If the publishers say that books don't sell, they don't sell. These people know what they're doing.
If the publishers are putting out materials that nobody wants, and they then say that those books don't sell... you're right, they don't sell.
Of course, if they put out materials that people wanted, then THOSE materials would probably sell.
Can you follow that logic?
"Publishers" aren't magical, all-knowing demi-gods. Nor are screenwriters, nor are producers, nor are any of the other "authorities" that we seem to so often be told we're not allowed to question.
If publishers are publishing CRAP (and I think it's a generally-accepted fact that the majority of what was published under the Trek label... particularly in the "non-prose" categories... for quite a few years has failed to rise above that particular level!), and they somehow then seem surprised that crap doesn't sell... what the hell were they expecting?
This is the point I keep making (and keep getting opposed on by several folks in here, yourself often among them). "Star Trek fans" don't want something dramatically different than what other "non-Star-Trek fans" want. We just want a little bit additional. If we get what we want, the "non-fans" also get what they want... because we all want good, quality entertainment.
This applies to publishing as well. Niche-publishing, such as technical references (any technical references, not specifically "trek references"), will never have the sort of broad appeal to every consumer that a well-crafted movie will. Never have, never will. And that's OK. You target your publishing to your audience, and you keep realistic expectations.
But c'mon, Dennis... do you HONESTLY think that "Neelix's Cookbook" was a great idea? How many people REALLY want to spend a pile of change on the "Star Trek Starcharts" book (nicely done, but of very little entertainment value to anyone... best used as a reference for writers, I think)? Yet you still find copies of the Franz Joseph stuff being sold, thirty-plus years later. And his book wasn't on glossy paper with metallic ink throughout, was it?
It's the CONTENT we want. We couldn't, for the most part, care less about having it be a 30-lb tome on archival, acid-free glossy paper. If that makes for a $40 book, and they can't sell enough $40 books to make a profit... then sell a square-bound book on normal paper stock, and sell it for $20.
If the audience is smaller, you don't plan as though you have a larger audience. But you don't stop serving your audience, either. You come up with a business model that maximizes your sales.
The problem with "trek publishing" over the past few years hasn't been that the market isn't there... the market is pretty much the same as it always has been, at least for this sort of niche-item product. The problem is that the product that this niche market is willing to pay for hasn't been available, and the product that was put out was "put the words 'Star Trek' on any crap and the mindless drones will buy it. Change the cover art and they'll buy it again."
If the publishing folks were SURPRISED by the fact that this turned out not to be true... then that says more about them than it does about the market.
That's a good one.
