I was recently discussing books with some friends, and one guy said he sorta feels guilty about taking books out from the library, because he feels he should put more money in the author’s pocket by buying a copy. I have to admit, such a thought never crossed my mind - tho I can see the logic.
I guess I just assumed that part of an author’s calculations included that a number of their books would be bought by libraries, and what they lost in unit sales would be somewhat offset by publicity, as well as a general interest in encouraging reading. I had never heard of authors speaking critically of libraries, tho I am aware that some electronic books have limits as to how often they can be lent out.
What do you think?
(I use our library all the time, and can’t remember the last time I bought a book.)
Everything I’ve ever heard from authors, whether in real life or in interviews, is that they are big supporters of libraries. They like anything which encourages people to read more, and it’s a way to find new readers of their books (people may be more inclined to read a new author if they don’t have to buy the book).
Here’s an article (fairly old) by the author Neil Gaiman, making a passionate defence of the existence of libraries.
If I were to read a book at the library and liked it, then I would be more inclined to buy the authors next book. Cannot wait for the Twain guy to put out something new.
[quote=“SanVito, post:3, topic:991144, full:true”]
Everything I’ve ever heard from authors, whether in real life or in interviews, is that they are big supporters of libraries. [/quote]
Right. The real fear of authors of fiction is that people stop reading for enjoyment. It isn’t like books are a one shot device.
The authors who need the money most get only a small cut of the sales price. Stephen King and Danielle Steele can negotiate higher percentages, but they don’t really need the money. A much more efficient way to support struggling authors, if you are so inclined, would be to borrow the book from the library, then mail a check to to the author. I have never been tempted to do that, but it makes more sense than buying new books in the hope that a little bit will trickled down to the author.
I have written a number of books, for many of which I do receive royalties. I also use the library frequently and rarely buy books, and I don’t feel guilty about it at all.
My wife published her first book last year and has sold about 20,000 copies. A US publisher has now picked it up and will be publishing it in the spring.
A cheque for $10-20 really does nothing for her besides letting her buy a sandwich. Sales through the publisher both increase her reach by making it more interesting for main stream media (radio, tv, newspapers) to showcase it and the publisher to spend money on marketing. It also increases what she can get from the publisher on her next book.
If they are not self-published buy the book from your local bookseller (preferably for the sake the local store) or mega-online retailer (she gets the same royalty either way) or just take it out of the library.
In Canada, there is a federal government program, the public lending rights commission, that surveys libraries and gives authors a bit of money depending on how many libraries carry their books. Authors have to register with the commission and it’s a survey, not an exhaustive search, of public and university libraries. It typically would yield a few hundred dollars a year if one’s book was found in all the libraries surveyed. Not much, but likely over time to be greater than the money received from royalties.
In Canada, a book makes the bestseller list with 5,000 copies sold and the author would be lucky to 10% of the cover price. Few books sell anything like that many; a small press would be delighted to sell 1,500. In the US, the average print run for a university press is about 600 copies: no one gets rich from that, apart from the pay boost if the author is a professor.
So libraries are not going to make much of difference to overall sales, which are unlikely to be a source of income for the vast majority of writers who are published.
You have to compare marginal benefits one extra book sale to the marginal benefit of one check. Would she rather have 20,001 sales (and all the royalties and other benefits that brings) or 20,000 sales plus a sandwich? There is no wrong answer, but I think I would rather have the sandwich than one extra sale.
The sandwich doesn’t move her book on to a top 10 list in her category on Amazon which can lead to 100s of sales, even if one cheque is 5x the royalties she would earn via her publisher. She would rather sell 20,100 books vs. 20,001 books+a sandwich.
Unfortunately the publishing industry is still set up like the olden days. It’s like tipping your server - I don’t like the system, but it’s what we have today.
But you have to consider the probability that that one extra sale would the one that makes the difference between the title being in the top-10 list or not. I’d guess it’s less than a 1% probability, which brings down the expectation value of the top-10-list effect proportionately.
Authors love libraries, not just because they like people to read, but because they’re a big market. Libraries buy a lot of books. For an author it means a lot of sales if a library system agrees to stock one of their books.
Exactly, and libraries tend to buy books because the publisher marketed the book to them, its selling well and there is demand for it, or the author’s previous books were well read. It builds on itself.
In the mid 70s when I was 12 I checked out a book called Salem’s Lot by a new author named Stephen King. I loved it and purchased his next several novels.
I’m thrilled when I see one order. I have a textbook with an academic publisher; if no one chooses it as a required textbook (and they don’t), I don’t even get a royalty check until it hits $50, which happens every couple of years. I have a chapter in a book that pays royalties; same disbursement style with a check maybe every two years. I edited a professional anthology gratis that’s online, so no royalties and no idea how many hits it gets. I self-published a book with KDP. I gave an online reading in September and sold 4 copies. No sales so far in October. After promotional business cards, some promotional copies sent out, and two contests entered, I’m running $44.51 in the black. I’d be happy to see any of my books in libraries. I’ve donated some.
I have similar numbers of sales and royalties, but when I figure paper, computer, printer, and pencils, I’m not in the black, and when I consider the hourly rate of pay, or the pay per word, well, as Karl Marx said, “This book won’t earn back the cost of the cigars I smoked while writing it.”
The most money I made per word/hour was an anecdote I sent to the Reader’s Digest 40 years ago, which paid $200 and was approximately 200 words long.
Are there any studies about how much libraries affect a books sales and the writer’s revenue? If an author’s book was not in any libraries, would their income go up or down? I would expect the change in the author’s income would be so small that it would be insignificant either way. I’d guess a major author would just have a vanishingly tiny +/- difference to their income from libraries. It’d be a fraction of a penny difference to their income. If they are popular, a library isn’t going to affect their sales much either way. If the author is unknown, then a library is unlikely to make any kind of significant difference to their income, either. I can’t see an unpopular author gaining or losing many sales regardless of if they are in a library or not. Their income is going to be so low, anyway. A random sale here or a lost sale there because of the library isn’t going to be noticeable.