WikiBooks to Kneecap Textbook Industry

If you look at at the buy the book page from Steve Krug, the author of "Don't Make me Think", he says he earns more from people buying books from his amazon affilaite ID than from his publisher.

In college my thermodynamics professor hated the books so much he wrote his own text book. When students balked at the $100 price tag he told us he made less than $2 for every book sold, so he didn't write it for the money.

Are book publihers like record company executives, high paid fat cats sitting on very fat profit margins? We know record companies are feeling the pinch from online music, so are book publihers going to go down the same road in the very near future.

My kid's new school has no textbooks - everything is a photocopy handout of work pages etc, and the classes are full of reference books. A progressive west coast public school. Their old school used a dozen big textbooks from a major company (traditional east coast public school). Standardized test scores are close (a tad higher here).

Graywolf my thermo prof was M. David Burghardt and he wrote his own text for the same reasons. Turns out he's quite an educator.

The idea that anyone can come in and make changes to this content at any time is just mind-boggling. People have insinuated their ideas into Wikipedia articles for purely propagandistic purposes. Unless you're already an expert on any topic there, you have no way of knowing whether the information at Wikipedia is reliable.

The Wikibooks project, being less well-known, may not have been abused as much as Wikipedia, but it most likely will be.

that "normal" text books are not prone to having bias or propoganda?

Wikibooks:Overview FAQ - Wikibooks

How do you know if the information is correct?

As anyone can edit any module, it is of course possible for biased, out-of-date or incorrect information to be posted. However, because there are so many other people reading the modules and monitoring contributions using the Recent Changes page, incorrect information is usually put right quickly. Thus the overall accuracy of this instructional resource is improving all the time as it attracts more and more contributors. You are encouraged to help by correcting modules and passing on your own knowledge.

It follows along the same lines as Wikipedia - but even as im sure that works to some good extent, it doesn't mean YOU aren't going to be the one to pull a complete pack of lies from project before some kind soul rolls it back to a previous version...

I started in the online business when I moved my textbook store online. The problem with textbooks isn't so much the markup per book, it's the volume. The bookstore typically has 20% markup on textbooks - less on competitive titles. ANd the authors only make real money if they have a wildly successful book. Figure they make $20 a book - and I don't know that it's anywhere near that much - they sell a couple thousand copies. Not worth it for most, considering they've probably put two years of their time into it. So yes, my suspicion is that the publishers are making out well and the retailers and authors, less so.

The authors are kind of stuck like artists and the recording industry - they need to hook up with a big publisher to get distributed.

Anyway, I hope this goes. I've often thought that when I had the time I'd start an OSS math textbook project. There's a few out there that aren't wildly popular, but the idea is certainly one who's time has come.

One hurdle they'll have when it comes to high school textbooks is ensuring the content matches whatever random curriculum requirements each locale has implemented. In Ontario for example, the government sets the curriculum, and any textbook has to meet the requirements.

Still, again it's a worthy project, I hope it's successful.

government sets the curriculum, and any textbook has to meet the requirements

Yeah, I really don't see this as too much of kneecap to the textbook market in the States, at least not the El-Hi market. Most books are reviewed, adopted and bought by school districts, states or other organizations. In some districts the process can be highly politicized. Individual teachers don't have much say in the matter.

But as supplemental material this will be a boon to teachers. I don't know many who don't say "I'm trying to find," or "I need" at least once a day.

Try keeping a Wiki subject on target, where one of the self-appointed propagandists has wormed his way into the community. You'll develop a better appreciation for what I am saying.

Wikibooks may follow a different path. I certainly hope so.

Bit late on this discussion, but... it's true, per-copy royalties on print books are much lower than you'd think. For non-fiction, the usual standard is around 10% of the wholesale price, i.e. the price that the publisher sells it to the bookseller/distributor. A $20 cover price might translate to $12 selling price to the publisher, which means $1.20 for the author.

It isn't any better for university textbooks, but professors have a big incentive to write such books: it's another step on the way to getting tenure. And they can make money from them if it turns out they write a book that becomes the "standard" for that subject.

This is a subject dear to my heart. It seems to me that, as with the music industry, authors have been at the mercy of publishers -- who had the distribution lines, arrangements with bookstores for shelf space, and funds for promotion. For this service (and I'm not saying it's not worthy; I'm just saying ...), authors give up a portion of the sales proceeds; as we've seen, it's a major portion.

And the there's the "stigma" that any text not published by a publishing house is somehow of lesser quality. However, it seems to me to be rather transparent ploy, and that publishers have benefit from the promotion of that particular idea. ;)

Today, as was mentioned, things are changing: musicians are recording their own music, committing it to CD and selling it online. Perhaps more authors will travel the same route.

And the there's the "stigma" that any text not published by a publishing house is somehow of lesser quality. However, it seems to me to be rather transparent ploy, and that publishers have benefit from the promotion of that particular idea.

Even when they get it sorted out search algorithms are going to typically put a bit more trust on content from well known publishers because they are taking a risk by publishing something.

Tim O'Reilly wrote an article called Piracy is Progressive Taxation where he stated "Obscurity is a far greater threat to authors and creative artists than piracy." In that regard it likely is worth working with publishing houses at least a few times to help build your personal brand. I think the best way to find a traditional publisher is to get known well enough that they find you.

Some good points there.

Bottom line, though, is that publishers, the music industry and the like have at a minimum three things to "sell" to artists, which is usually *in exchange for* the rights, or some portion of the rights, to the artist's works:

(a) funding for recording, time for writing, etc.
(b) distribution lines
(c) marketing

As to (c), there are enough known instances of a work having been taken on by a publishing house or recording label where, in the end, not enough money or effort were put into the final marketing (e.g., mass promotion) that it never got the wide exposure that one assumes one would get by signing up with publishers or recording companies. Result: books (and records) in the warehouses Mr. O'Reilly speaks of. But there is yet another result:

Note Tim O'Reilly's remark: "Authors who are fortunate enough to get the rights to their book back from the publisher often put them up freely online, in hopes of finding readers." And so we have artists whose works did not blossom into sales yet who may no longer own the full rights to their works.

Historically, those rights may now be owned by the publisher, the record label, or even the artist's manager. This is how Michael Jackson was able to buy the early Beatles catalog; out-bidding Paul McCartney (I believe) for early works that the Beatles no longer owned.

Today, we have a set of circumstances in which distribution and promotional lines are available to artists. Heck, they always were -- self-promotion was the way musicians used to do it in the old days, and is what they do now up until the time that they're "discovered" by a recording company. Others, and there are others, have done very well (and some extremely well) on their own.

Now, I'm not saying that this is the route for everyone, or anyone in particular. After all, marketing takes some knowledge and effort, and is not for the faint of heart. :)