Publishers Killed the Paperback, Then Blamed Readers

It’s worth noting that it’s not “paperbacks” in general but the mass-market paperbacks in particular (despite the headline). The print book market (excluding technical books and textbooks which are a whole separate thing) had effectively three segments: hardcovers, trade paperback and mass-market paperback. The distinction between TP and MMP comes down to price, production quality and to a lesser degree target audience. A trade paperback will have somewhat larger pages, typically the same size as the corresponding hardcover and often printed from the same plates as the hardcover. Mass-market paperbacks were typically smaller, on cheaper paper¹ with smaller margins. Back when there were racks of books in supermarkets and drugstores, these were all MMPs and while bookstores would sell MMPs, they are geared more towards TP and HC sales since the lower price also came with lower margins (hardcovers make the most money for everyone involved and MMPs the least).

Since a large fraction of MMPs sold were genre fiction and a large fraction of that has shifted to ebooks (romance readers were the biggest early adopters of the kindle), along with the decline of book sales outside of bookstore channels, the loss of MMPs isn’t the cultural cataclysm the article claims. Meanwhile, it’s worth noting that the trade paperback space has expanded. It’s not uncommon for a new writer’s first book to be released as a trade paperback rather than hardcover (Emily St John Mandel is one notable example of a writer who debuted in TP but had later books released in HC).

⸻

1. It was typically pure wood-pulp paper with high acid content, leading these books to be described as “pulp novels” and since a large fraction of these were genre novels, genre fiction would be referred to as pulp fiction and yes, that’s where the movie gets its name from.

Missing from the article is the role of ebooks.

I hypothesize that the kind of reader who wants a physical copy of a book is much happier to get a hardcover. I know I’ve personally lever liked the cheap flimsiness of mass market paperbacks and I don’t read frequently enough for the higher price of a hardcover to matter.

The kind of person who wants the cheapest possible book moved from mass market paperbacks to e-readers.

There was a recent article probably posted here about how UHD 4K Blu-ray sales are increasing over time, somewhat counter to what the average person might assume. I think this analogy works reasonably well. The 4K UHD buyer fits a niche of someone who isn’t satisfied by streaming. They want a keepsake physical piece of media with beautiful box art and the highest quality picture and sound available.

In contrast, the kind of person who would have bought DVDs from the Walmart bin has almost certainly moved to digital. They never cared about the quality of the media, they just wanted a low price with a lot of convenience.

Nah, 25 cents in 1939 is 6 dollars today. There are 200 new books on Target.com right now for less than 6 dollars. Their own article has a grocery store spinner with $4.99 books and under.

Your library and project gutenburg have a bunch of books you can read for free on your phone or web browser. Or the kindle/Kobo ecosystem. And with the web, you can reserve physical copies of paperbacks or expensive new hardcover books at the library and have them waiting for you to pick up.

We live in an era of unprecedented super abundance of good reading.

This "i just found something unfair" style journalism is very frustrating because they only consider evidence that you are powerless.

You are not powerless. You can read great stuff and don't have to pay a lot. Go get it!

This article asks a bunch of questions without ever bothering to try and answer them. That makes it less than useless; it’s mostly insinuations.

There’s also a lack of historical knowledge. Sure, mass market paperbacks were a new format — but not completely new in 1939. Cheap paperbacks date back to the previous century. The author of this piece would have done well to spend some time with Wikipedia.

For that matter, showing some curiosity about reading habits in general would have helped. Reading wasn’t a new habit: dime novels and pulp magazines were deeply popular in the early 20th century. The jump to mass market paperbacks was not particularly long.

Mass market paperbacks were my childhood. I couldn't get hardcovers due to price so I had to wait until all books made it to paperbacks.

I feel like reading a lot of books - good content or not - gave me advantages in school over my peers.

If you did a PCA on the reasons reading has gone down, this would get a very low score.

I can take most young people today, give them access to all the paperbacks in the world (and despite the point of the article, it is very easy to find paperbacks!) and their reading will barely change.

The culture has shifted. Screens are a likely problem. Books - particularly paperbacks - were handy because they could be used to in times of boredom. Waiting at the doctor's office. Commuting to work/school (if you're not driving). In the evening when nothing good was on TV and your computer is turned off. When you didn't want to tie up the phone line talking to friends.

Now there are many more alternatives to fill those spaces.

There comes a time in life when there's "just too much stuff". Whenever that happens, things like e-books and other digital media become more important. And today, unfortunately, books might not be items that have any resale value.

Wild note here that Costco stopped selling books ?!?!

I remember going shopping with my Mom at Costco and the book section was like the highlight!

I’d love to read more books on paper but purely from a utilitarian standpoint, the UK’s race to enormous books (both hardback and paperback) makes it unworkable. Some of the latest books are more like pulpit bibles than something I can toss in a bag for the commute.

This article doesn’t mention standard or trade paperbacks. With how much prices have risen on mass market paperbacks a slightly nicer trade paperback is a good value

I walked into a Barnes&Noble the other day, to check out the sci-fi section.

No mass market paperbacks. Just the trade ones.

[dead]

[flagged]