This is almost rubbish, as far as I can tell. Or B&N are telling only select people in the industry this, and not others. What they -are- saying, though, is that they don't want books above a certain price point for mid-list authors. It's the price-point that they've set, not the length, and the publishers have that much maneuver room and no more built in. The shorter the book, the more cost effective it is to publish it -- if it sells in the same numbers as the longer books.
Ah! Okay. Over at Speculations' Rumor Mill, they'd been discussing this, and someone posted that it was B&N in specific saying they wanted shorter books.
That makes a lot of sense about the price point. As a reader, I'm not likely to pick up a longer book from a midlist author, unless I've heard good things about said author or personally know hir, because it's just not worth the risk. With MMP's nearly $10, I can't afford it, especially since the majority of BFF's I've read could have benefited from serious trimming.
If it's about the price involved, it makes a lot more sense than it being, "We just want more shelf space," which is how some people put it across.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: Hmm.
Date: 2004-09-10 06:03 pm (UTC)Ah! Okay. Over at Speculations' Rumor Mill, they'd been discussing this, and someone posted that it was B&N in specific saying they wanted shorter books.
That makes a lot of sense about the price point. As a reader, I'm not likely to pick up a longer book from a midlist author, unless I've heard good things about said author or personally know hir, because it's just not worth the risk. With MMP's nearly $10, I can't afford it, especially since the majority of BFF's I've read could have benefited from serious trimming.
If it's about the price involved, it makes a lot more sense than it being, "We just want more shelf space," which is how some people put it across.