The standard model of publishing- with its guesswork overprinting, inefficient delivery methods and massive returns- is not sustainable.
Mark, that you're a Mundania author puts you in a category of someone who is unable to determine what types of publishing is sustainable. And frankly, this argument is shopworn.
All of publishing is a crapshoot, but trade publication isn't akin to shooting darts in the dark, as you would like people to believe. Trade publishers have distribution, and this allows our sales teams to go out and gather up pre-sale purchase orders from the genre buyers of stores and libraries. Based on that number and the platform of the author, publishers have a very good idea of an appropriate print run. No one goes out and prints up hundreds of thousands of books just because they woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
As for your claims of inefficient delivery, I'm unsure as to your meaning, since trade publishers are far more efficient in their delivery because Ingram and B&T stock their books on their warehouse shelves by the hundreds and thousands - all based on demand. PODs don't get shelf space, and that is one of the chief complaints I've heard from Mundania authors; that they couldn't get their books to the stores in time for events.
The massive returns was not a result of poor planning on the publisher's part, but the box stores clearing out their shelves because of inefficient business practices. We were small enough to react a lot faster, so we weren't hit as badly with the massive returns. But a lot of presses were hit hard because, even though they saw the writing on the wall, their stock was out there. Because of the economy, everyone is being forced to work smart, which makes good sense. But to call trade publishing unsustainable is ignorant.
The reluctance by some people in publishing (certainly not everyone) to even consider more responsible, alternative methods of book creation and delivery is both curious and disheartening to anyone concerned about the environment.
This argument is also a bit shopworn. This is the classic POD mantra because it sounds really good. In truth, PODs can't get their books to market because they don't print large enough runs. If you have a successful author whose demand suddenly jumps, the publisher needs to print up a large run...and pay for it. Most PODs don't have that kind of cash, since it can easily run $10,000 for a good run. Since PODs don't have a large operating budget, they can't afford the risk of having those books returned. It would put them out of business - which we've seen many PODs do.
The only way they can afford to do a run like that is if the author buys his own stock. Then it's a guaranteed sale, which makes the POD very happy. There is too much risk in printing up too many books, and this limits the impact a POD can have on their authors. With trade publishing, the sky is the limit because they are doing promotion, printing up hundreds of ARCs to send out to trade reviewers. They discuss promotion with their authors and are constantly working in the background to support the author. They have books already sitting on the store shelves, and this enhances the author's visibility. PODs can't afford any of this.
Look, I'm not saying this is bad, but don't tell people that PODs are where it's happenin' and that trade publishing is broken. It's evolving, and that's a good thing. PODs, on the other hand, will never be able to compete on the scale trade presses do because they can't afford the risk.