Re: O'Reilly

[Roberto Ierusalimschy <roberto@...>]

> So what is the problem in going back to the same publisher who did the
> first edition.

That was me :)

Actually, the current scheme, via Ligthning Source, is not that bad.
I am very happy with its service, and it has a reasonable distribution.

By being the publisher, as I am now, I get more than seven times more
money for each book sold than being only the author. So, unless a
publisher can make my book sell seven times what it sells now, I would
lose money. Moreover, with a publisher I have to give up some control
over the book (contents, future editions, translation rights, etc.)

Of course money is not the only factor. If a publisher could multiply my
sales by 4-5 I would get it, even with the final amount begin less than
it is now. However, to get a publisher only to double my sales (or even
less than that) does not seem a good deal.

So, the main questions to me are how much a specific publisher could
improve my sales and how much it would improve my sales. The first is
related to the publisher sales infrastructure (marketing, connection
with bookstores, etc.), the second is related with their interest in a
particular book. The first is not too dificult to estimate; the second
is almost impossible, unless they explicit show their interest (as
O'Reilly did ;).

Related questions:

* Have you ever seen PiL in a bookstore shelf?

* How much does that matter to real sales?

* Are technical books sold mainly online?

* How much the publisher actions impact a book sales?

* How much the publisher's name impact a book sales?

-- Roberto