|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 23 October 2011
Posts: 173,
Visits: 1,547
|
|
Bill (10/3/2009)
Hengus (10/2/2009)
[quote]Bill (10/1/2009)
As some recentNN titles have 2nd print runs of 1000s, it's not unreasonable to assume that the PODs will sell in their hundreds, is it?
Bill
Not unreasonable at all....but a handful of books (let's be generous...say 20 - although, personally, I think it would be much lower than that?) selling 500 each equates to a total of 10,000 which would generate £0.5m turnover and what sort of profit? It's not a lot, is it, even on these exaggeratted figures? Most (certainly, Many) of the titles will have tiny POD runs. I can't see where the rest of the recurring income is going to come from....
Sorry, this wasn't meant to be a negative "we're all doomed" rant...just trying to throw some thoughts about! And I really do want it to work....
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 28 January 2012
Posts: 35,
Visits: 539
|
|
| I cant imagine it will ever be a huge money spinner for Collins but the exercise should still make a nice profit.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 05 April 2010
Posts: 1,
Visits: 28
|
|
Hengus (28/09/2009)
Paper quality: As I expected, or feared maybe, I guess. In comparisom
with the 'real thing' it feels cheap and cheerful. This has a knock
on effect with the b&w embedded images. The ones in Lakeland look
like they were taken in the 1950s. Maybe that's deliberate ;-) The
paper also 'marks' very easily.
[/i]
See my comments on another thread (on the "What have you ordered?" thread, page 3) with regard to the image quality. Collins has today confirmed that POD are made from digital page scans of the originals and therefore the quality of the original is repeated. The paper has a role to play in this however, and I completely agree with your estimate that images look like they were printed in the 1950s. Digital page scans they may be, but the paper does nothing to enhance their quality perhaps.
|
|
|
|