I couldn’t agree more that price deterioration in general and below-cost pricing is harmful to independent (and even chain) booksellers. That’s presumably why the ABA has taken the action it has and why I cited Bob Miller’s excellent blog post in my original post here. While independents have some work to do on their own, they should not have to deal overcome predatory pricing in their fight to survive.

You have to either be a multi-billion dollar business, a non-profit, a massive volunteer organization or a public institution to support certain things–like scanning millions of books.

Patronage is tricky–some will say publishers influence what is published and that’s bad–but if you like the patron it is good? I know of an author who doesn’t even feel good about our National Endowments–that taking funds can leave an opening to be influenced. Some authors and artists have folks who help support them and it has no effect on their work, except removing some of the stress.

Thousands of books are published every year–is that what is draining publishers? Too many?

As for Google, Amazon, Wal-Mart and Target–books are a commodity or a widget. I’m sure on some level they do appreciate they are bringing books to the masses. They are using our widget as their marketing tool–bait, and we feel exploited.

Lets face it–who wouldn’t want the reading public as their customer. I don’t need to conduct a survey to tell you on average–they are better educated, more affluent, etc and have more disposable income, appreciate quality and value.
Retailers need them walking through the door. Best Buy threw out the welcome mat too.

Publishers will have to adapt to survive, and there will be a new wave of publishers springing up–starting with new models, but they will likely meet somewhere in between for the long term.

Returns policy will have to change. It may evolve–maybe turn to gray for awhile and not be so black and white.
Publishing is slow moving–not always for the wrong reason.
Often when they move it is not always the right direction.
Offset printing is still economical in many cases. We may use less paper for books, but we are using consumable paper goods more and more and more–so the paper industry is just repurposing. Paper is spiking but use goes up and down periodically. There are more short term wasteful uses of paper than printing books. Though I enjoy discussing the future of content and speculating on the future, and sometimes dare I say it is even fun–I also look forward to a day when the delivery mechanism and business model is no longer at the fore of publishing discussions.

I’m the publisher at a very, very small company, and I’m intrigued by your suggestion. I do think patronage, historically, has been an area fraught with difficulties (i.e., unrealistic expectations from patron). But I also know that artists like Zora Neale Hurston and Leonardo Da Vinci, for example, would not have been able to produce work without that patronage.

Still, I’m so intrigued by this idea I will bring it up with my authors as well as some of our investors.

Thank you.

Great piece. As an author, I can see the writing on the wall (oh, perhaps I shouldn’t be an author after that line). But as someone who also works in magazines, I would caution publishers and booksellers about value and price before they devalue the printed word altogether. The problems in the magazine and newspaper industry result, for the most part, in devaluing their product in the public’s eye. Airlines did the same thing. Airlines might be an even better cautionary tale. We all went for price point. As customers, where did it get us? Books are not, of course, airlines and as such they are a different kind of product. But in the end, they are bought and sold. And if they no longer have value, because they are sold for something approaching nothing, then the public will value them as such. And authors will become some kind of niche group. The new stonecutters, perhaps.