Don’t Demonize Print on Demand

Over at LitHub—the established water cooler for the literary/MFA publishing crowd—bookseller Drew Broussard wrote a piece last week, Have You Purchased a Weirdly Low-Quality Paperback Book Lately? This May Be Why.

The crux of his piece is that traditional publishers—the big ones in particular—are using print-on-demand to fulfill orders to deliver a crappy, overpriced product. As a bookseller, Broussard is disturbed by this, as it undercuts the quality he wants to represent, plus it can end up costing readers more at the register. Some publishers raise the price of paperbacks when moving to POD because it costs more per unit to print, even if the quality dips. That said, Broussard is not always in favor of higher production values. He notes that the rise of sprayed edges and hardcover reissues of popular novels are “morally-neutral late-capitalist cash-grabs.” (The Big Five have a very fine line to walk to be held in high regard today.)

Arguments about the role and quality of print on demand have been ongoing since the technology rose to prominence in the early 2000s.

POD started off being closely associated with the self-publishing market, as it allows authors to publish for hundreds of dollars, if not zero dollars. It has never really shaken off that association, even though it has been a godsend for authors and publishers alike. For authors, it eases the path to nationwide distribution and retail placement; both Amazon and Ingram use the technology (on their own or through printers for hire) to fulfill orders. And for bigger publishers, it has meant not losing sales when being caught short of stock, whether because of a prize win, a current event, or scheduling problems—any number of reasons, some better than others.

Broussard’s position is that POD is being used for convenience and not for really good reasons. From his perspective, I’m guessing a good reason might be fulfilling the extraordinary demand for specific titles in June 2020, after George Floyd’s murder. Titles on race filled the top 10 on the New York Times bestseller list in a way that no publisher could’ve ever anticipated. Ingram’s print-on-demand capabilities ensured that spike in demand could be met. Would it have been better to make readers wait? If so, they might have been waiting a very long time given supply chain problems during the pandemic. And I don’t think the authors of those books wanted readers to wait any more than the publishers did. Every retailer and distributor will tell you that if the book can’t be bought when the customer wants it, you’ve lost the sale.

This is perhaps why both Ingram and Amazon have been rather insistent that publishers give them permission, along with appropriate digital files, to produce titles using POD if and when stock runs out. When I worked at a midsize traditional publisher, this insistence came along with some favorable terms if certain conditions were met. These days, I have to wonder if the carrots have turned to sticks. One retired publisher commented on Threads—and I have heard the same from others—that there is pressure from a “specific retailer” (Amazon) to have the book available as POD even if stock is available. He writes, “It allows them to be never out of stock. That has driven the massive expansion of titles in the two POD programs. It also means that two customers who order a book from that retailer may get different quality goods in their delivery.”

Early POD books were noticeably low quality, but the technology has been advancing for nearly three decades now, and except for people really enmeshed in the industry, it can be impossible to distinguish a POD title from an offset title, at least for the average black-and-white paperback that’s mostly text. The “secret” often shared for identifying a POD book? Look at the last few pages for a barcode. That’s now the giveaway, rather than the paper, cover, or printing quality.

But it’s undeniably true that some POD titles just don’t look great.

For some titles, you definitely wouldn’t want to put the original, offset edition next to the POD edition as the differences would be glaring. So what’s going on? I can only speculate (and maybe some of you working at publishers or printers can enlighten me in the comments), but here are likely explanations. All of this applies to traditional publishers, especially Big Five publishers, and their normal business operations. 

The POD edition was not set up competently. This can be fixed. Publisher Anne Trubek discusses at length who’s to blame when POD looks bad, as well as the technical steps that go into printing a book. Don’t blame POD. Blame the care and competence of those setting up the POD edition. The POD printer somehow botched the job, or more likely the publisher chose lower quality materials, perhaps because better quality materials were not available. (Paper shortages are a thing, more on that in a minute.) The publisher never intended to keep the same level of production value for the book after the first edition or first print run sold out. They planned for the book to move to POD once it became a backlist book or started selling below a certain threshold of copies. The question always becomes, “Does that cover gloss [or special thing that adds cost but is only attainable from offset printing] sell more copies?” Often the answer is no. The original offset edition was never going to transition all that well to POD to begin with.

On this last point: For many years now, people who specialize in book printing and manufacturing have begged and pleaded with publishers to standardize how they produce their books (e.g., paper types, trim, finishes, and more). Standardization reduces costs for everyone in the supply chain, right down to the reader. Standardization also means that when publishers or retailers must use POD to fulfill orders, for any reason, the quality differences become less pronounced or don’t exist. You’re not changing the book trim, you’re not making big changes to the paper quality, etc. POD can do a lot of things well, but it has limited options for trims, papers or special printing operations.

Even 15 years ago, I was being pressured as an editorial director to standardize. That pressure has only been ratcheted up due to ongoing consolidation and transformation of the paper and printing industries. The cost of paper and printing keeps increasing and it’s not just an artifact of the pandemic. There’s a larger story here about the transformation of the paper and printing industry and economic forces at work that book publishing cannot control. I’ve written in my paid newsletter about this (see here, here, and here)—my husband worked for 20 years in book production, so you’re noticing some of that influence!—but it remains a rather boring topic except to a handful of insiders and specialists. But it has a dramatic effect on what Broussard is noticing and what is likely to happen in the future.

Smaller publishers rely on print on demand more than the big publishers.

It’s about money and financial risk. A print run is an investment that might not pay the publisher back in the form of sales. The money is tied up in inventory and it can incur ongoing warehousing costs. It means the publisher has less money for other things, like author advances or marketing. Even for a book that’s selling well, knowing when to go back to press and in what quantity can make the difference between a successful book and one that costs the business dearly. I do admit, however, that the aversion to inventory and warehousing can be taken too far. I saw it happen as an editor, when a focus on “just in time” inventory and reduced warehousing space could end up costing more in the end. But that’s another discussion. Suffice it to say, there’s a balance to be struck.

Authors have expressed frustration with their publishers about the lack of transparency and communication.

Usually the fact their book is being printed and fulfilled via POD is never disclosed. While I wouldn’t say the publisher is keeping it a secret exactly, in my experience, authors are rarely if ever notified about issues related to inventory, printing, or pricing changes. For my own book, my publisher certainly never told me about the move to POD or that the price had increased for that POD edition; I found out on my own. But the transition was seamless and I’ve never heard a single complaint from anyone. (Also, for traditional publishing contracts, authors can expect to be paid their usual royalty rate regardless of how the book is printed.)

It would be great if publishers could do better communicating these changes if only for the sake of transparency and increased trust, but it is highly unlikely the editors themselves—the point person for authors—are kept in the loop about such things. Once a book has sold through its first print run and is due for a reprint, not only has the editor moved on in many cases, but it’s a discussion between the production department and the people who manage inventory and reprints, maybe sales staff. So much depends on the publisher. Unfortunately, if authors are hearing about potential problems from booksellers and feeling blindsided, that’s undesirable for everyone.

Which brings me back to Broussard’s piece: His proclamations about POD on social media, by his own admission, have stoked author anxiety about publishers using POD for their books. He says authors are “shocked to see the product of their labors … given such short shrift.” While he says his criticism is really directed at big publishers in particular (they’re the late-capitalist greedy ones), I don’t see authors being educated as much as they’re being set against a method of printing that is needed by the industry and shouldn’t have a moral judgment tied to it.

The bottom line

I have no doubt that POD is getting misused in some cases and not executed well in others,  but the wiser call to action is to ask how POD can produce a better outcome when it becomes the most logical, sustainable or economical choice for a book. It can produce outstanding outcomes where everyone is satisfied, but it does require advance planning and thoughtfulness. As editor Martha Bayne recently commented, “Print on demand is a technology, pure and simple. Some (many) print on demand books are of excellent quality, indistinguishable from an offset printed book. Almost all scholarly books are printed POD these days, which allows university presses to take risks on books that may only sell 300 copies and keep them in print. Some POD books are shoddily produced, due to printer error, publisher cost-cutting, or some weird combination of the two. But POD itself is value neutral.”