Right guys, this has blown up into a wider discussion that my points were never intended to create, and while we can all feel differently, we are all friends here so let's take a step back and remember my original points about the costs of these books, and the added strain of the CD. That was and remains my concern
Uruloke raises important points about the state of publishing and the history of Tolkien books not being a golden standard. My issues with HarperCollins is that they do not appear to making an effort, and bottom line appears to be the only factor. I will add that probably 99% of the books I return as faulty are Tolkien books, yet they account for maybe 30% of all the books I buy in any year. Its a sizable and concerning number.
Trotter is of course welcome to feel that the CD is free, and my arguing against that was more from a cost perspective rather than the way we each view the various parts of the product. My point stands that the cost comes from somewhere, and that must be the book production cost unless HarperCollins adjust their profit models.
Khamul also raises important points about the items bundled in with these deluxe products, much like my own, that producing solid books should be the first concern.
Uruloke raises important points about the state of publishing and the history of Tolkien books not being a golden standard. My issues with HarperCollins is that they do not appear to making an effort, and bottom line appears to be the only factor. I will add that probably 99% of the books I return as faulty are Tolkien books, yet they account for maybe 30% of all the books I buy in any year. Its a sizable and concerning number.
Trotter is of course welcome to feel that the CD is free, and my arguing against that was more from a cost perspective rather than the way we each view the various parts of the product. My point stands that the cost comes from somewhere, and that must be the book production cost unless HarperCollins adjust their profit models.
Khamul also raises important points about the items bundled in with these deluxe products, much like my own, that producing solid books should be the first concern.
In terms of the Deluxe line that started back in the early 2000's has the RRP/MSRP changed on them? Haven't they always been priced at £75.00 (or £100 for LotR) or am I misremembering as I get older?
Assuming the RRP has remained the same, then it's not increasing with the costs of inflation at all, which would result in the profit margins for HC are getting slimmer and slimmer each year. So is it really any shock that the quality (perceived or not) has decreased from where it was back when the line first started?
Assuming the RRP has remained the same, then it's not increasing with the costs of inflation at all, which would result in the profit margins for HC are getting slimmer and slimmer each year. So is it really any shock that the quality (perceived or not) has decreased from where it was back when the line first started?
I should have time to do some thread maintenance this weekend - I will move these sidebars into an industry thread as we have diverged from BoM release discussion pretty far. No need to stop replying in the meantime though.
A few thoughts:
The budget for "extras" might not be coming from the book production cost. It is not at all uncommon for publishers to have a marketing budget for a book release that could be used for author tours, trade show appearances, etc. I have no idea how things work at HC, but with Tolkien in particular, they could be using marketing budget for these extras like maps, booklets, and CDs. Or the publisher might have decided that there is an "extras" budget in the RRP - some editions we get lots of Alan Lee illustrations, some we get fold out maps, some we get a CD. When we got a bunch of extras all at the same time (the illustrated LotR), the RRP went way up!
onthetrail, I am curious to learn more about your 70% other books you purchase. Are they for reading or collecting? What publishers stand out as better than HC in terms of quality?
On the "producing solid books should be the first concern", I don't think anyone disagrees with you on the collecting side. From the publisher side, though, that is not the first concern by far! They want it to hold up, certainly, but their goal is to make money not create works of art that will withstand the tests of time. (I am not talking about specialty/collector focused publishers here). From a corporate perspective, they want the book to fall apart after a few readings, they don't want it on the used market taking away potential future sales of new books. This is the exact same in the consumer electronics world (my day job). Samsung doesn't want your TV to last 20 years - they want you to buy a new one every 5 years or so! That's how they make money. Designed obsolescence is real, and I think it is now a part of the (large conglomerate) book publishing world, too.
A few thoughts:
The budget for "extras" might not be coming from the book production cost. It is not at all uncommon for publishers to have a marketing budget for a book release that could be used for author tours, trade show appearances, etc. I have no idea how things work at HC, but with Tolkien in particular, they could be using marketing budget for these extras like maps, booklets, and CDs. Or the publisher might have decided that there is an "extras" budget in the RRP - some editions we get lots of Alan Lee illustrations, some we get fold out maps, some we get a CD. When we got a bunch of extras all at the same time (the illustrated LotR), the RRP went way up!
onthetrail, I am curious to learn more about your 70% other books you purchase. Are they for reading or collecting? What publishers stand out as better than HC in terms of quality?
On the "producing solid books should be the first concern", I don't think anyone disagrees with you on the collecting side. From the publisher side, though, that is not the first concern by far! They want it to hold up, certainly, but their goal is to make money not create works of art that will withstand the tests of time. (I am not talking about specialty/collector focused publishers here). From a corporate perspective, they want the book to fall apart after a few readings, they don't want it on the used market taking away potential future sales of new books. This is the exact same in the consumer electronics world (my day job). Samsung doesn't want your TV to last 20 years - they want you to buy a new one every 5 years or so! That's how they make money. Designed obsolescence is real, and I think it is now a part of the (large conglomerate) book publishing world, too.
Velmeran wrote:
In terms of the Deluxe line that started back in the early 2000's has the RRP/MSRP changed on them? Haven't they always been priced at £75.00 (or £100 for LotR) or am I misremembering as I get older?
Assuming the RRP has remained the same, then it's not increasing with the costs of inflation at all, which would result in the profit margins for HC are getting slimmer and slimmer each year. So is it really any shock that the quality (perceived or not) has decreased from where it was back when the line first started?
The Children of Húrin had a RRP of £60 back in 2007, which was the first of the "coloured slipcase" line of deluxe books that is still ongoing. The latest, The Fall of Númenor is £70 as you say. So that's about a 17% increase over 15 years - a little less than inflation (prior to this year), but not much.
Urulókë wrote:
@onthetrail, I am curious to learn more about your 70% other books you purchase. Are they for reading or collecting? What publishers stand out as better than HC in terms of quality?
A good mix of collections and general reading. I buy alot of Stephen King and the items that are collectable are very decent quality. Standard hardcovers are of course a mixed bag and generally use paper that you'd expect to find in cheap editions. I buy Faber & Faber books quite often which are traditionally quite similar to HarperCollins trade items, a little more expensive but the paper is usually of better quality.
I also buy indy efforts, namely horror and sci-fi which are almost always excellent quality. Taschen take up a lot of room on my shelves too and they are superb for the price. Very rarely is there a defect with Taschen. I also buy a lot of books about movies too, usually containing a lot of artwork, again they are almost always excellent quality.
There's a lot of explaining corporate behaviour here; which, while interesting, is not really the point I think some are wanting to make. I think people broadly understand business/corporate/marketing behaviour. Books are not ordinary items of commerce though, historically. Copyright, RRP, etc - the PA made the argument that books are more than products, and succeeded. When/if that all goes, the historic link between the bookcollectors of the past (who, I'd guess, were largely collectors of books because they weren't just TVs or toasters) & the collectors of today will be (if it's not already) broken. When that goes, much will be lost. I collect books (as I hope others do) because books are more than products. You know, the literature.
Khamûl wrote:
There's a lot of explaining corporate behaviour here; which, while interesting, is not really the point I think some are wanting to make. I think people broadly understand business/corporate/marketing behaviour. Books are not ordinary items of commerce though, historically. Copyright, RRP, etc - the PA made the argument that books are more than products, and succeeded. When/if that all goes, the historic link between the bookcollectors of the past (who, I'd guess, were largely collectors of books because they weren't just TVs or toasters) & the collectors of today will be (if it's not already) broken. When that goes, much will be lost. I collect books (as I hope others do) because books are more than products. You know, the literature.
You can now have the literature completely separate from the physical book. The digital revolution has completely separate the two concepts, and book collectors of today are (largely, I am making sweeping generalizations I acknowledge) interested in the physical book itself. After all, why have more than one copy of The Silmarillion if your interest is in the literature itself? They have the exact same words inside them.
Urulókë wrote:
I don't understand where you think I am being disingenuous. When a prior comment said their books are printed on toilet paper, how is that not calling the product toilet paper? In the "commonly used phrase" you refer to, people mean tearing pages out of books to use as toilet paper. No one is talking about using the binding materials.
The comparison to toilet paper is based on toilet paper being the cheapest paper you can buy - it is NOT based on people tearing out the pages to use as toilet paper.
That's why saying the book is toilet paper (which can be used as you say, I suppose) != the book is printed on toilet paper.
That's why I say what you are saying is disingenous. You are willfully conflating two different things to make a point (or so I believe).
Velmeran wrote:
In terms of the Deluxe line that started back in the early 2000's has the RRP/MSRP changed on them? Haven't they always been priced at £75.00 (or £100 for LotR) or am I misremembering as I get older?
Assuming the RRP has remained the same, then it's not increasing with the costs of inflation at all, which would result in the profit margins for HC are getting slimmer and slimmer each year. So is it really any shock that the quality (perceived or not) has decreased from where it was back when the line first started?
No, they started at £60. That said, based on UK inflation they have certainly gotten cheaper, as £60 in 2004 is closer to £100 now.
Stu wrote:
Urulókë wrote:
I don't understand where you think I am being disingenuous. When a prior comment said their books are printed on toilet paper, how is that not calling the product toilet paper? In the "commonly used phrase" you refer to, people mean tearing pages out of books to use as toilet paper. No one is talking about using the binding materials.
The comparison to toilet paper is based on toilet paper being the cheapest paper you can buy - it is NOT based on people tearing out the pages to use as toilet paper.
That's why saying the book is toilet paper (which can be used as you say) != the book is printed on toilet paper.
That's why I say what you are saying is disingenous. You are willfully conflating two different things to make a point (or so I believe).
If a book was printed on banana leaves, and I said that's a banana leaf book, those are the same thing.
You don't get to call a book printed on toilet paper and not expect people to connect the product to the material used.
If you can show me a printer's catalog of available stock that contains "toilet paper" as an option, I will concede your point. Otherwise, it is meant as an insult, and not conducive towards having a constructive discussion about book quality.