While I fall somewhere in the middle of the “print is dead” and “print will never die” schools of thought, there is one book medium which completely confuses me and always will–the hardcover book.

Not necessarily the hardcover per se, but the hardcover with dust jackets. They are bulky, difficult to transport, difficult to store, and make for difficult upkeep. I successfully rip all my dust covers within minutes of purchase, then store them somewhere for “safekeeping” while I read the book, only to find it three months later, half-chewed by our resident mouse under the couch.

In today’s mobile, fast-paced, disposable, multi-tasking world, where do hardcovers fit? Reading is happening on subways, on airplanes, in small snippets while doing other things. Gen Y is the generation of multi-tasking and reading is no exception. This is not a bad thing, but books need to evolve with how people are reading them–digital or not.

Hardcovers are bulky and just annoying. I know not every publisher and every book follows the hardcover-paperback-mass market lifeline, but I think it’s a cycle worth reconsidering. How are you going to attract new readers and younger readers, readers who grew up in a culture of disposability, instant gratification and choice when the current buzzed about book is a $40.00 hardcover and they’ll need to wait six to eight months for the paperback version?

Hardcovers. I hate them. Except for a few niches–school and library markets, textbooks, large-print editions, coffee table and art books–I don’t see their point.

I’m sure there a valuable reasons to print in hardcover. The current ones I get at school–”tradition” and “the media”–are whack. Why do publishers let media outlets dictate how and when they’ll publish books? With the rise of new media, media is bigger and more diverse than ever before. You just need some resilience and some creativity.

As for tradition, I’m not saying kill the hardcover completely. I’m just saying that readers deserve choice. Choice in where they read, what they read, how they read, and the format they read it in. Book publishers shouldn’t punish readers for wanting choice.

And I cant think of a single reason we should ever use dust jackets. Ever.

Image by betizuka. Licensed through Creative Commons.

Publisher and blogger Ted Savas recently wrote about the keys to building book success. His advice is so simple and true–and it works.

Savas writes:

The fundamentals for selling any book are essentially the same. Here is the secret: talk about your book as often as you can, with as many people as you can, for as long as you can, wherever you can, even if you don’t sell a single copy when you do. Oh, and there is a follow up: REPEAT–REPEAT–REPEAT.

Nothing about mediums, about budgets, about having a well-known author or a movie deal. Nothing about “doing what you know” or “doing what works” or “reinventing the wheel.”

It’s promising advice for the future of books. The more places you talk about it, the more places people will come across it.

It’s that simple.

PS. Ted Savas‘s blog is absolutely great. I’m only sad I didn’t find it earlier!

Image by awrose. Licensed via Creative Commons.

I was reading the latest issue of Elle magazine while on vacation. It told me, that smart consumers “buy 70% from preseasons and 30% from the runways.”

That is, fashion is moving from a two-season industry to a 4,5,6 season industry–spreading out the products over the year. This ensures that the consumer is purchasing more steadily and more frequently and that the designers are receiving a more reliable and regular income.

This lead me to think about the book industry. Book publishers produce two lists–spring and fall. All titles must correspond to a single list season. Titles are then ranked on this list according to the title’s expectations and titles are selected to be showcased in the traditional media outlets. Quill & Quire even produces issues around the release of these lists.

This results in very few books getting lots dollars behind it and lots of media attention, and lots of books getting ignored and supplied with shoddy marketing tactics.

What if the publishers’ seasons were scratched? Why can’t publishers have four seasons? Or release books monthly? Or–even better–line up with other cultural (comic books, DVDs, video games, CDs) products and release products every Tuesday? (I need to point out that it was Matt who told me about this Tuesday thing. I’m not that pop culture savvy.)

The only argument against this that I can see is that catalogues are expensive to produce and this will make the catalogue production more complicated. I don’t see the downside of having two big catalogues a year and a weekly e-newsletter or blog update citing this week’s latest titles. This way, more books can get more attention from more people will have greater access to a publisher’s titles. Why should a book be number 37 on a spring list when it can be number 2 on the March list?

Open up this newsletter to consumers directly–as opposed to booksellers only–and readers will not only be more aware of what is happening in the publishing world, they’ll be more engaged. Publishers would have more time-and, more importantly, more space–to sell books.

Digital media essentially creates limitless space through which books can be marketed and sold. We no longer have to be bound by time constraints and marketing budgets. All we need is some innovation. Putting lists and catalgoues online isn’t enough. More than the medium needs to change–the entire approach to marketing and selling books needs to change.

And isn’t this what it all comes down to? Selling books?

Are there any reasons to stick to the old two-season model?

Image by Joe Gratz. Licenced via Creative Commons.