love and want to display on my bookshelf.

This is very similar to many other formats. Comic books come out in the cheap pamphlet form first, then are bundled later into paperback or hardcover collections. CDs usually come out in a basic version, then later a deluxe version. And of course TV shows initially are shown on cable or Hulu or whatever, then later are available in nice DVD sets for people who want to own them. This is a no-brainer. Hopefully the publishing industry will realize it.

Yeah I feel like hardcovers are almost a penalty for being an "early adapter" for an author, especially someone like Neal Stephenson who writes epic doorstoppers these days. Buy the hardcover until the paperback comes out and...

Here's hoping I'm early enough in the queue at the library for his next book. Oy!

They should give you a FREE copy of the e-book when you buy the dead-tree copy. At the very least, the ebook should be cheaper than the paper version.

If publishers did that, maybe I'd actually buy my ebooks instead of downloading.

First, publishers generally make far more money on the initial hardcover release of books. Any established author will be published in hardcover first because the margin is MUCH higher. You are basically paying a premium to get the chance to read a book first.

Second, in genre fiction anyway most new authors to come out in paperback first until they get popular and then their new books start to come out in hardcover. I'm not sure about mainstream fiction though.

Third @10 I agree the price of ebooks should be less than the physical book price.

The problem with this plan: e-books *are* the cheap paperbacks, the cheapest possible. (Shipping: $0.00. Print cost: $0.00. Raw materials cost: $0.00.) Once e-book prices fall to meet paperback prices, they replace them permanently.

My entire library on a thumb drive--there's no downside for that, especially when 95% of my reading is mere paragraphs on a page, with no fancy formatting.

you know e books are great and all that but nothing beats curling up on but you look yes they should be cheaper then physical books but you have to look at it this way the people that create the e books are paid more because they are paid more any way i like my e reader but i rather have the physical copy because like all technology it is prone to fail and their not cheep to replace i rather keep the hard backs around