Technology Review - Published By MIT
Log in to My.TechnologyReview.com | Register
Advertisement
[1] 2 3 Next »

January 2005

The Future of Books

Jason Epstein was a publisher for more than 40 years. Now in retirement, he wants to replace Gutenberg with a digital press.

By Jason Epstein

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Jason Epstein worked in book publishing for more than 40 years. He was editorial director of Random House and founded Anchor Books, the New York Review of Books, the Library of America, and the Readers Catalog. Now in retirement, he wants to digitally reconstruct publishing, as digitization is re-creating the music industry.

I became a publisher by accident. When I entered Columbia College in 1945, I was only 17, but I found myself surrounded by veterans in their 20s, some still in their flight jackets and peacoats, many of them married, some with infants. Most of them were in a hurry to find careers and get on with their lives. Some, however, were incipient scholars, and I was fascinated by their worldly talk of Marvell and Donne, Pascal and Voltaire, James and Proust, and Joyce and Eliot. Some of my elders became my friends. For four years we formed an intense coterie of which I was the chief beneficiary because I joined it knowing nothing and acquired from it the rudiments of an education. I had no thought of a job, much less a career in business, certainly not one in book publishing. Thus it did not occur to me that my friends, thanks to the GI Bill, belonged to a large, unprecedented, and undiscovered market for serious books -- a new phenomenon in the cultural and commercial life of the United States.

In September 1950, after wasting a year in graduate school, I was on my own financially. For want of a better plan, and with only the vaguest idea of what a book publisher actually did (I had recently seen a film called The Scoundrel, starring Noël Coward, about the ruin of a glamorous but dissolute book publisher), I applied to Doubleday's training program, which promised to indoctrinate prospective publishers by rotating them through various departments. Although Doubleday's personnel manager insisted that I was unsuited for the program, Ken McCormick, the firm's editor in chief, hired me nonetheless.

In those days, paperback publishing was an offshoot of maga­zine distribution. Every month a bundle of cheaply printed popu­lar novels, each selling for 25 cents, was delivered along with that month's magazines to drugstores and news­stands around the country. Last month's unsold paperbacks were collected, pulped, and reborn as next month's (hence "pulp fiction"). I had been at Double­day for six months, long enough to grasp the essentials of the business, when I proposed to Ken a plan for another kind of paperback. One February afternoon, as we walked across Central Park, I asked, Why not sell paperbacks in bookstores instead of newsstands? We would publish the kinds of serious works that my friends and I had read at Columbia, but which were available only in hard covers and at pro­hibitive prices. These paperbacks could, I suggested, be slightly more expensive than mass-market pulps: we would break even when we had sold 20,000 copies instead of 100,000. Wouldn't it make more sense to sell 20 copies of The Sound and the Fury at a dollar than one hardcover copy at ten dollars?

What I was proposing was a paperback program that would expand the market for publishers' backlists -- that is, books that sell year after year and in the aggregate contain nearly all that we think we know about ourselves and the world. In the 1950s, backlists were the life's blood of publishing: backlisted titles had recouped their costs, and their sales provided book publishers with a steady stream of profit.

Ken agreed and suggested that I talk to people in production and sales and come up with a business plan. We decided to call the new series Anchor Books, after Double­day's Aldine colophon, with its frisky dolphin wrapped around a weighty anchor. We began by testing the market with 20,000 copies of 12 titles in sturdy paper bindings, priced between 65 cents and $1.25. The first list included Joseph Conrad, Edmund Wilson, D. H. Lawrence, André Gide, and Stendhal. Within a year or two, nearly every publisher in New York and Boston had a line of "quality paperbacks," which bookstores were selling by the millions. The "paperback revolution," as it would be called, had begun.

The essential factors in the success of this format (new to the United States, although European publishers had been publishing quality paperbacks for some time) were an audience for serious reading created by the GI Bill and the 3,000 to 4,000 independent booksellers who constituted the retail market for books. Many of these stores were hardly more than gift shops carrying greeting cards, regional titles, and a few bestsellers, but perhaps a thousand booksellers in cities and major suburbs maintained deep backlist inventories and catered to the eclectic interests of sophisticated readers who found their way to the low-rent neighborhoods where many of the shops were located. Our marketing strategy was simple. We put Anchor Books displays wherever we could, hoping that readers would find them and tell their friends. The books sold themselves.

[1] 2 3 Next »
January 2005

Would you like to read more articles from the January 2005 issue?

This article is from the January 2005 Issue of Technology Review. To read other articles from this issue simply register for My.TechnologyReview.com. It's free.

Subscribe today and save up to 41% »

Comments

  • Bad Idea!
    Guest (Jason Bourne) on 01/08/2006 at 6:28 PM
    Posts:
    1
    Paper is going out and fast.  It would not be cost efficent to download a text file and then print it all out.  The cost to the consumer for paper and ink would be outragous.  It would be so much easier to simply download it and read it from there off of a tablet PC or PDA device.  There is no important reason to print off the book when you can store it on your hard drive and read it using e-book software.  Paper Sucks!
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Mr. Bourne's opinion
      Guest (Dan LeMaire-Bauch) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      The cost of paper and ink is really not "outragous" (sic) unless you're talking about "rag paper".  For commercial acid-free paper, it's quite tolerable in the opinion of this reader.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Good Idea!
      stevedefeo on 10/28/2006 at 8:29 AM
      Posts:
      1
      With all due respect, it appears that Mr. Bourne is barking up the wrong tree.  The primary benefit provided by on-demand-printing is not simply the minimization of book costs to the end-user, but rather the tremendous advantage afforded to the reader by this technology's ability to locally produce what is needed, when it is needed.  For those of us fortunate enough to reside in or near large metropolitan centers with their abundant sources of reading material, this may not be particularly interesting.  However, this is certainly not the case for the vast majority of the world's population.  It is in this regard that the benefits of on-demand-printing are most needed and would be most appreciated.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Bad Idea!
      morris.ward on 12/09/2006 at 7:32 PM
      Posts:
      1
      A book printed on acid-free paper will last 100 years and more.  No one in this discussion of
      using files of digitized books ever mentions or questions how those digital files will be digitally preserved, error-free, retrievable, interpretable, and repurposeable, for 100 years or more.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Bad Idea!
        sebakunstpaul on 10/23/2007 at 2:08 PM
        Posts:
        3
        Digital files will last because the backward-compatibility that IT industry have to keep. I give only pdf file type as example, then databases will spread, so there will be many backups... probably users will be able to keep own file collection... and so on.
        Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Bad Idea!
      Colin Walsh on 08/28/2007 at 10:27 AM
      Posts:
      1
      I don't think that the comment 'paper sucks!' adds any value to an argument against paper-based information.  Pulp is a crop, mostly wood, that is grown for just that - paper. It is planted and harvested like any other crop. Take away the pulp forests and not only will the environment be damaged, but housing estates will rapidly appear on the cleared land.  It's silly to argue media against media.  It's a question not only of what works but what is preferred.  Of course, IT advances means that e-readers are now more flexible.  Everybody knows that.  It still doesn't mean that the paper-based book is redundant and certainly, Print On Demand means fewer numbers being printed on the basis of guesswork.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Bad Idea!
      sebakunstpaul on 10/23/2007 at 2:17 PM
      Posts:
      3
      Digital files have their advantages (portability, environmental benefit, zoom... just thinking about few...), but finally a printed book is a printed book... doesn't require any power supply, will not crash, will not be corrupted... will not deceive you.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • bks on demand
    pstream on 12/29/2006 at 3:35 PM
    Posts:
    1
    I co-owned a bookstore in Boulder during the 1970's, with thousands of titles. It was really like a current library, with overstuffed chairs, oriental rugs, plants and no food. Very hip and now.
    In the '80-2000 years I worked for the state government geological program in the infomation/publishing section.
    I remember that a print on demand was available, but I was not able to convience anyone that it was the publishing future. No more warehouse of slow moving inventory. Geology being popular, but by no means profitable.
    I was able to scan/digitize their sizable map collection, (almost 2 years non-stop to complete),
    that is now available in full color as print on demand. I just could not convience them that book publishing had to change.
    I am glad to hear that someone is moving forward with this, and I hope to be able to have access to the publishing industry of the future.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • a new website that challenges
    steve81 on 07/17/2007 at 6:43 PM
    Posts:
    1
    A website was launched this week that challenges the traditional publishing model. It differs from others in that it is free, totally interactive between readers, authors, editors and publishers. I'd like to invite your members to view the site and provide comments, criticisms and suggestions.The site is www.novelmaker.com  I would especially like Mr Epstein's opinion.  Steve Weinstein Sc.D.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Perspectives...
    sebakunstpaul on 10/23/2007 at 2:37 PM
    Posts:
    3
    Print on Demand for Books is most advantageous because of many reasons.

    First readers will not have to wait for new editions to be published, this particularly will be a benefit for readers to reach good titles, which are not so often published for example. There are many titles with not so broad audience, what I mean culture isn't mainstream yet...

    Then authors will have an easy way to publish their works to promote and sell on demand, being affordable to publish few... bringing "user generated content" into the traditional printed media.

    Also I would like to remind about corporate market, that uses print on demand at a large scale... reports, studies, etc. I think now about smaller businesses that could benefit from more accessibility to printing services, as cost, time, professional look of documentation, etc.

    Print on Demand is the future of printing, if not the only future...
    Rate this comment: 12345
Advertisement

Current Issue

Technology Review September/October 2008
How Obama Really Did It
Social technology helped bring him to the brink of the presidency.
•  Subscribe
Save 41%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News

Magazine Services

Career Resources

MIT Technology Insider

Stories and breaking news from inside MIT about the latest research, innovations, and startups--in a convenient monthly e-newsletter. Subscribe today

Follow us on Twitter

Twitter

Get Technology Review updates via the web, cellphone, or Instant Messager – Follow techreview on Twitter!

Advertisement

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology