James D. Macdonald said:
This is not true.
Print-on-demand is a business model.
Digital printing is a printing technology.
The two are not equivalent.
Well, once again there are blanket statements being made that are misleading.
Publishers Weekly has articles on print-on-demand all the time. As publishers, we stay VERY CLOSE to all the sources to try to make sure we understand it all. We do.
According to Publishers Weekly, and the PMA, print-on-demand (also being referred to as publish-on-demand) IS a printing technology, first and foremost. The US Patent for PRINT-ON-DEMAND was granted for this printing technology. (You can't patent a business model!!)
Now, just like everything changes and evolves over the years, some terms get redefined or "enhanced" to reflect different ideas.
So I must grant you that term print-on-demand is ALSO used by some to refer to a business model. It wasn't originally so, as shown by the patent, but it evolved into that as time went on. Likewise, people came up with the newer "digital printing" terminology to try to better explain what it is.
POD isn't evil, however, it has gotten such a bad reputation primarily because of early POD printing. Early on it was only used by vanity and subsidy publishers, who put out poorly written, poorly edited, and poor quality books, which were usually not returnable. This is what caused the big bookstores to shun them.
However, it is a very different story now as many, many good publishers putting out great books, nicely edited, and good quality (and returnable) are using print-on-demand technology (as defined by the patent), or digital print technology (as defined by the state-of-the art, word-of-the-month people. The problem is that old prejudices die slowly.
For the record, as I've stated before, we HAVE had success in getting print-on-demand/digitally printed books PLACED ON SHELVES of B&N and Borders. Several of our books are on nationwide Border shelves, and several of our books are on select B&N shelves (usually done locally with local authors). Yes, we are still working on getting more accepted, but B&N has a policy where you can only submit a few books every so often for them to review and approve (because they get blasted with books from all the thousands of small publishers and they don't want to be too overwhelmed).
So I will grant that you are correct. Print-on-demand could be considered a business model, however, I think that people are using the reference to POD as a business model in the old derogatory term, that is, more like the vanity or subsidy press version. Print-on-demand is still foremost a technology. Renaming it to digital printing is fine. A rose by any other name....
As I've mentioned before, we use print-on-demand/digital-printing/whatever-new-term-dujour technology to print our books, and we also use offset printing to print some of our books, but print-on-demand is NOT a business model for us. It is simply one of the methods we use to print our books--it, in no way--defines who we are or how we operate.
What is the difference if I have 2,000 books printed on offset or printed digitally? Even much of the offset printing technology is now using digital files for originals. The quality will come out the same. With digital, you have the OPTION of not printing vast quantities of books that sit in a warehouse somewhere getting moldy because they never sell. Using print-on-demand technology is good for the publisher (not having to invest huge sums for a large print run), good for the environment (less trees have to die), and good for the industry, because demand is fulfilled as the demand occurs. There is no delay ordering a print-on-demand printed book or an offset printed book from Ingram's. This is because Lightning Source always prints up copies to sit on Ingram's shelves, just like those that a publisher has offset printed.
The discussion about terminology could go on ad nauseum with people agreeing to disagree or whatever, but the facts are still the facts. Print-on-demand was patented as a TECHNOLOGY, not a business model. That right there invalidates the argument. Redefining the term, and adding new terminology is fine too, especially if it is repeated enough so that everyone starts to say it. Regardless, it is always important for authors to really understand what it all means. Sometimes redefining the terms and adding new terminology only advances the confusion that most people have. Other times it can help clarify understanding.
We do this for a living so we understand it. We're usually privvy to a lot more "insider" information than an author. We belong to large publisher groups, who discuss things like this all the time. Just because someone somewhere writes an article, or a blog, with their redefinitions or opinions, doesn't make it the universally accepted truth in the industry. Anyone can write an article or blog and make up anything they want.
And yes *sigh*, AW is too addictive
I'm going to publish some books now.
Dan