U.S.S. TITAN -- THE WINNER!
- Thread starter Marco Palmieri
- Start date
Very well then...
Do you think that the "Incredible Cross-section" books done for Star Wars were inexpensive? How about the "Natural History of Skull Island" book? Were these cheap to produce? What about all the other "specialty" books that can be found in any major bookstore? Are all of those so much easier to produce than a Trek book, for some odd reason? EVERY book costs money to produce. Every glossy, large-format book filled with extensive text, diagrams, images, etc, costs a lot to produce. Or do you think that non-Trek books somehow just write and produce themselves?
What is is, specifically, about Trek books that makes them "money losers?"
The "star charts" book was nicely done... but it's a niche-market item within a niche market within a niche market. You say that it's very useful to "pretty much every author I know." Well, if the purpose of this was to appeal to authors, the book was a success... and I'm sure every person in that particular target market owns at least one copy. Of course, that's a VERY small target market.
How many normal people... just ordinary fans, I mean... bought it? The majority didn't... not because of the quality of worksmanship, but because it's not really all that interesting as a read!
Still, I'm sure it sold every bit as well as the "Pictorial Atlas of Middle Earth" from a couple of years ago... also a niche product within a niche market within a niche market. Expecting tens of millions of sales for such a product is unreasonable, of course. So, why was that particular book not considered a failure? And "star charts" was, according to what's being said here.. again, why?
Either
(1) there is no market for Star Trek books, regardless of quality...
OR,
(2) there is a market for Star Trek books, provided that they are of sufficiently good quality (but that hasn't been the case... and quality involves not just worksmanship but also being something that's actually INTERESTING TO READ, mind you)...
OR,
(3) There is a market for Star Trek books, but it's untenable to publish them because of the inordinately large "cut" being taken by the owner of the franchise.
I reject #1 outright. Maybe you believe that #1 is really the case, though... do you?
I see reality as being mainly #2... but I don't reject the possibility that #3 is a player in this as well. Trek has been a primary money-maker for Paramount for years... I doubt that they've reduced the franchising fees even though the interest has, according to what's being said here, waned a bit recently. Good business sense would require them to do so, but good business sense isn't really all that common of a commodity.
Again, you can complain about someone who's "not in publishing" and therefore can't possibly get the amazing, intricate, complex-beyond-words, far-beyond-the-comprehension-of-mere-mortal-man rules of publishing, needing to just STFU... but as of yet I have not heard you give an alternative explanation... except for my queries in that regard basically being met with what amounts to nothing more than saying "STFU."
If I'm wrong... what IS the reason? Why aren't these selling? Do you have a positive thought to contribute to the conversation? Is your position, as someone working in Trek publishing, ACTUALLY that "interest in Trek is simply dead?" Or do you simply have no position except "STFU?"
Sales of tie-in books are driven to a major extent by what's on screen. The reason why the Star Wars books have sold well lately, and why Lord of the Rings books sold well in recent years, and why King Kong books sold well late last year was because they were tied into a product that was greatly in the minds of the mass audience. I can guarantee that, unless there's a new Star Wars product on screen in the interim, you won't be seeing any SW references on the shelf ten years from now.
The onscreen presence of Star Trek is nonexistent at the moment, and what there was recently was the first of the spinoff shows to actually fail in the marketplace, and a movie that tanked at the box office. The reasons for that can be debated, but are irrelevant to the point, which is that the original product is, at the moment, in a severe downphase.
Star Trek isn't dead at all. In fact, Star Trek is remarkably healthy for a franchise that has no new product to provide, and whose most recent product hasn't been well received. The fact that the tie-in novel line is still producing over a dozen books a year -- which is as aggressive as any tie-in line, and more aggressive than the vast majority of them -- is nothing short of amazing. The only other franchise I can think of that has survived without a main product to drive it is Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which also still has a novel line going. But most tie-ins don't survive the death of the original product, and it's a testament to Star Trek's staying power that any books are viable at this stage of the game. (To give a counterexample, look at Xena. It was the most popular TV show on the planet when it was on the air, and had merchandising up the kazoo. Now? Nothing. No books, no action figures, no games, no comic books, not a damn thing, and there'd be no interest if anyone tried.)
Your three hypotheticals aren't even close to the only possibilities. #3 isn't the case, BTW, as CBS/Paramount's cut is commensurate with other licensors' cuts, and less than some. As for #2, there is a market for Trek books, but it's not big enough to support an expensive product of the type you are describing. It is big enough to support a novel line, but novels are a lot cheaper to produce than anything that has glossy paper and a large chunk of editorial content that needs the level of fact-checking and verification of a reference work.
There's another factor at work here, and that's the fact that so many reference works already exist. Each revision of the Encyclopedia sold less than the previous version, because revisions of most reference works tend to sell less than the originals, as not everyone who buys the first is willing to shell out for another (especially at the Encyclopedia's price point). However, as there's more information, the book is more expensive to produce. That would be the case of most revisions of existing material, which means new material -- and there isn't a lot out there that hasn't already been done, even if it's been done in a manner that is, now, outdated some.
And I hope you're happy, as I've spent the time writing this post that should've been spent working on Q&A (a fact I probably shouldn't admit in a thread that my editor is likely to read...).
The onscreen presence of Star Trek is nonexistent at the moment, and what there was recently was the first of the spinoff shows to actually fail in the marketplace, and a movie that tanked at the box office. The reasons for that can be debated, but are irrelevant to the point, which is that the original product is, at the moment, in a severe downphase.
Star Trek isn't dead at all. In fact, Star Trek is remarkably healthy for a franchise that has no new product to provide, and whose most recent product hasn't been well received. The fact that the tie-in novel line is still producing over a dozen books a year -- which is as aggressive as any tie-in line, and more aggressive than the vast majority of them -- is nothing short of amazing. The only other franchise I can think of that has survived without a main product to drive it is Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which also still has a novel line going. But most tie-ins don't survive the death of the original product, and it's a testament to Star Trek's staying power that any books are viable at this stage of the game. (To give a counterexample, look at Xena. It was the most popular TV show on the planet when it was on the air, and had merchandising up the kazoo. Now? Nothing. No books, no action figures, no games, no comic books, not a damn thing, and there'd be no interest if anyone tried.)
Your three hypotheticals aren't even close to the only possibilities. #3 isn't the case, BTW, as CBS/Paramount's cut is commensurate with other licensors' cuts, and less than some. As for #2, there is a market for Trek books, but it's not big enough to support an expensive product of the type you are describing. It is big enough to support a novel line, but novels are a lot cheaper to produce than anything that has glossy paper and a large chunk of editorial content that needs the level of fact-checking and verification of a reference work.
There's another factor at work here, and that's the fact that so many reference works already exist. Each revision of the Encyclopedia sold less than the previous version, because revisions of most reference works tend to sell less than the originals, as not everyone who buys the first is willing to shell out for another (especially at the Encyclopedia's price point). However, as there's more information, the book is more expensive to produce. That would be the case of most revisions of existing material, which means new material -- and there isn't a lot out there that hasn't already been done, even if it's been done in a manner that is, now, outdated some.
And I hope you're happy, as I've spent the time writing this post that should've been spent working on Q&A (a fact I probably shouldn't admit in a thread that my editor is likely to read...).
That's a spurious argument. Just because Keith happened to mention that it's useful to authors doesn't mean he was saying it was targeted exclusively at them. You're selectively ignoring the parts of his argument that don't support yours.
Although I have used Star Charts as an author, I bought it because I was a fan. And if you look up any old Star Charts discussion thread on this board or in Trek Tech, you'll find comments from plenty of non-authors who bought the book.
Ohh, bull. KRAD's given you plenty of alternative explanations; you're just not listening. And you're making up straw-man BS like this to reject any statement that doesn't conform to your preconceptions rather than actually being honest and fair enough to LISTEN to differing interpretations and consider that maybe, just maybe, you don't know more about the field than the people who actually work in it.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
I personally wouldn't spend a dime on it, but a 700+ page ST:TMP technical codex of original text by Jon Povill & Jesco von Puttkamer along with artwork by Richard Taylor & Andrew Probert to expand a wonderfully unique MediaSF universe we only got the barest glimpse of in 1979... Well, I'd be willing to blow out all of my credit cards to buy six copies at that price.
TGT
Ah... but that's not really necessarily an accurate assessment. You're right, nobody's going to pay that much for a hobbyist book.
But once again, I go back to the late 70s to late 80s. There was a HUGE flood of fan-produced work, some of which was utter garbage but some of which was better (IMHO) than anything published before, or after, in "official" channels. These books were available for reasonable prices (in adjusted dollars, pretty much on-part with what you'd have seen from the "official channels" books at any point).
Yet these books were not published as "huge loss-leaders." The guys who made them didn't get rich off of them by any means, but they also didn't lose their shirts either. The pricing was done at "cost of publishing."
The main issue was that these guys weren't "publishing professionals." The work was a hobby for them, and the sale of the works was done simply to recoupe the costs that they incurred.
My point? OK, fine, these were of ... ahem... questionable legality (ie, by and large no licencing fees were paid to Paramount!). But in terms of PUBLISHING COST, the only difference between the "official" and "fannish" publications I'm referring to here are (1) licencing fees, and (2) writer/artist pay.
Now, suppose that someone created a "Ships of the Starfleet" quality work, on their own time, for the Luna-class. With electronic publishing methodology and all the drawing software that's available today for pennies on the dollar compared to what USED to be the case, for someone (say, Sean or one of his buddies) to do that would be entirely reasonable. They could do it on-spec for basically what any other writer might receive.
If... IF... a work of that nature were produced, I still honestly believe that it would sell well enough to justify paying the guys who did the work at scale, at the very least.
Why? Because there's still a large market of Star Trek fans. The fan base does not diminish significantly due to the lack of "current" shows on the air. If that were the case... Star Trek would have been dead back in 1969, wouldn't it? Trek fans are, or at least historically HAVE been, a bit more dedicated to their hobby than the average TV show audience is for some other show. The 70s and 80s demonstrated that well enough.
And I really believe that new material... really NEW material, and also QUALITY material... will have the same appeal to the people who are likely to buy such books today as it would have when there were two shows, AND simultaneous movies, all out at once.
Again... the point is that the stuff has to be new, interesting, and well-executed.
Keith makes a logical, but I think flawed, argument about why the Star Wars books sell well. The flaw... attributes the sales of those to the fact that the movies prequels have been out recently. But... the Star Wars book renaissance PRECEDED the "prequel" movies. Dark Empire, the Thrawn Triology, etc, etc... because they were (1) new and different, and (2) well-executed.. this is what explains why they did well. It's arguable that without those, the "prequel" movies would never have gotten green-lighted in the first place!
The "casual moviegoer" is not likely to buy the "incredible cross-sections" books, any more than they are likely to buy "Star Trek Star Charts." These are things that appeal almost entirely to the "hard-core" fans. People (like those of us here) who try to figure out how "warp drive" might actually WORK...
The God Thing said:
I personally wouldn't spend a dime on it, but a 700+ page ST:TMP technical codex of original text by Jon Povill & Jesco von Puttkamer along with artwork by Richard Taylor & Andrew Probert to expand a wonderfully unique MediaSF universe we only got the barest glimpse of in 1979... Well, I'd be willing to blow out all of my credit cards to buy six copies at that price.
TGT
Which gives the book an audience of one.
If it costs the publisher over $18,000 then to get the book put together and published (which at that price, and in color, it would), then where's the incentive for the publisher to do it?
*beats head against wall*
Yes, the novels did well. But you didn't see a ton of Star Wars reference material until there were movies in the theatres.
Novels are cheap and easy to produce. Your hypothetical about the Titan coffee-table tech book leaves out one major part of the production process which is, well, the production process. The printing of glossy, full-color pages is very expensive, and where a big chunk of the high price of glossy, full-color books goes toward paying.
The fans who like technical schematic type books are, to use a phrase you yourself tossed out, a niche within a niche within a niche. At the moment, it's too small to support producing an incredibly expensive book. It's big enough to support a novel line. That's the reality right now.
Yes, the novels did well. But you didn't see a ton of Star Wars reference material until there were movies in the theatres.
Novels are cheap and easy to produce. Your hypothetical about the Titan coffee-table tech book leaves out one major part of the production process which is, well, the production process. The printing of glossy, full-color pages is very expensive, and where a big chunk of the high price of glossy, full-color books goes toward paying.
The fans who like technical schematic type books are, to use a phrase you yourself tossed out, a niche within a niche within a niche. At the moment, it's too small to support producing an incredibly expensive book. It's big enough to support a novel line. That's the reality right now.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
^ That was merely an example close to my heart. Besides, it's a pretty good bet that most of those who actually purchased GOAT didn't even know who the hell Muhammad Ali was before they heard about the publication of a four thousand dollar - twelve thousand for the "limited edition" - book in honor of some boxer. The moral of this post? Never underestimate the vanity and stupidity of the nouveau riche. Whether the tome in question is about a defunct athlete or a defunct sci-fi television show would not make the slightest bit of difference in sales figures.
TGT
TGT
And you were how old at the time?
Cary, this isn't 1978. The market isn't the same, nor should it ever be considered such. Trek had been off the air for years then, and TMP had just been released. We are not suffering from a near-decade long dearth of Trek on screens. We aren't seeing efforts like what Bjo Trimble did in the 1970s. And, also unlike the 1970s, the Internet is in virtually every home these days. Certainly more than likely buyers of any book such as you're describing.
Why should people buy the cow, when they can get the milk for free?
And how would this differ from the various ship-focussed websites that are already available on the Internet?
Believing in something like this doesn't make it so, unfortunately.
Again, this is NOT the 70s and 80s. I fail to see how the situation is analogous.
Again. Believing in something doesn't automatically make it so.
*shakes head*
And the "special edition" releases had nothing at all to do with it? Sorry, but I don't believe that for a microsecond.
The "casual moviegoer" is not likely to buy the "incredible cross-sections" books, any more than they are likely to buy "Star Trek Star Charts." These are things that appeal almost entirely to the "hard-core" fans. People (like those of us here) who try to figure out how "warp drive" might actually WORK...
Cary, we've had this conversation before. How many "hard-core" fans do you really think there are? Because I have a feeling you're seriously overestimating.
It is not a spurious argument. Or do you honestly believe that books of maps qualify as having a great deal of "mainstream appeal?" Sci-fi fans are a niche market. Dedicated Trek fans are a niche market WITHIN that niche market. People who actually give a flying **** about the freakin' FLIGHT PATH of NX-01 are far fewer still. Most people really honestly don't care. (By the same argument, most people also don't care about the mechanical construction of a Starship's hull... I get that point, so no need to belabor that either.)
Actually, in his last post he did give an explanation. I don't agree with it, but he did move the conversation beyond "stfu" and into an actual constructive discussion. That is a GOOD THING, Chris.
Man, where to begin?
"Making up straw man BS?" So anything that you, personally, reject qualifies as a "straw man?" I didn't realize you were the absolute arbiter of what opinions are valid and what opinions aren't.
Can you demonstrate how what I've said qualifies as a "straw man?" Define the term, then show how my argument fits into that definition. Without playing linguistic-contortionist, you can't. I'm making a sound argument. It may not be a TRUE argument (although I see it as being so). But at least I'm making one, instead of playing "I'm a writer so I know more than you." (It's not wrong to say that, if you're willing to demonstrate the fact by making a superior argument... which you aren't doing.)
You call my statements "Straw man BS." You can, without being an arrogant prig, say that my statements are "incorrect," provided that you are willing to actually argue your point. But calling it "strawman BS" is wrong... and is the sort of thing that people who have no argument usually do. Not to mention that it's insulting and rude. I haven't been insulting to you. But you have no problem being so to me... because I'm not a "God of Publishing," evidently, huh?
You say that I'm stuck on preconceptions and not willing to listen to other viewpoints. Apparently, Chris, you are having some reading-comprehension issues, as if you re-read my posts, you'll see that I'm ACTIVELY SOLICITING for any other viewpoints. And while I might not be convinced by Keith's argument re: "recent screen time," above, it DOES qualify as a reasoned argument, and I am perfectly willing to "listen" to it, and even debate it. And I am perfectly willing to be convinced... but only by a convincing argument, not by a "you go to hell.. you go to hell and you die!" argument (done with a "Mr. Garrison" voice).
I wonder if you realize just how arrogant it is to say, essentially, that someone who is not a "publishing professional" has no right to comment on publishing topics? I'm sooo sorry to have intruded on your private little clubhouse without first having learned the secret handshake.
Yep, the end-users should just shut the **** up and hand over our money, and just accept whatever the "experts" want to give us... right?
I don't think so. But maybe you do think this way... if so, there's no point in discussing anything further with you.
I'm going to hopscotch through a few replies here:
Well, since Keith spent valuable time responding to this thread, let me raise a question that his comment brings up.
Would not the logical approach here be, instead of producing an entire new Encyclopedia, to create--not as an add-on to an existing work, but as a free-standing volume--a supplement, providing reviseed entries to those which are clearly outdated in the previous work, plus new material? That would undoubtedly cost a great deal less to produce than an entire new edition of the Encyclopedia, would address the issue of people not wanting to re-buy what they've already bought, and would wish their material to be both definitive and in hardcopy.
The cons (and one must be honest and acknowledge them, too):
1] The bulk of the new material would come from the least-popular portions of the Trekverse.
2] A hardcopy document would be competing with having that material on the internet (e.g., Memory Alpha).
Personally, I think a supplement of this type--probably in black-and-white, rather than full color, to keep costs controlled--would be potentially viable, but the internet is a tough competitor and would no doubt impact on things.
Also personally, I have a distrust of relying entirely on websites, because they're potentially too ephemeral, and they're often much less well-checked for accuracy. ('Course, the Encyclopedia isn't completely perfect either, so make of it all what you will. )
Cary, that's all true, but if you go back to those same guys and try to get them to commit to a new publication in hardcopy, almost all of them say the same thing: they don't think they could sell enough to make it economically viable. Forget profitable, they don't want to go broke over them!
Thanks to a few folks who are volunteering time and enthusiasm, the work those guys did is finding a new lease on life...on the internet.
Well, you'd buy it, and I'd buy it. But how many folks would wait for us to buy the book, scan the material, and stick it on a website?
The big difference in the market now is that people who used to pay for hardcopy materials will now wait for it to show up on-line.
That's a valid point, and it's also why I think both you and Keith are correct in assessing what happened to the market. It's been sort of a vicious circle. The general market crested for the "cadillac" publications, and as it went down, Pocket responded by doing more stripped-down projects. This in turn drove away the market segment that wanted something more detailed and comprehensive, which led to lower sales, etc. etc.
I think both Starship Spotter (a project near to my heart for obvious reasons ) and Star Charts were impacted by that. Both were good. Neither was as good as it could be, in part due to constraints of time and money. Both upset their key market--the folks who love that sort of detail--by not being comprehensive or thorough enough. Had they been, would that have translated into better sales, and would the additional sales have been enough to offset the greater production costs? These remain open questions, of course.
Personally, I would have preferred the Star Charts to be more comprehensive. I liked a lot of what I got, but really wanted more. 'Course, as I've teased, I also wanted a coffee table book providing an atlas of the Federation and the known galaxy over all the time covered by Trek, from the early explorations of the ENT era to he Dominion War and its impact on the face of the galaxy in the DS9 era. And, yeah, I'd've paid $75-100 for that, easily. 
(But I'm way off on one end of the curve, and I know that.)
And for Starship Spotter, I would definitely have included such well-known vessels as the Excelsior, Ambassador, Gagarin and Oberth, and Constellation, even if it meant having new models built that could hold up to the greater detail needs of static print publishing. I'd also have made sure to include full schematics and use tthe beauty shots as fold-outs. That would have upped the cost of the book, but I think people would have preferred it, and more folks would have purchased it. Again, though, we have the unanswered question: Would the increase in sales have been enough to offset the increased production costs (and increased price)?
And of course it's very easy for us to play armchair editor, especially when it's not our livelihood that relies on making the correct call. But I think the questions are what needs to be considered on all sides of the discussion.
Best,
Alex
Well, since Keith spent valuable time responding to this thread, let me raise a question that his comment brings up.
Would not the logical approach here be, instead of producing an entire new Encyclopedia, to create--not as an add-on to an existing work, but as a free-standing volume--a supplement, providing reviseed entries to those which are clearly outdated in the previous work, plus new material? That would undoubtedly cost a great deal less to produce than an entire new edition of the Encyclopedia, would address the issue of people not wanting to re-buy what they've already bought, and would wish their material to be both definitive and in hardcopy.
The cons (and one must be honest and acknowledge them, too):
1] The bulk of the new material would come from the least-popular portions of the Trekverse.
2] A hardcopy document would be competing with having that material on the internet (e.g., Memory Alpha).
Personally, I think a supplement of this type--probably in black-and-white, rather than full color, to keep costs controlled--would be potentially viable, but the internet is a tough competitor and would no doubt impact on things.
Also personally, I have a distrust of relying entirely on websites, because they're potentially too ephemeral, and they're often much less well-checked for accuracy. ('Course, the Encyclopedia isn't completely perfect either, so make of it all what you will.
)Cary, that's all true, but if you go back to those same guys and try to get them to commit to a new publication in hardcopy, almost all of them say the same thing: they don't think they could sell enough to make it economically viable. Forget profitable, they don't want to go broke over them!
Thanks to a few folks who are volunteering time and enthusiasm, the work those guys did is finding a new lease on life...on the internet.
Well, you'd buy it, and I'd buy it. But how many folks would wait for us to buy the book, scan the material, and stick it on a website?
The big difference in the market now is that people who used to pay for hardcopy materials will now wait for it to show up on-line.
The "casual moviegoer" is not likely to buy the "incredible cross-sections" books, any more than they are likely to buy "Star Trek Star Charts." These are things that appeal almost entirely to the "hard-core" fans. People (like those of us here) who try to figure out how "warp drive" might actually WORK...
That's a valid point, and it's also why I think both you and Keith are correct in assessing what happened to the market. It's been sort of a vicious circle. The general market crested for the "cadillac" publications, and as it went down, Pocket responded by doing more stripped-down projects. This in turn drove away the market segment that wanted something more detailed and comprehensive, which led to lower sales, etc. etc.
I think both Starship Spotter (a project near to my heart for obvious reasons
) and Star Charts were impacted by that. Both were good. Neither was as good as it could be, in part due to constraints of time and money. Both upset their key market--the folks who love that sort of detail--by not being comprehensive or thorough enough. Had they been, would that have translated into better sales, and would the additional sales have been enough to offset the greater production costs? These remain open questions, of course.Personally, I would have preferred the Star Charts to be more comprehensive. I liked a lot of what I got, but really wanted more.
'Course, as I've teased, I also wanted a coffee table book providing an atlas of the Federation and the known galaxy over all the time covered by Trek, from the early explorations of the ENT era to he Dominion War and its impact on the face of the galaxy in the DS9 era. And, yeah, I'd've paid $75-100 for that, easily. (But I'm way off on one end of the curve, and I know that.)And for Starship Spotter, I would definitely have included such well-known vessels as the Excelsior, Ambassador, Gagarin and Oberth, and Constellation, even if it meant having new models built that could hold up to the greater detail needs of static print publishing. I'd also have made sure to include full schematics and use tthe beauty shots as fold-outs. That would have upped the cost of the book, but I think people would have preferred it, and more folks would have purchased it. Again, though, we have the unanswered question: Would the increase in sales have been enough to offset the increased production costs (and increased price)?
And of course it's very easy for us to play armchair editor, especially when it's not our livelihood that relies on making the correct call. But I think the questions are what needs to be considered on all sides of the discussion.
Best,
Alex
Can you point out where someone has said you don't have the right to comment on publising topics?
If you can, then yes, such a statement would indeed be arrogant; about as arrogant as someone who doesn't work in a particular industry telling people who do work in that industry how said industry does/should work.
Again, kindly point out where that's been said, anywhere, by anyone connected with Pocket's publishing program, once. Not some interpretation that's been washed through a decoder ring - I want to see it in white on gray text, right here, in this or some other thread.
If you can't, then that would be an example of a straw man.
Yes, we all think this way, which is exactly why we spend so much time visiting interactive mediums such as this. We only want to see our own posts while basking in the glorious silence of an obliging and braindead readership.
Along with your simple yet elegant formula for publishing success (ie, don't pay writers, don't pay artists, don't pay licensing fees, only strive to cover your expenses) you have cracked yet another ancient code and betrayed yet another secret of the Cabal. Congratulations.
I'm curious how that is relevant. How old were YOU at the time? Just FYI, I was born on the first day of 1966, so you can do the math. But the relevance of this comment is... well, not at all "obvious." If you had a point to make with that (and the only one I can imagine is "you're a kid and I'm an adult" (which is obviously a false argument)).
You're converting my argument from what I said (the 70s and 80s) into something which I didn't say (1978). The "renaissance" of fan publishing I refer to was in the 80s, for instance, when there were new films coming out every couple of years.
True, although I was never personally much into the "filking" and other 70s-fannish stuff. The main stuff in the 70s was Mike McMaster's work and the Franz Josef stuff... which was essentially unrelated to Bjo's efforts and organization. A better resource would be to look into the old "New Eye Studio" and the sort of stuff they were selling throughout this period.
This is a true statement as well, but I think it presupposes that people really prefer reading off of a screen rather than from a book. To date, technology hasn't reached the "electronic publishing with all the advantages of printed works" level. It may someday... but not yet.
There are very good reasons that we haven't, despite predictions to the contrary, moved to a "totally paperless society." Yes, electronic books sell, but paper books still sell better by orders of magnitude. Do audio books sell better than e-books? I suspect so... but you would know better than I would.
With a technical book in particular... and I mean technical with blueprints and schematics... printed paper works are still far superior to anything you can see on-screen. That may change someday, but it's not on the horizon yet.
And no matter how convenient laptops may be, they're nowhere near as convenient as having an actual book to read. Maybe someday... but not today.
By that argument, why would anyone ever buy a printed book? The publishing industry should, by this argument, have ceased to exist entirely by now.
Why hasn't that happened? Two words...readability and convenience. Until "electronic publishing" is as easy to read, and as convenient, as a hardcopy, I cannot imagine hardprint works "going away." And having something which is not dependent upon technology (power, communication links, whatever) is a KEY element of that "convenience" point.
Because the stuff you see on the net is not as readable, or as convenient, or as accessible, as a published hard-copy book.
I think this "internet bogey" argument is a bit specious. Again... if this were a legitimate argument, why have other, non-trek publishing ventures not been hamstrung in the way you're describing by the presence of the 'net?
And NOT believing something doesn't make it NOT so, either.
OKAY... let's try this again.
The argument which was made was basically "when the show is not on-screen, interest goes down and low sales are to be blamed on that." This particular argument, in other words, has nothing to do with the internet, it has to do with the presence or absence of on-screen new product and the relationship of that to relative sales.
SO, you're either saying that "trek fandom as it existed back then" is dead... that today's fans are so disinterested that they're not really "fans" at all, just casual viewers (who, then, would not be expected to buy ANYTHING... novels, tech manuals, whatever), or you're saying that the internet is so utterly powerful that the dedicated fans do not want published works... which is contradicted by the sales of other non-trek works. Or is there some other interpretation of this which I'm missing?
And... again, NOT believing something doesn't automatically make it NOT so.
The books I mentioned came out while I was living in California... making it in the 1988-1992 timeframe. The first "special edition" film came out when I was living in Evansville IN... making it approximately 1997.
So unless you are assuming time-travel to be part of this equation, no, the "special editions" had nothing to do with the Star Wars resurgence that started with the published books.
Maybe you've had this conversation with someone else, but WE haven't had it. I don't believe that you and I have ever communicated before this particular thread. Am I mistaken?The "casual moviegoer" is not likely to buy the "incredible cross-sections" books, any more than they are likely to buy "Star Trek Star Charts." These are things that appeal almost entirely to the "hard-core" fans. People (like those of us here) who try to figure out how "warp drive" might actually WORK...
Cary, we've had this conversation before.
Probably as many as there are hard-core Corvette fans (to justify the big glossy Corvette books that Barnes and Noble has on their shelves), or probably as many as there are arabian horse fanatics (to justify the large tabletop books focusing on those) or... well, so on and so on. Certainly at LEAST as many as there are "hard-core" Star Wars fans who'd buy the "incredible cross-section" books... those are hardly "mainstream" books either (which is why I was using those as my principle comparison... the parallels are closest in that case).
Look... you guys think that there's no market for this sort of thing. You are dedicated to the proposition that you'll never sell one. This is clearly the sort of thing that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I find it particularly intriguing just HOW STRONGLY NEGATIVE the "publisher" response has been to this suggestion. Not "maybe," not even just "no" but "HELL NO." Not even a willingness to consider, if even as a mere intellectual exercise, the POSSIBILITY of doing something like this. Just "HELL NO."
So, it's not gonna happen. Whatever... no point in trying to discuss thing with people who are unwilling to even consider suggestions without going into fits of defensive apoplexy.
And there, you yourself have just summed up the reason why Trek reference works haven't been selling well.
Why are you still debating this? You said it yourself -- a niche within a niche within a niche. Now, you seem to be implying that the Trek reference books lately have sucked; I, on the other hand, adored Star Charts, for instance. But you're really not going to get folks to agree to a subjective opinion about the quality of these works. Your argument for Star Charts, for instance, boils down to the fact that you don't find space atlases interesting; I do, but I don't think late-70s-era starship references interesting. You talk about the quality of the reference -- Star Charts was incredibly high-quality. You say that part of quality is "how interesting the book is." Well, no, because that's wholly subjective.
Some of the Trek references of late haven't been good -- Starship Spotter, for instance, had nothing other than pretty pictures to make it original. On the other hand, reference works like Star Charts or the DS9 Companion have rocked. Blood, sweat, and tears have gone into the best works -- you can tell. But you know what the only thing all the reference works, good and bad, have in common is? They've all lost money.
Your analogies to other franchises have been flawed, as KRAD notes, for two reasons: 1) Ample supply of previous Trek references as opposed to dearth of other-franchise references. 2) Dearth of new Trek canon as compared to abundance of new other-franchise canon. Your analogies to the late-70s/early-80s fan references are flawed because they fail to take into account the changed marketplace. Bottom line: Your argument that the market for Trek reference books can't possibly be dissipated basically has boiled down to "'cause I say so."
The bottom line is that instead of simply accepting that those of us who are willing to buy Trek reference works are a niche that is at the moment too small to support those types of products, you've instead gone and tried to imply that there's something wrong with every new Trek reference work of late. I don't think that's a fair argument, as that's painting things in broad strokes instead of evaluating each reference individually.
And on top of these unfair arguments, you've made consistent use of straw-man arguments; you've misrepresented your opponents' statements, and you've been consistently rude.
Right here. Straw-man argument. KRAD never said any of that; what he did say was that someone who works in the publishing industry is more educated about the process and that thus he trusts the judgment of someone in the industry over the judgment of someone who has never worked in it.
He's given SEVERAL explanations. He's mentioned decreased Trek presence in TV/film marketplaces, he's mentioned an abundance of previously-published Trek references works that decreases the size of the current market for new references, he's mentioned that the market for references is small in the first place, and he's mentioned that quality reference works are expensive to produce. KRAD has argued, quite logically, that these four factors have combined to make the publishing of new Trek reference works unprofitable at this time.
1) KRAD never said "STFU."
2) Neither did Christopher.
3) It was very rude of you to finish the statement with, "That is a GOOD THING, Chris," for several reasons.
- Using "Chris" implies a level of familiarity that is inappropriate for you to assume without Christopher's permission.
- That statement implies that Christopher believed and/or stated that it would somehow not be a good thing to have an actual debate/discussion.
- The statement is very condescending.
That, right there, is a straw-man argument. You have consistently, throughout this debate, taken a statement you objected to and exaggerated it, misrepresented it; you have put words into your opponents' mouths. At no point did Christopher say or imply that anything he rejects is a straw-man argument; rather, taking a statement you object to and responding as though the opponent had stated something different than what was actually said so as to then deconstruct this new, fictitious statement constitutes using a straw-man argument.
This, too, is a straw-man argument, as Christopher never made any such claim.
See above.
A man who writes condescending arguments and uses overly-familiar nicknames should prehaps reconsider making accusations of arrogance.
See above.
Yes, you have been insulting to Christopher, and indeed to most of your opponents.
Yet another straw-man argument. No one ever claimed to be a god of publishing, nor did anyone claim that one needed to be a god of publishing to comprehend the publishing market. What was claimed was that individuals who work in the publishing field know more about it than those who have never worked in that industry and that thus KRAD trusts their judgment on publishing matters moreso than the judgment of those who have never worked in the publishing industry.
Once again, an inappropriate level of familiary in the use of a nickname and an insulting ad hominem attack. Very rude and insulting.
And then being very rude to those who provide them.
Yet another straw-man argument. No one has told you to go to hell and die.
Also a straw-man argument. No one has said you don't have the right to comment on publishing topics; what was stated was that KRAD finds your originally-stated opinion irrational (as he is of the opinion that simply because a minority of individuals on the Internet will purchase a product that this does not translate into a viable market), that an individual who works in the publishing industry is more educated about publishing topics than an individual who does not work in the publishing industry, and that thus KRAD trusts the judgment of those who work in the publishing industry over the judgment of those who do not work in the publishing industry. In his statements, Christopher has backed up this opinion, but he has at no point told you that you have no right to comment upon publishing topics.
I'm sooo sorry to have intruded on your private little clubhouse without first having learned the secret handshake.
Yet another straw-man argument. No one said or implied that there was some sort of secret club and that one had to be a member to speak.
EDITED TO ADD:
It is also particularly ironic that you should accuse Christopher of elitism. Christopher is a Star Trek fan who has only recently begun writing Trek works, and in fact was originally nothing more than a fellow TrekBBS member who had made a few original-fiction sales to some science fiction magazines. He was simply invited to submit a story outline to the Pocket offices by one of the editors who had met him online, and had the good fortunte of having his submission accepted and of having enough writing talent to produce good works. He is, in short, nothing more than a fellow average-joe fan who made good; heck, I remember very clearly when he was just a very articulate TrekBBS poster I liked to debate with but who had nothing to do with TrekLit! Hardly the elitist you are implying him to be.
END EDIT
More straw-man arguments. No one has claimed or implied that we should shut up, hand over our money, and just accept whatever products are published.
Speculative and unsubstantiated. You do not know what Christopher does or does not think, and it is rude to imply that you do.
Points to ponder:
Star Trek is nowhere near as popular as Star Wars and Lord of the Rings have been for the last few years. The six Star Wars movies are in the top 25 of IMDB's All-Time USA Boxoffice list. The Lord of the Rings movies are all in the top 20. The highest ranking Star Trek movie is at #274, and that film was released two decades ago.
Pocket Books is a business. They exist to make money. If they could publish Star Wars-style pretty tech books and make money off them, they would.
The number of Star Trek books, authorized and unauthorized, being published per year peaked a decade ago and has declined more or less consistently since.
Is it really so hard to believe that people like KRAD who know what they're talking about maybe telling the truth? It's pretty damn obvious to me that the writers who post here, KRAD, Christopher, Dayton, and all the others, are writing Trek fiction and participating here because they are fans, too, and I'm sure that they'd like to see more Trek nonfiction and such coming from Pocket just like the rest of us fans would.
What happened with fan stuff decades ago is not relevant to a discussion of Pocket's ability to make money publishing Trek tech manuals. How well Star Wars stuff sells is not relevant to a discussion of a franchise that's been doing poorly in the mainstream audience's eye for the last decade or so. Is this really so hard to understand?
Several, in fact.
Something to keep in mind is that one of the things a new reference book would have to do is be different from all the other reference books out there. There are a lot of them, and most of them were produced at a time when the franchise had a lot more mainstream popularity, when millions and millions and millions of people were watching Trek every week, when every two years brought a successful new Trek movie.
The current marketplace has to contend with competition from itself, in essence, as well as the competition from the Internet that TerriO mentioned.
Besides those factors there's, again, the huge expense of producing a glossy book.
Not sure why I'm bothering to repeat myself, since I keep making the same points over and over again and they keep being ignored.....
No, actually, as I was born on the first day of Woodstock in 1969. My point is that relying on our memory of youth 30 years removed isn't exactly a guarantee of reliability.
My apologies. Still doesn't change the fact that the situation isn't analogous in the slightest. I'm inclined to say that the only truly analogous situation might be the situation in Doctor Who publishing after 1989, but the British end of fandom is, in my experience, far more die-hard and rabid than anything the U.S. could ever muster, so even that analog may not be so solid.
But you're talking about appealing to the "hard-core" fan base.
Why ignore the filkers, who (at least nowadays, I wasn't involved in fandom in the 70s and early 80s) tend to be among the more "hard-core" fans? That's like saying you're ignoring fanfic writers, too.
How are you defining "hard-core" fans, then?
Printed out a webpage recently?
I'm talking sites like Memory Alpha and the various ship-related sites on the 'Net, not eBook format.
I'm not sure where you got the misconception that I was referring to eBooks, but I assure you that never entered into my argument.
Considering that color laser printers are getting cheaper by the day, getting high-quality printouts of online material isn't nearly as difficult as it used to be.
In your opinion. See, I carry my laptop everywhere these days, so my opinion might differ slightly.
Could you please elaborate on this, because I suspect we're talking about two different things here.Unless you can refer me to where I can get the latest Laurell K. Hamilton both book electronially and free. Even in the illegal downloading area, the book has to exist in printed form for someone to scan.
Yes, we're talking about two different things here. I'm not bringing the eBook debate into this.
Yet it's there, available to people on their home computers. Why expect someone to get up, go to the bookstore, and buy a published hard-copy book when they can get the same information online without having to wait or pay?
How many other publishing ventures have attempted it?
Outside of SW, which is a publishing entity unto itself, I can't think of any. I would, however, welcome more data.
No, what I'm saying is that Trek fandom today isn't the same as it was 30 years ago. The circumstances around it are different, and the people involved are much different.
Obviously interest in televised Trek has declined. ENT went from 12 million people watching "Broken Bow" to around 3 million for TATV. The grosses on Nemesis barely cleared the production budget, let alone made a dent in the marketing budget, and according to the numbers from boxofficemojo.com, its domestic gross was a mere 62% of the domestic gross of Insurrection.
I don't know about you, but I'd say that's a fairly steep decline in viewership both of the movies and the TV series.
Well, you're going to have to pay for high-quality, new, well-executed stuff.
Also, it's a pretty widely-accepted fact that the average audience for a tie-in novel is a small percentage (less than 10%, but I've seen 5% used as a high end more often than not) of the viewing audience.
ENT, at the end of its run, had a viewership estimated at about 3 million.
So, let's find a nice middle ground on the percentage and say the readership of a Trek novel is...3% of that number.
That's 90,000 potential buyers just of the novels out there.
Now, let's look at this BBS. How many "hard-core" Trek fans post here? A little under 9,000. That's 1/10 of the number I calculated above to represent the potential readership.
So, if 1/10 of the potential readership posts here, and a dozen people voice a desire for such a book, that only translates to about 120 potential readers.
Let's think bigger, because that 120 is a depressing figure...
Say there are 20,000 "hard-core" Treknical fans out there worldwide wanting a book like you're talking.
Figuring a $25.00 cover price, could you produce 20,000 copies of a book like you're talking for $500,000? Figuring in licensing fees, the much higher cost for printing in high-quality color on heavier weight paper, the cost of having art created (because not all of the images you're going to have available will be in high enough resolution for publication), paying an author to write/update the accompanying text, paying someone qualified to edit the book, and, oh yeah, shipping the finished copies all over the world and making sure they get into bookstores?
And that's just scratching the surface of what's involved. I'm certain there's more to it than I know about.
Raise the cover price, and you might get a better quality book, but you won't get as many buyers.
Where is the compromise?
Where did the money come from for the production on the prequels?
Because it sure as hell wasn't the novels.
Didn't you begin a similar thread digression over on the S&S board? Or am I mistaken? I seem to remember it being you.
Corvette books aren't tie-in books. Neither are arabian horse books. The considerations are completely different there.
And when was the last time you saw a SW book on the NY Times bestseller list?
How about the last time you saw a Trek book on the NY Times list?
Perhaps the answer isn't really "no", it's just "not right now"?
And has it occurred to you that possibly the very things you're suggesting have been considered and rejected? The folks at Pocket aren't exactly stupid (their continued willingness to pay me to write Trek aside, of course
). Obviously, there are considerations at hand that you may not be aware of, that are causing the situation to resolve in a manner different from what you expect.The situation isn't conducive to it now. That may change in 5 years, nobody knows. For all any of us knows, in 10 years, we may see a book exactly like you're discussing.
Just because it's not a viable option now doesn't mean it never will be.
Similar threads
