Tracking Amazon Kindle Top 100 Paid Ebook by genre[Big 5 Pub/ Amazon Pub/ small-medium Pub/self-pub]

Status
Not open for further replies.

aruna

On a wing and a prayer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
12,862
Reaction score
2,846
Location
A Small Town in Germany
Website
www.sharonmaas.co.uk
The problem is there are some... outspoken self-pub authors who have been using these data-sets to promote erroneous conclusions (self-pub is equally profitable/successful as trade pub being the key point argued). And that is just not the case.

Yes, I know. And I'd like to point out that a) I am not self-published; I fall into an intriguing gap between the Big 5 publishers and self-publishers, being with a small independent publisher that starts with digital release. And I truly disdain the rah-rah-only-way-is- self-publishing cheerleading.

b) I believe in giving credit where credit is due.
My publishing experience this time around, including being a ranked player on amazon.co.uk, is far more satisfactory than being published with a Big 6 ever was. The Amazon rankings and lists make the process a lot of fun, and I think their algorithm system is brilliant -- once your book starts to gain traction it practically sells itself. If it's a good book you truly don't need any other promotion. Great, as I am hopeless at self-promotion. I also hate all kinds of number-crunching, analyzing, speculating, breaking my brain over business matters. I'm very laid back: like to read, write and then get my money. But I do like seeing my book on a good list. (Yes -- it has to be a good list. There are also bad lists which are indeed meaningless.)
 

bearilou

DenturePunk writer
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
6,004
Reaction score
1,233
Location
yawping barbarically over the roofs of the world
The problem is there are some... outspoken self-pub authors who have been using these data-sets to promote erroneous conclusions (self-pub is equally profitable/successful as trade pub being the key point argued). And that is just not the case.

Agreed. They are taking specific instances where that may be the case and applying that as the rule for all self-publishers across the board.

Specific is specific but shouldn't be used to extrapolate to the general.
 

RedWombat

Runs With Scissors
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
1,197
Reaction score
327
Location
North Carolina
Website
www.ursulavernon.com
I think once it's clear that you're discussing how the list can help an author get noticed, and RW and I were focusing on broader analysis, the confusion we seem to have been having is dissipated. (Unless RW meant something else, and am misunderstanding.)

Nope, sounds about right...
 

J. Tanner

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
1,245
Reaction score
99
Location
San Francisco bay area
Website
authorjtanner.wordpress.com
I don't think the example was a straw man.

For clarity the straw man I was referring included this one could very easily go "Oh, well, kid books are kid books, whatever" and this might make it look like a totally viable option, particularly if I'm engaging in some wishful number inflation in my head. Can we agree that this figment capable of making these decisions has zero business sense and was doomed to fail regardless? This is an example of someone who makes bad decisions--not of data analysis that misleads. (And it's clear RedWombat didn't set up up intentionally. It's just a victim of oversimplification.)

So yes, it might be better than nothing, but how much better? I think that's a reasonable question.

Agreed. (And I'd say significantly better.)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
11,042
Reaction score
841
Location
Second star on the right and on 'til morning.
Website
atsiko.wordpress.com
For clarity the straw man I was referring included this one could very easily go "Oh, well, kid books are kid books, whatever" and this might make it look like a totally viable option, particularly if I'm engaging in some wishful number inflation in my head. Can we agree that this figment capable of making these decisions has zero business sense and was doomed to fail regardless? This is an example of someone who makes bad decisions--not of data analysis that misleads. (And it's clear RedWombat didn't set up up intentionally. It's just a victim of oversimplification.)

That makes a lot more sense. Thanks for clarifying.


Agreed. (And I'd say significantly better.)

It could be. I'd prefer hard data on that, though.
 

shelleyo

Just another face in a red jumpsuit
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
2,126
Reaction score
342
I make a living as a self-published author, and I don't even understand the rather evangelical stance some people have about it.

But I do think the data in the OP, and the data in things like the Author Earnings Report, is useful for some people. It's not for me. I already self-publish, I already write in the genres that interest me, and so I'm unlikely to change based on percentages and numbers. I don't think it's useful for someone who will never go the SP route but prefers trade. That person probably doesn't care how things break down, nor should she, really. I'm not sure why someone like that would even read a thread like this, or check out the data in the first place.

It's useful for people exploring their options, though. It's good to see that the romance bestsellers on Amazon are full of self-published work if you're planning on publishing romance and considering SP. It might help affect a decision to go trade or self. It's good to see that trade titles make up the bulk of the bestselling literary novels for the same reason. It can offer encouragement or a gentle warning, all depending on the situation.
 

RedWombat

Runs With Scissors
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
1,197
Reaction score
327
Location
North Carolina
Website
www.ursulavernon.com
For clarity the straw man I was referring included this one could very easily go "Oh, well, kid books are kid books, whatever" and this might make it look like a totally viable option, particularly if I'm engaging in some wishful number inflation in my head. Can we agree that this figment capable of making these decisions has zero business sense and was doomed to fail regardless? This is an example of someone who makes bad decisions--not of data analysis that misleads. (And it's clear RedWombat didn't set up up intentionally. It's just a victim of oversimplification.)

Oh....lord. I WISH that were a carefully constructed straw man. Unfortunately, the number of people who get the notion that YA and middle grade are totally almost the same and you can jump the gap with ease just by changing the age of the protagonist and not doing any other rewriting...

Well, anyway, that's another thread (and another pet peeve!) entirely.

But yes. Poor business decisions, doomed to failure. Definitely.
 

J. Tanner

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
1,245
Reaction score
99
Location
San Francisco bay area
Website
authorjtanner.wordpress.com
Ha. Yeah. These same folks long ago decided to self-pub because Amanda Hocking got rich, or trade pub because James Patterson got crazy richer than Amanda Hocking. There was no hope for them anyway, and AW caters to a more thoughtful crowd. :)
 

aruna

On a wing and a prayer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
12,862
Reaction score
2,846
Location
A Small Town in Germany
Website
www.sharonmaas.co.uk
It could be. I'd prefer hard data on that, though.

Well -- I did offer some hard data. Three months on the Women's Literary Fiction list at position 5 - 10 is the equivalent of around 7000 books sold. From that I can extrapolate that book in the positions 1 through five (for instance, two novels by Diane Chamberlain which have been consistently "up there" all this time, sometimes in the number one position) sell significantly more, and those in positions lower than 20 probably sell significantly less.

That provides me with a nice little extra income. I can't live from it, but I don't need to. It's still nice.

And it all depends which list. If you are in a list of "romantic dinosaurs in Victorian England" then I would say it s probably meaningless to be number one.

The biggest challenge for all authors, whether self or trade published, is visibility. The amazon lists help make books visible which otherwise would be lost in a huge pile of sludge, invisible to the casual browser. This way, you are right out there, cover out, visible to anyone passing by.
 
Last edited:

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman
Super Moderator
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
22,454
Reaction score
4,956
Location
In chaos
I'd prefer hard data on that, though.

Well -- I did offer some hard data.

One book's sales is interesting, but it's not hard data. Hard data would include the sales figures for a lot of writers, which would enable us to extrapolate averages and so on. You might have sales which are exceptionally low or high, and without other writers' sales to compare yours to, we just don't know.

Three months on the Women's Literary Fiction list at position 5 - 10 is the equivalent of around 7000 books sold. From that I can extrapolate that book in the positions 1 through five (for instance, two novels by Diane Chamberlain which have been consistently "up there" all this time, sometimes in the number one position) sell significantly more, and those in positions lower than 20 probably sell significantly less.

It's good that you're looking at your sales across a broader time-period: but as I said before, your sales aren't necessarily typical of everyone else's and to make a meaningful interpretation we need more figures.

For example, you sold 7,000 copies of your book in three months (well done, by the way), and that got you in the top ten for those three months: but other genres might require lower or higher sales to achieve those positions; and at other times of year, when bookselling is slower, you might well be able to get into the top ten with much lower sales.
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
11,042
Reaction score
841
Location
Second star on the right and on 'til morning.
Website
atsiko.wordpress.com
I make a living as a self-published author, and I don't even understand the rather evangelical stance some people have about it.

But I do think the data in the OP, and the data in things like the Author Earnings Report, is useful for some people. It's not for me. I already self-publish, I already write in the genres that interest me, and so I'm unlikely to change based on percentages and numbers. I don't think it's useful for someone who will never go the SP route but prefers trade. That person probably doesn't care how things break down, nor should she, really. I'm not sure why someone like that would even read a thread like this, or check out the data in the first place.

I have no current plans to self-publish. I'd much prefer to be trade published if I can swing it. But I find the data both useful and interesting. Just looking at this forum, it's obvious that many trade and self published authors talk to each other. Even amicably on occasion. And knowing this data can make those conversations a lot simpler and more useful. Plus numbers and the reality they represent are just fun to know about.(That might be a personal feeling, just for me.)

Well -- I did offer some hard data. Three months on the Women's Literary Fiction list at position 5 - 10 is the equivalent of around 7000 books sold. From that I can extrapolate that book in the positions 1 through five (for instance, two novels by Diane Chamberlain which have been consistently "up there" all this time, sometimes in the number one position) sell significantly more, and those in positions lower than 20 probably sell significantly less.

That provides me with a nice little extra income. I can't live from it, but I don't need to. It's still nice.

And it all depends which list. If you are in a list of "romantic dinosaurs in Victorian England" then I would say it s probably meaningless to be number one.

The biggest challenge for all authors, whether self or trade published, is visibility. The amazon lists help make books visible which otherwise would be lost in a huge pile of sludge, invisible to the casual browser. This way, you are right out there, cover out, visible to anyone passing by.

One book's sales is interesting, but it's not hard data. Hard data would include the sales figures for a lot of writers, which would enable us to extrapolate averages and so on. You might have sales which are exceptionally low or high, and without other writers' sales to compare yours to, we just don't know.

It's good that you're looking at your sales across a broader time-period: but as I said before, your sales aren't necessarily typical of everyone else's and to make a meaningful interpretation we need more figures.

For example, you sold 7,000 copies of your book in three months (well done, by the way), and that got you in the top ten for those three months: but other genres might require lower or higher sales to achieve those positions; and at other times of year, when bookselling is slower, you might well be able to get into the top ten with much lower sales.


That is absolutely hard data. Or rather, it's a hard data point. I'm glad you're doing so well, and I really appreciate you being willing to share your sales data with us. But OldHack is right that we need more data than that. Preferably, though it will never happen because Amazon, we would be able to look at all the data that goes into those lists, and the proprietary algorithms behind them. Because from what Amazon has revealed, there are several variable determining position on the lists, including recent spikes in sales, current total sales, but also a few other things.
 

Kylabelle

unaccounted for
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
26,200
Reaction score
4,015
OH, I completely agree with your points, and what you're expressing is, I believe, one of the main sources of frustration with attempts to interpret such lists.

But I read aruna's posts as making a different point entirely, and which is not contradictory: Regardless of whether an author can extrapolate anything useful about sales potential from numbers on such lists, actually being on such a list helps an individual's visibility and hence, sales. And further that even the seeming miscategorization of some books can be a sales support though it plays havoc with statistical interpretation of the data!

I completely agree, though, that working backward from such numbers to make any kind of a case for how well an individual writer may do following any specific path to publication is a meaningless exercise.
 

aruna

On a wing and a prayer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
12,862
Reaction score
2,846
Location
A Small Town in Germany
Website
www.sharonmaas.co.uk
For example, you sold 7,000 copies of your book in three months (well done, by the way), and that got you in the top ten for those three months: but other genres might require lower or higher sales to achieve those positions; and at other times of year, when bookselling is slower, you might well be able to get into the top ten with much lower sales.

Imo it's easy to extrapolate; just look at the rankings. My rankings have been consistently lower that 1000; taking that as a benchmark,it should make sense that books with yet lower rankings do better, and the closer we come to the number 1 spot, the better. This in the UK; in the US the rankings would have different numbers attached to them.

I agree that it's useless trying to interpret such figures as somehow indicative of how any individual book would sell. There are a whole lot of other criteria involved, not to mention a little bit of luck/magic. I don't believe in too much number crunching. Just write the best book you can, put it up there, and let nature plus effort take its course.

I simply dispute the statement that lists are "meaningless". They aren't. You can tell approximately how good or how badly a book is selling by the rankings/lists, even if you can't get exact sales figures, and as I said before, being on such a list creates enormous visiblity -- the most important thing for any author with a book out there. That's what I call meaningful.

In my experience, however, even better than the category lists are the Also Bought lists -- excellent for promotion.
 
Last edited:

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman
Super Moderator
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
22,454
Reaction score
4,956
Location
In chaos
I agree with both Kylabelle and Aruna's latest posts.

I love that we have so many thoughtful, clever, helpful people here at AW.
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
11,042
Reaction score
841
Location
Second star on the right and on 'til morning.
Website
atsiko.wordpress.com
Imo it's easy to extrapolate; just look at the rankings. My rankings have been consistently lower that 1000; taking that as a benchmark,it should make sense that books with yet lower rankings do better, and the closer we come to the number 1 spot, the better. This in the UK; in the US the rankings would have different numbers attached to them.

I agree that it's useless trying to interpret such figures as somehow indicative of how any individual book would sell. There are a whole lot of other criteria involved, not to mention a little bit of luck/magic. I don't believe in too much number crunching. Just write the best book you can, put it up there, and let nature plus effort take its course.

I simply dispute the statement that lists are "meaningless". They aren't. You can tell approximately how good or how badly a book is selling by the rankings/lists, even if you can't get exact sales figures, and as I said before, being on such a list creates enormous visibility -- the most important thing for any author with a book out there. That's what I call meaningful.

In my experience, however, even better than the category lists are the Also Bought lists -- excellent for promotion.



That's a good perspective on it, I guess. I think it's clear by now that different people in this thread have different goals in looking at the data. Which is great, it gives us several different ways to look at the data.


I also really appreciate how we usually manage to keep it civil on AW. That's why I like it here.
 

AdamNeymars

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2014
Messages
67
Reaction score
2
Correlation is not causation.

Not according to Harlequin earnings report which stated that self-publishing is having a direct impact:

http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2014/lessons-publishers-can-learn-from-harlequins-annual-results/
“The proliferation of less expensive, and free, self-published works could negatively impact Harlequin’s revenues in the future.”

“The low cost of digitization has also led to a proliferation in the number of digital titles available and increased competition.”

“The significant growth of the digital book market in recent years has resulted in a contraction of the retail print market.”

“Online retailers have also entered into the book publishing business creating additional competition.”
 

amergina

Pittsburgh Strong
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
15,599
Reaction score
2,471
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Website
www.annazabo.com
Only one of those quotes is specifically about self publishing.

While I'm sure it has had an impact, I would also not discount the rise of publishers like Entangled, which specifically entered the category romance market, a market that was really only being served by Harlequin and was their bread and butter.

Digital books aren't all self published.
 

Sheryl Nantus

Holding out for a Superhero...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,196
Reaction score
1,634
Age
59
Location
Brownsville, Pennsylvania. Or New Babbage, Second
Website
www.sherylnantus.com
Only one of those quotes is specifically about self publishing.

While I'm sure it has had an impact, I would also not discount the rise of publishers like Entangled, which specifically entered the category romance market, a market that was really only being served by Harlequin and was their bread and butter.

Digital books aren't all self published.

Don't confuse the issue with facts.

;)
 

RedWombat

Runs With Scissors
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
1,197
Reaction score
327
Location
North Carolina
Website
www.ursulavernon.com
“The proliferation of less expensive, and free, self-published works could negatively impact Harlequin’s revenues in the future.”

(Italics mine)

This would seem to indicate that Harlequin does not feel they are having an impact at the present moment, if I am reading aright...
 

AdamNeymars

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2014
Messages
67
Reaction score
2
“The proliferation of less expensive, and free, self-published works could negatively impact Harlequin’s revenues in the future.”

(Italics mine)

This would seem to indicate that Harlequin does not feel they are having an impact at the present moment, if I am reading aright...

It would be surprising if self-published works have no impact on Harlequin in the past few years. Considering that Harlequin blamed lower results on book pricing and self-publishing in its 2013 earnings.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremygreenfield/2014/03/06/love-affair-with-digital-over-for-romance-publisher-harlequin/

While most of the world’s largest publishers are showing record revenues and profits seven years after the launch of the Kindle changed everything for the industry, Harlequin, the world’s largest romance publisher, is struggling.
According to industry website Publishers Lunch, Harlequin has seen four straight years of sales declines:

2013: C$398 million ($362 million U.S.)
2012: $426.5 million
2011: $459 million
2010: $468 million
2009: $493 million

In its 2013 full-yeararnings report, the company blamed its lower results on book pricing and self-publishing.
 

JournoWriter

Just the facts, please
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
591
Reaction score
38
No, that's not what Harlequin said.

Adam:

You might want to pick a different example for your SP-is-hurting-trade-publishers argument. The Harlequin report you cite does not say what you claim it does. The only mention of self-publishing in the actual report - not the reports about the report that you cited - comes in boilerplate text on forward-looking statements that lists almost every factor that could potentially affect the business. That is not a statement that the rise of SP hurt revenues.

The relevant boilerplate (http://www.torstar.com/images/file/2013/Q4 2013 Press Release Final v3.pdf):

"By their very nature, forward-looking statements require management to make assumptions and are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties. There is a significant risk that predictions, forecasts, conclusions or projections will not prove to be accurate, that management’s assumptions may not be accurate and that actual results, performance or achievements may differ significantly from such predictions, forecasts, conclusions or projections expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. We caution readers not to place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements in this press release as a number of factors could cause actual future results, conditions, actions or events to differ materially from the targets, outlooks, expectations, goals, estimates or intentions expressed in the forward-looking statements.

"These factors include, but are not limited to: the Company’s ability to operate in highly competitive industries; the Company’s ability to compete with other newspapers and other forms of media and media platforms; the Company’s ability to attract and retain advertisers; the Company’s ability to maintain adequate circulation/subscription levels; the Company’s ability to attract and retain readers; the Company’s ability to retain and grow its digital audience and profitably develop its digital businesses; general economic conditions in the principal markets in which the Company operates; the Company’s ability to compete with book publishers, self-publishing and other providers of entertainment; the trend towards digital books and the Company’s ability to distribute its books through the changing distribution landscape; the popularity of its authors and its ability to retain popular authors; the contraction and concentration of the wholesale and retail print channels; the Company’s ability to accurately estimate the rate of book returns through the wholesale and retail channels; the decline of the Company’s direct-to- consumer book publishing operations; labour disruptions; the Company’s ability to reduce costs; loss of reputation; newsprint costs; foreign operations and foreign exchange fluctuations; credit risk; restrictions imposed by existing credit facilities, debt financing and availability of capital; changes in pension fund obligations; reliance on its printing operations; reliance on technology and information systems;; interest rates; availability of insurance; litigation; environmental, privacy, anti-spam, communications and e-commerce laws and regulations applicable generally to the Company’s businesses; dependence on key personnel; dependence on third party suppliers and service providers; intellectual property rights; results of impairment tests; risks related to business development and acquisition integration; product revenue and product liability; control of Torstar by the Voting Trust; and uncertainties associated with critical accounting estimates."
 
Last edited:

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman
Super Moderator
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
22,454
Reaction score
4,956
Location
In chaos
JournoWriter, that's a perfect example of why we should look for original sources when researching facts, rather than rely on others' reportings of those original sources. Thank you.
 

AdamNeymars

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2014
Messages
67
Reaction score
2
Adam:

You might want to pick a different example for your SP-is-hurting-trade-publishers argument. The Harlequin report you cite does not say what you claim it does. The only mention of self-publishing in the actual report - not the reports about the report that you cited - comes in boilerplate text on forward-looking statements that lists almost every factor that could potentially affect the business. That is not a statement that the rise of SP hurt revenues.

The relevant boilerplate (http://www.torstar.com/images/file/2013/Q4 2013 Press Release Final v3.pdf):

"By their very nature, forward-looking statements require management to make assumptions and are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties. There is a significant risk that predictions, forecasts, conclusions or projections will not prove to be accurate, that management’s assumptions may not be accurate and that actual results, performance or achievements may differ significantly from such predictions, forecasts, conclusions or projections expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. We caution readers not to place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements in this press release as a number of factors could cause actual future results, conditions, actions or events to differ materially from the targets, outlooks, expectations, goals, estimates or intentions expressed in the forward-looking statements.

"These factors include, but are not limited to: the Company’s ability to operate in highly competitive industries; the Company’s ability to compete with other newspapers and other forms of media and media platforms; the Company’s ability to attract and retain advertisers; the Company’s ability to maintain adequate circulation/subscription levels; the Company’s ability to attract and retain readers; the Company’s ability to retain and grow its digital audience and profitably develop its digital businesses; general economic conditions in the principal markets in which the Company operates; the Company’s ability to compete with book publishers, self-publishing and other providers of entertainment; the trend towards digital books and the Company’s ability to distribute its books through the changing distribution landscape; the popularity of its authors and its ability to retain popular authors; the contraction and concentration of the wholesale and retail print channels; the Company’s ability to accurately estimate the rate of book returns through the wholesale and retail channels; the decline of the Company’s direct-to- consumer book publishing operations; labour disruptions; the Company’s ability to reduce costs; loss of reputation; newsprint costs; foreign operations and foreign exchange fluctuations; credit risk; restrictions imposed by existing credit facilities, debt financing and availability of capital; changes in pension fund obligations; reliance on its printing operations; reliance on technology and information systems;; interest rates; availability of insurance; litigation; environmental, privacy, anti-spam, communications and e-commerce laws and regulations applicable generally to the Company’s businesses; dependence on key personnel; dependence on third party suppliers and service providers; intellectual property rights; results of impairment tests; risks related to business development and acquisition integration; product revenue and product liability; control of Torstar by the Voting Trust; and uncertainties associated with critical accounting estimates."

Then the Forbes article is wrong. But this Torstar report does mention the risk of self-publishing toward Harlequin. There are several reasons why Harlequin revenue have gone down 20% in the last few years. I believe that self-publishing is one of the reasons. Self-publishing taking up 50% of the top 100 Romance ebook on Amazon will have negative effect on other romance publishers. Less market share for the like of Harlequin, Kensington etc...

http://www.torstar.com/images/file/2013/2013MDA 030414 final v2.pdf

A number of digital-only publishers and other digital distribution models are emerging and authors have greater opportunities to self-publish, often at lower prices than traditional publishers. The proliferation of less expensive, and free, self-published works could negatively impact Harlequin's revenues in the future."
 

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman
Super Moderator
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
22,454
Reaction score
4,956
Location
In chaos
Then the Forbes article is wrong. But this Torstar report does mention the risk of self-publishing toward Harlequin. There are several reasons why Harlequin revenue have gone down 20% in the last few years. I believe that self-publishing is one of the reasons. Self-publishing taking up 50% of the top 100 Romance ebook on Amazon will have negative effect on other romance publishers. Less market share for the like of Harlequin, Kensington etc...

http://www.torstar.com/images/file/2013/2013MDA 030414 final v2.pdf

When I read that Forbes article this is the thing that jumped out at me:

“Pricing is the biggest issue with traditional publishing right now,” Harlequin CEO Craig Swinwood told me, going on to describing just how book discounting has negatively affected the publisher.


Harlequin has a large portion of its business in what are known as mass market paperback books, books that are usually less expensive to produce and purchase. They are simple, no-frills books. Because of aggressive discounting at large online retailers many hardcover titles are being sold at similar or sometimes lower prices than the paperbacks, creating an unfavorable comparison for the mass market books.

I've not read it, or its sources, in proper detail: but it seems to me to be saying that heavy discounting--probably by Amazon--is what's led to Harlequin's reduction in turnover.

I'd be interested to know what the unit sales were for the same periods of time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.