[dchurchv]

Not sure I follow this. Pre-ordering books is a pretty well established practice among publishers (yes, real ones, not just ebook authors).

Actually, it's the primary hack for getting on best-seller lists (pre-orders, then fulfillment in strategic batches designed to show consistent sales over time).

Or is this a more basic "No one should sell anything that doesn't already exist" argument?

If so, I'd point out concert tickets (usually 6 months advance sale), seminars, conferences, and most other large undertakings that need some sort of validated audience numbers as counter-evidence.

Why not all products, as long as there's no attempt to deceive, and the purchaser is clear that the product is not ready yet?

[lutusp]

> Not sure I follow this. Pre-ordering books is a pretty well established practice among publishers ...

The difference is the person pre-ordering can back out, and generally speaking in pre-orders, no payment is made until delivery. It ends up being a measure of public enthusiasm, not a way to gather revenues in advance of delivery. In this case, people are paying for a book that doesn't exist yet.

> Actually, it's the primary hack for getting on best-seller lists

Yes, true, but see the pre-order discussion above -- generally, no money changes hands until the book is actually available.

Also, I have to add, the ultimate best-seller-list hack is to buy copies of your own book and put the copies back into the pipeline, endlessly, as the Scientologists are said to do.

> Or is this a more basic "No one should sell anything that doesn't already exist" argument?

But that's true in general -- in the worst cases, where delivery doesn't happen, the seller can be charged with fraud. I hasten to add I am not comparing this hypothetical (but all too common) outcome with the book under discussion, which for all I know is perfectly worthwhile.

[dchurchv]

Ok, but you didn't address my point about concert tickets et al. Obviously you pay in advance of seeing the concert, or attending the conference, and sometimes these things get canceled.

It's reasonable to expect money back, or worst case some sort of "raincheck" in case of a cancelation or delay. Same applies to ebooks in my mind.

"Public enthusiasm" doesn't pay the deposit for a concert hall or conference center, right? Why should an author not get paid in advance of the effort of writing a book? [Hint: authors already figured this out a couple of centuries ago - thus the publishers' advance]

So it's not really a question of money changing hands, it's just whose money, and whose hands.

[lutusp]

> Ok, but you didn't address my point about concert tickets et al.

Fair enough. A concert doesn't work like a book -- the concert venue must know who is coming, in what numbers, in order to prepare. A traditional book publisher only needs to know enough to decide on the size of the next "printing", to fill the supply channel incrementally, as demand warrants.

The concert happens all at once, so the audience size must be known up front. The book publication might stretch over decades, with periodic decisions about the size of the next printing, so the publisher only needs to know the rate of change in demand, the "first derivative," to use the calculus term.

Two very different cases, from very different, non-comparable businesses.

[dchurchv]

Yes, of course, I'm not making an argument that concerts and books are the same business. That would be dumb.

I'm saying rather, there's no obvious reason to not get paid for them the same way, as long as the audience is willing. If they're not willing, that obviously won't work. But clearly in some cases (like the OPs), they are willing.

So as an author, you'd have to be irrational to not want to be paid as early as possible.

As a purchaser, you're free to vote with your wallet, and not pre-buy anything you don't want to. But if you want what the author is proposing, and want to give him encouragement by pre-buying, why is that somehow bad or wrong?

And my fuzzy calculus aside, the first printing for most books will also be the last one. So better to get the volume right. If only there were a way to accurately gauge demand before doing a printing...

[lutusp]

> And my fuzzy calculus aside, the first printing for most books will also be the last one.

This is not the norm in publishing, at least, the desirable kind. For most publishers who promote and market books, profits don't start until the first printing has sold out and subsequent printings begin, with (a) all book preparation activities already complete, and (b) a public who don't need to be persuaded of a book's value. It is at this point that an author begins to be looked on as more than a one-trick pony.

Imagine a pre-publication advertisement: "A truly epic myth! Floods, plagues, the anguish of being unimaginably stupid! Certain to be a best-seller if the author ever gets done writing it! Pre-order the Bible now -- get in before the rush!"

:)

> If only there were a way to accurately gauge demand before doing a printing...

In modern publishing, there's no need -- books are printed, one copy at a time, when they are ordered. For example, my book only gets printed after someone buys a copy. This change (electronic on-demand publishing) essentially wipes out the traditional publishing model.

[ahoyhere]

"This is not the norm in publishing, at least, the desirable kind."

Ah, it's good you said that. I always thought publishers like O'Reilly and Pragmatic Programmers were totally undesirable. Now I can point out why.

"In modern publishing, there's no need -- books are printed, one copy at a time, when they are ordered."

Cite?