Will the Trek books stay in the proper format?

[23skidoo]

This is a question for the Pocket Books folks.

As a book-buyer I am really annoyed, upset actually, at the current trend towards what I call the "tall, skinny, and ugly" format mass market paperbacks are taking these days. They're unpleasant to read, awkward to hold, and they don't even fit well on the bookshelves. This is different from when publishers (including pocket) moved to a slightly smaller-and-fatter format in the 1980s. It didn't seem to affect the readability that much. But the new format also appears cheaper and more likely to experience spine breaks and the like.

One of my writer friends, who is a cynic, says the only reason for the new format is to milk a couple extra bucks out of us. And the change did seem to coincide with an increase in the prices. (And I'm not going to go into the US/Cdn book price inequity right now, though that's an issue in itself).

My question is: is Simon & Schuster/Pocket looking at adopting the same format for the Trek novels? I hope not. I'd rather see a move towards the trade-sized books like that being used for the MU series if a format change is really necessary.

Cheers

Alex

 

[JAG]

I asked this question quite awhile ago, and Marco said.
Never say never. Take from that what you will. I hope not though, cause I do not like the new format.

 

[2of1million]

I do not like those new paperbacks either. They are...strange to say the least.

 

[Species7582]

Teh old Thread

 

[Therin of Andor]

23skidoo said:
the current trend towards what I call the "tall, skinny, and ugly" format mass market paperbacks are taking these days.

I can't say I've noticed this format anywhere. (You're not talking about trade size paperbacks here, but something new? Skinny?)

IIRC, mass market paperbacks were invented so they could be easily slipped into a pocket - hence the imprint "Pocket Books". It would be rather ironic if Pocket switched to a format that didn't have a hope of slipping into a pocket.

I'm confused why people think this experimental "tall, skinny, and ugly" format will take off, unless there really are cost/readability/packing/storage issues that are resolved by such a switch. The traditionally sized paperback has been around for decades, with only minor tweaking in all that time.

Can anyone in the industry suggest what the appeal is? As I said, I've browsed many Sydney bookshops looking for this supposedly "tall, skinny, and ugly" format of US paperback - and I'm not seeing them.

 

[Lieut. Arex]

It's taking off. B&N has already replaced some fixtures (the mass market tower) in the stores to accommodate the new format mass markets. There's no way they'd go to that expense if the new format wasn't expected to make up at least a large percentage of mass markets in the future.

 

[Therin of Andor]

So is this the size of books such as the trade paperback format of the "VOY: Endgame" novelization?

 

[Daddy Todd]

Therin of Andor said:
So is this the size of books such as the trade paperback format of the "VOY: Endgame" novelization?

No; they're the same width as a 'regular" MMPBs (approx. 4"/10.5cm) but around 8"/20cm tall, as opposed to the old-style, which are on the order of 6.75"/17cm tall. They appear to have the same number of pages regular MMPBs; they just have an extra half-inch of blank paper at the top & bottom of each page.Iit looks like they might even print them off the same "plates" as regular MMPBs.

They do cost US$2 more, however. Thus, the widespread perception that they're a "rip-off."

If you need to charge $10 for a MMPB, just RAISE the PRICE; don't mess with the format in some misguided effort to convince readers that they're getting a "better value." Sheesh!

...Not sure who I'm yelling at there; I'm fairly certain this entire format change is driven by the accountants and being forced upon editors over their objections.

 

[William Leisner]

No, it's the same width of a standard mass market, but about half an inch taller.

And $2 more expensive.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/12/news/midcaps/large_print/index.htm

 

[Braxton]

I do not like this new format for mass market paperbacks either. They look hideous and the price for them is $9.99. I've never read one of these books but I have held them in my hands and they just don't feel right. However, if Pocket Books switches to them, I'll just have to adapt.

The dimensions for this new format is this: 7.4 x 4.1 x 1.2 inches (got this from Vince Flynn's latest book, Act of Treason, that was just released as a paperback)

The dimensions for the current size paperbacks is: 6.8 x 4.3 x 1.3 inches (dimensions from New Frontier's Missing in Action)

You never know what will happen. Companies are bent on making us pay for more for everything so I wouldn't be surprised if they make the switch to this (I wouldn't be surprised if the authors themselves demanded more money, no offense to the authors that visit this site, I'm just speculating, I'm not saying you're greedy). Since I started reading regularly in the mid-late 90's, the prices of paperbacks has gone from $4.99 to $7.99 and a switch to this new format would jump the price to $9.99 instantly and who knows how long it will be before they raise that price to $10.99.

Fact is, anything can happen.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Braxton said:
Since I started reading regularly in the mid-late 90's, the prices of paperbacks has gone from $4.99 to $7.99

And your salary has increased by about the same percentage? Isn't that really only about the norm for inflation?

How does that compare with rises in the cost of a movie ticket (with no item left to own except for your memories and a ticket stub)?

If book companies are pressing for a format change, but which only adds more paper to the margins, how does this save them money? Usually, format changes are the result of market research with the target readership.

I wouldn't be surprised if the authors themselves demanded more money

Then they'd be fighting for a bigger percentage of the total sales, and I don't recall this being discussed anywhere. First-time authors the world over tend to get a similar starting percentage as each other, but even long-standing successful authors don't have much sway as to what a book's RRP or format will be. They just have to write better (or more) stories, garner more sales, sell the movie rights, or get a better agent, if they want more $$$$.

 

[Atariboy]

I used to hate the larger books, but somewhere in the middle of reading the James Bond reissues, I fell in love with them. Sure, they don't fit in my pocket anymore (not like I ever did that anyway!), but they're so much easier to read. The type is larger and the spines don't crease when you read 'em. There's also room for sharper cover art, for those of you who judge a .... nevermind. :P

Join a book savers club like at Borders or something and they don't cost alot more either. I just wait for the 25% off coupons and 4-for-3 sales.

 

[Trent Roman]

Therin of Andor said:
If book companies are pressing for a format change, but which only adds more paper to the margins, how does this save them money?

Because, as indicated previously, they're charging more money for them. I have two of these books, Song of Susannah and The Dark Tower; it's a two dollar increase on the price of a regular mass market paperback released the same month (9.99 instead of 7.99). For some reason, the Canadian price only gets jacked by one dollar - 11.99 instead of 10.99 (parity, my melting permafrost ass). Incidently, both the books listed above are released by Pocket Books; not sure if that should concern us. On the copyright and publishing page, they call it a 'premium edition', as if this is some kind of favour to us. What's so premium about it is what I'd like to know... and when the hell the real book is going to show up.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Christopher]

They're only seven and a half inches tall? How is this such a huge problem? Heck, up until about 25 years ago, all MMPBs were seven inches tall, a quarter-inch taller than they are now. I still have a number of books in that size. I don't see how another half-inch beyond that would be such a big deal.

 

[Trent Roman]

I don't go that far back, but my experience with the books I do have had is that they are unwieldy to hold in hand, harder to keep open, and fit poorly of shelves because of their aberrant size. Plus, you know, they're more expensive for no good reason, which is always an irritant.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Therin of Andor]

Trent Roman said:
they call it a 'premium edition', as if this is some kind of favour to us. What's so premium about it is what I'd like to know... and when the hell the real book is going to show up.

Ah, so it's the hardcover you have when you're not having a hardcover?

I'm positive there is market research to back this up. Obviously some SF book collectors prefer a larger size book: for gift giving; so the cover art is bigger; whatever.

I know I maligned the loss of the commercial 33 1/3 RPM LPs, simply because the gorgeous cover art gets shrunk down to make a CD.

 

[Jack Bauer]

They're very awkard to hold. I've actually dropped them a few times while reading it since the pages are pack in pretty tight. I need to spread the spine out a bit to loosen it up. On the plus side the paper is thicker and whiter than the regular paperbacks.

 

[tenmei]

Agreed, I find the new format (I've got a couple of Clive Cussler novels in the format, as they were the only format I could get the books in) rather awkward to hold.

 

[JWolf]

Christopher said:
They're only seven and a half inches tall? How is this such a huge problem? Heck, up until about 25 years ago, all MMPBs were seven inches tall, a quarter-inch taller than they are now. I still have a number of books in that size. I don't see how another half-inch beyond that would be such a big deal.

It's a big deal because the price is also going up with the size.