  • Guest please check The Index before starting a thread.

BootStrap Publishing Co. / RocCity Book Publishing

CaoPaux

Mostly Harmless
Staff member
Super Moderator
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
13,963
Reaction score
1,769
Location
Coastal Desert

roach

annoyed and annoying
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
701
Reaction score
130
Location
Bolingbrook, IL
Website
www.idiorhythmic.net
I'm attracted to the idea of a lower cost for copies. I'd certainly consider it for ARCs. But this sentence from the above linked article made me shudder:

Authors may send copies to agents and publishers.

I respect that Mr. Pointer is very knowledgable about self-publishing, but I wish he wouldn't take it upon himself to talk about commercial publishing this way. Writers should not get their manuscripts bound and send them out to agents or publishers.
 

HapiSofi

Hagiographically Advantaged
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
2,093
Reaction score
676
CaoPaux said:
This is new to me, at least: PQN, or Print Quantity Needed

Self-publishing guru Dan Pointer has a nice explanation of it here: http://www.frugalmarketing.com/dtb/cheaperprinting.shtml

But, as you may expect, new technology becomes a new venue for exploitation. Please be wary of such companies as http://www.netpub.net/bootstrap/ , who lure new writers with promises of quick and easy bestseller-dom using PQN.

*sigh*
You know, I could be mistaken, but "PQN" sets off my BS detectors.

First: Every use of "PQN" I've found traces back to Dan Poynter. He's talking it up like it's some Hot New Thing that'll revolutionize publishing. I can't find any evidence that PQN is a technical or industry term. Poynter's descriptions of it sound to me like incremental improvements in POD/short run printing and binding technologies -- which is nice, but is hardly revolutionary. I can't see how it warrants coining a whole new term.

It could be that Poynter's just picking up his terminology and descriptions from a single manufacturer's sales literature, and is taking their word for it that this new whatever-it-is is a revolutionary development. Sales literature is fond of saying stuff like that. On the other hand, what the Marketing Department thinks is revolutionary, and what the end users think is revolutionary (not to mention useful), tend to be two different things.

Life's hard when you're a self-publishing guru on the scramble.

Anyway, "PQN" is a meaningless term. POD meant something specific: you could print books as needed without incurring additional setup costs. That was definitely something new under the sun. But PQN? Everybody "prints quantity needed." They just use different methods to do it.

We "printed quantity needed" when we hand-fed single sheets onto a page of hand-set hand-inked type, then phoned out for stir-fried Anomalocaris with sesame noodles. We "printed quantity needed" when we bolted metal stereotypes onto press rollers, ran off pallets full of extra F&Gs, and had cold roast dinosaur on rye in our lunchboxes. And we "printed quantity needed" when digital typography was keystrokes saved to a punched paper tape then output to photographic paper, our repro was pasted down with hot wax on sheets of cardboard, and we went to the diner across the street for our crispy giant ground sloth nuggets with a side order of fries.

Here's Poynter's own description of this Hot New Thang:
PQN (Print Quantity Needed) digital printing machines produce 8 to 12 books at a time from a PDF file on a disk.
Is that "produce" as in prints, or binds, or both? If it's binding, I don't see how the multiple-copy angle connects with the technology described further on down.
This short run printing …
Bingo! There's the term Poynter should be using. Short-run printing occupies the niche between full-scale offset printing and POD. If you're manufacturing fifty copies or more, short-run printing is the way to go. (See also: PublishAmerica's "49 leftover copies" scam.)
…uses a higher speed direct-to-image (disk to drum) electrostatic process with a toner blend that reproduces photographs well. There is no film or plate.
Okay, new toner tech. It sounds good. I’m wondering whether this is the new Océ Copy Press system. It's good, but it's incrementally good. It may alter some price points.
The process is cost effective for quantities from 100 to 1,500 copies.
Cost effective compared to what? There's the question. Do they mean compared to offset printing? Compared to LightningSource POD? Cost effective for whom?

I'm seriously guessing that this copy was originally written by the company that makes the machines. If you say something is cost-effective, but you don't have to explain any more than that, you're addressing people who automatically know the context.

If I'm right about that, my further guess is that they mean this method's per-unit cost is competitive with the most expensive end of offset printing. That doesn't necessarily mean it's cost-effective for a given self-published author.
It is no longer necessary to print 3,000+ books; 100 or 500 can be produced at a reasonable per-unit cost.
Right. And when was it ever necessary to print 3K+ copies of a book? Granted, you get a much lower per-unit cost when you print in that quantity, but that's a far cry from "necessary."

Saying that 100 or 500 copies can be produced "at a reasonable cost" begs a whole lot of questions. Comparative descriptions need more context than that.
Color covers are usually done with the same digital process.

Putting a lot of ink on paper is now just an option; ...
I remain convinced that the Ur-version of this document was addressed to the printing trades.
... a good one if there is large prepublication demand such as advanced sales to bookstores and/or a sale to a book club.
Ignorant. Advance sales to bookstores are the norm in real publishing. Book clubs look after their own printing, unless they're running on with the main edition, in which case their books get printed by the same giant throbbing offset monsters as all the rest.
There is no longer any reason to print 3,000 or more copies of your book on spec.
Yes, there is. You print on spec when you're betting you can count on sales. You don't wait until the customer decides he wants one, because by that time, he probably wants something else.
In the future, most books will not be manufactured until after they are sold.
Library sales used to work like that. Sales reps would go around to libraries, taking orders on reprint editions of out-of-print books. When they had enough orders, they'd send that title to press. But libraries aren't bookstore browers. It takes a huge commitment on the part of the reader to plunk down money for a book that isn't available in the store right at that moment.

That's one sense of "sold". If on the other hand he means "ordered by distributors and booksellers," many books are already being sold before they're manufactured. And if on the other other hand he means "the customer forks over money for the book," then Mr. Poynter is primarily talking about online sales: a small fraction of the annual book sales in this country.

Onward.
Costs. Let’s compare prices for traditional ink-press printing, PQN and POD (print-on-demand, one book at a time such as DocuTech). We will compare a softcover (perfect bound) 144 page 5.5 x 8.5 book with black text and a four-color cover. (Note, costs will fluctuate with the price of paper). 1. Press (ink on paper): $1.55 each but you have to print 3,000 to get a price this low. So, your print bill will be $4,650.

2. PQN printer (short run): 500 copies for $2.60 each or a print bill of $1,300, or 100 copies for $5.17 each for a print bill of $517.
That's some serious malarkey. It implies the non-existence of short-run printers, with their multiple incremental per-unit price points in the 100-2,500 copy range. The appropriate comparisons would be the prices at 100, 500, and 3,000 copies for offset printers, short-run printers, and these "PQN" printers.

I suspect that if Mr. Poynter had included all those figures, we'd have learned that this new printing technology could potentially reset some price points, and produce a half-dozen or a dozen copies of a title at a time. It's all to the good, but it's not a revolution. Really, it's not even a Hot New Thing. It's just another incremental improvement in the printing and binding technology -- and printing's not publishing.

Unless someone comes back at me with a heap of pertinent new information on subject, my take on PQN is that it doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:

James D. Macdonald

Your Genial Uncle
Absolute Sage
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
25,582
Reaction score
3,785
Location
New Hampshire
Website
madhousemanor.wordpress.com
You're thinking too much about this, Hapi, and taking too much at face value.

Here's what's going on: More and more authors react to the letters "POD" the way Dracula reacts to the Cross. So the POD publishers needed a new TLA PDQ. "PQN" is it.
 

CaoPaux

Mostly Harmless
Staff member
Super Moderator
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
13,963
Reaction score
1,769
Location
Coastal Desert
Heh. I wouldn't be surprised at all if PQN is a Poynter construct, and for just the reason Uncle Jim proposes. Also, methinks that with the advent of Lulu and such, the POD/self-publishing industry (which I've long suspected is self-feeding) is desperate to get people to again pay $1,000's for what they can now get for $100's.
 

HapiSofi

Hagiographically Advantaged
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
2,093
Reaction score
676
I can well believe PQN is a Poynter construct. As I said, all the uses of the term I could find traced back to him. I nevertheless think someone else's press release is buried just under the surface of his piece.

Maybe my post was overkill, but what's the point of having a bazooka if you never use it? Besides, the Anomalocaris paragraph was fun to write.
 

MacAllister

'Twas but a dream of thee
Staff member
El Jefe
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
22,017
Reaction score
10,751
Location
Out on a limb
Website
macallisterstone.com
And some forms of Anomalocaris grew to a length of six or seven feet. That's a lot of stir fry.
 

Kate Nepveu

Vacuumer of Cats
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
130
Reaction score
40
Website
www.steelypips.org
HapiSofi said:
(We "printed quantity needed" when we hand-fed single sheets onto a page of hand-set hand-inked type, then phoned out for stir-fried Anomalocaris with sesame noodles. We "printed quantity needed" when we bolted metal stereotypes onto press rollers, ran off pallets full of extra F&Gs, and had cold roast dinosaur on rye in our lunchboxes. We "printed quantity needed" when digital typography was keystrokes saved to a punched paper tape then output to photographic paper, our repro was pasted down with hot wax on sheets of cardboard, and we went to the diner across the street for our crispy giant ground sloth nuggets with a side order of fries.)
I just needed to admire that for a while. Don't mind me.
 

HapiSofi

Hagiographically Advantaged
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
2,093
Reaction score
676
Thank you.
 
Last edited:

CaoPaux

Mostly Harmless
Staff member
Super Moderator
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
13,963
Reaction score
1,769
Location
Coastal Desert
Has revived. Looks like her other ventures, Express Success Test Marketing and Cover to Cover Seminars, have been folded into Bootstrap.
 

CaoPaux

Mostly Harmless
Staff member
Super Moderator
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
13,963
Reaction score
1,769
Location
Coastal Desert
Now dba RocCity Book Publishing, same URL.
 

G. Applejack

Write faster! FASTER!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
417
Reaction score
61
Location
Oregon
Yay! I was certain they'd pull themselves back up by their... something. Somehow.
 
Last edited:
https://absolutewrite.com/forums/index.php?threads/bootstrap-publishing-co-roccity-book-publishing.23215/
absolutewrite.com
CC-MAIN-2024-38
135178
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:KFQVJITTEIQEZ6EXS3MS7NIIAV7LYBUF
<urn:uuid:3784cbca-9c0e-4e72-9701-c060a3513813>
2024-09-18T15:41:22Z
104.26.14.187
text/html
sha1:BJLIONXCIE3RE4ZPMJVJFMGDLXRAUXKA
<urn:uuid:15ee0f22-7d9b-4b2d-84b0-a320ae721ed9>
https://absolutewrite.com/forums/index.php?threads/bootstrap-publishing-co-roccity-book-publishing.23215/
response
<urn:uuid:65d779e1-21b0-48eb-9359-bb20895c47c3>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-38
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-225
software: Apache Nutch 1.20 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/