Joanna Reynolds tells it like it is (The Guardian)

As an "old white man" (through no fault of my own) I was very interested to read this advertorial about the trajectory of The Folio Society from the horse's mouth. (Guardian article but free access below.)

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tiktok-meets-tolkien-how-the-folio-society...

>1 boldface: Oh dear: your OWM prejudices are showing again. The mare's mouth, surely.

>1 boldface: Thanks for the link, it is an interesting read.
“We’ve completely changed the sort of books that we sell. We developed fantasy, sci-fi and more children’s. Particularly the fantasy and sci-fi have made a massive difference to us. Game of Thrones was literally a gamechanger … It made so much money for us.”
Well, I think it's safe to say the FS is not on the verge of collapse.

Reynolds said that for younger generations, even those who mostly use e-readers, “they’re happy to pay for a wonderful edition of books they love. There’s something very exciting for them about the physical book.”
Yeah, and don't forget the "older generations" who have always purchased physical copies.

flip cases - perhaps a Grauniad typo, perhaps what Reynolds calls them.

Interesting that the FS groups their customers by skin colour as well as sex and age.

Also: "The publisher, which produces illustrated editions with elaborate covers, has seen sales soar 55% since 2017-18."

I wonder if there was a once in a lifetime event shortly thereafter where people were indulging in unprecedented free time and disposable cash?

Also, small pet peeve, but "unboxing" doesn't have to be in quotation marks.

“We thought: will it work because we’re going to be more expensive than anything else? But it’s actually worked well." 😭

I'm happy for them though. I hope we still get beautiful classics every now and again.

Also, apparently Circe by Madeline Miller will be published next year.

>1 boldface: Thank you for the free access link!

Very interesting article and I understand why they are publishing more modern editions for a change of pace and to lure in younger buyers. But at the same time, not only do I love the classics and fall in between the two age groups, but I also know a lot of young people are devouring classic literature now, and crave nice editions of them. Part of the Dark Academia/Light Academia and Cottagecore aesthetic groups lean heavily on classic mythology, Victorian Lit, Shakespeare, 19thC Russian Lit. So I hope they find some middle ground where they publish some fresh classics that I've never seen by them (Gissing, Dead Souls, Emerson's Essays, Washington Irving's Sketchbook) alongside the newer works.

Is this the same character as Mrs Omnichannel?

I do wonder how far she will go to chase the pound? Will it always be just about what's in vogue?

Cue manga, erotica...

Hopefully nothing here surprises anyone, as this has been discussed ad nauseum - if they didn’t pivot, they’d be dead by now.

>5 PartTimeBookAddict: Only those that are successful.

>8 LesMiserables: When she first arrived with a mandate to increase membership (!) she did poll members as to their favourites in various niche markets she intended to explore, niches chosen by herself, of course, and I don't recall oor Wullie or other graphic delights being in the package. Her previous experience with Readers Digest may well have aroused a commendable rapport with readers with a short attention span. So we were warned. (I'll bet she pronounces it to rhyme with nouveau riche)

Thank you for highlighting the article, but the Guardian is free to read, is it not?

https://www.theguardian.com/books/article/2024/sep/08/tiktok-meets-tolkien-how-t...

>11 FitzJames:

It is in the UK. I wasn't sure about elsewhere.

>8 LesMiserables: For the record, I’d love for FS to do nice editions of manga with stories that match their current output (as opposed to whatever is most popular and well known)*. I hear that Curious King may also be doing manga or something manga-related in the future according to a FB post.

*I do realize that some portion of their recent output is the popular and well-known, but hopefully it’s clear what I mean.

>9 What_What: if they didn’t pivot, they’d be dead by now.

Adapt yes. But a company can do so without necessarily losing its mission.

I do think sometimes in our hyper capitalist mindset that we think if a company isn't expanding it's dying.

There are so many examples of small independent bespoke companies that have modernised practice and strategy but retained product offering.

FS had been around for 70 years before she took over. I believe whether the new direction will be for the better will only become clear in a few years. A quick search shows that Reader’s Digest and Time Life didn’t fare well, so her track record doesn’t offer much to judge her by either way.

>15 LesMiserables:

That concept has nothing to do with capitalism and is just a good old fashioned fact for many industries.

Quote from link in OP:

Reynolds likened the appetite for “artisanal” books to the resurgence of vinyl. “We thought: will it work because we’re going to be more expensive than anything else? But it’s actually worked well. You can see that trend and love of art and artisanal. It’s a bit like going back into vinyl.”

Love of art? Perceived "art" maybe and "artisanal" gimmickry like star-spangled towels, satin ribbon-markers, bookmatched multi-volume covers, spray-painted page edges and internally illustrated slipcases +/- peepholes to name a few.

All this may be acceptable or deplorable in the name of profit, but 'a bit like going back to vinyl'?? You don't say!
More like going back to the days of Jezebel... or Lady Macbeth for the prudes!

PS: Those interested in Ms. Omnichannel - the beginning: https://www.librarything.com/topic/265581

I have to say that the title of this group--"Folio Society Devotees"--now makes my skin crawl a bit. Are people still happy to class themselves as devotees of a company that prints the latest YA fluff to satisfy the TikTok/Instagram crowd?

>16 bacchus.: Trying to keep lights on in a decades-old, once-relevant company struggling to adapt as society, technology, taste and demographics all change seems like exactly the kind of resume you’d want for this role. She’s been at the helm for 9 years, how much longer will the jury deliberate?

>18 mr.philistine: What a great presentation; the FS’ turnaround under her leadership should be required reading in business school. Bravo.

>19 ubiquitousuk: I think the term "Folio Society Devotees" is still fine as it covers past and present FS books. Even if you are not a fan of the current output there is still the back catalogue to enjoy.

How many copies/editions from FS of Jane Austen/Dumas/etc. are you all buying that you think a company can survive on that alone?

In Folio’s entire history, it has only just now started printing more contemporary works? I think not.

Things change. Companies are in the business of staying in business. Customers speak with their money and nobody owes old customers - who aren’t buying anything - the maintenance of stock of products that they’ve already got on their shelves.

I buy Folios now, I bought them then, I expect to buy them in the future. As long as they keep making books that I’m interested in, they are getting my orders.

Folio is my favorite publisher because they make, or have made, lovely editions of books I enjoy reading for relatively affordable prices.

>19 ubiquitousuk: Doesn't bother me. Isn't it basically the same as printing Alice In Wonderland?

Its like your favorite speciality cheese shop clears the shelves and starts selling sugary breakfast cereal and takis, kind of. Post membership FS took a radical turn from offering books for readers of literature, a cohort including all ages and colors, to targeting the casual reader with bestsellers, dad friendly history books, famous classics and popular genre titles. Unfortunately, current FS is a sham version of the dearly departed.

To be fair, the YA stuff is a very small percent of the catalog (less than 15%) and almost all of it is vintage (Jones, Blyton, Dahl, Le Guin, etc.). The most modern appears to be Noughts and Crosses (from 2001), the Philip Pullman books (which start in 1995) and tomorrow's Book Thief LE (2005).

To date this year through the first three catalogs, they have three vintage YA books (by Jones, Blyton and Le Guin) and one children's book (Moomins) out of 29 standard edition titles. I'm all for the diversification it if it helps to keep the lights on...

That said, I also would like to see more classics. So far this year, we've only had the Darwin and Dunsany LE's and the Gitanjali poetry collection, so hopefully they throw some more bones in the Festive collection.

>18 mr.philistine: Thanks for the link! Glad they kept slipcases.

You could argue that YA and other popular modern genres being printed by Folio bring new customers, who then want to explore more of the range either through Folio themselves or the secondary market, broadening their reading interests and helping younger generations discover a much broader literary world than they have previously. Folio classics are cheap and plentiful secondhand, which must be a factor when you're thinking about printing a new version, you're competing with £10 copies of books that were made to last a lifetime with a £50+ book that has new pictures in it. New translations or reprinting books that had short runs and have become difficult to find secondhand is important, otherwise just encourage people to go get them from used bookstores or online retailers, otherwise what was the point of printing them to last?

I found Folio because I was looking for a special edition of hitchhikers guide for my partner as a gift, I fell in love with the presentation of the books and have been collecting them since, mostly on the secondary market. I'm quite broadly read but it's still meant that I've picked up books that I wouldn't have before because there was an affordable edition available on eBay and I've really been enjoying discovering new works in the folio society format. I read modern sci-fi/fantasy, ancient greek philosophy and everything inbetween and the fact that I can have beautiful versions of all them is great, I get to collect and then pass on my favourite books in their best form, whether its an easier comfort read like the earthsea series or a difficult Russian epic like The Brothers Karamazov.

Printing a YA book might delay a deeper literary work from getting printed but the people that come buy them might also pick up something new and challenging to tackle.

My final 2c is that I also think some classics just havent aged well and dont resonate with the lived experiences of a lot of people today, myself included, whereas some are scarily prescient. Sometimes its good to explore those historical works with their differences or similarities and sometimes its ok to acknolwedge their place in the canon, move on and engage with the works that have built upon them.

>19 ubiquitousuk: I admit to having no exposure to those social media sites, so my question may be off, but FS has a long history print YA content, is there a big recent shift to the YA content in your POV?

I personally still appreciate FS, even if I don’t buy all of what they print.

My highly opinionated evaluation of the literary quality and cultural importance of Folio's best selling fiction releases at the time I'm writing this comment:

1) Established classics for the ages:

Divine Comedy SE
Frankenstein
Nineteen Eighty-Four
Dracula
Alice in Wonderland

2) Literary fiction with potential to join the pantheon:

Blood Meridian
Gormenghast SE (at least the first two novels in the trilogy)
No Country for Old Men
The Road
Invisible Cities

3) Important books with outsized influence, archetypal appeal, and at least some admirable literary qualities:

Dune (and Dune Messiah)
The Hobbit
The Lord of the Rings
The Other Wind
Roadside Picnic
The Wind in the Willows

4) Books of cultural import but maybe not the literary pinnacle:

Jurassic Park
The Shining
DC: Batman
Winnie-the-Pooh
Foundation
Game of Thrones
Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell

5) Haven't read/not enough personal familiarity to have an informed opinion:

Player of Games
The Shadow of the Wind
The Neverending Story (suspect 4)
Weird Tales (probably 3 or 4)
The Dogs of Riga
Howl’s Moving Castle

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is barely fiction? I guess; probably category 3 if I had to place it.

It's true pop culture dominates the charts. Even the established classics (Dracula, Frankenstein, Alice). Nothing even like Gatsby or Crime and Punishment or Austen.

(Data from here.)

I'm personally quite happy there are nice editions of many of these, and let's not forget that Shakespeare and Dickens were the pop culture of their day.

I suspect the current volume oriented Folio model has to drive the catalog toward pop culture if they follow the finances at all. Suntup, for one comparison, perhaps surprisingly, has a higher percentage of established classics probably, especially if you consider more recent releases. This is probably due to how the rights system works.

(Also notable: I think only four of the Folio fiction bestsellers are works in translation, so very English-original dominant.)

For me it's not about so much, what they are printing, but more to do with the classics they have never printed to date.

>27 anthonyfawkes: My final 2c is that I also think some classics just havent aged well and dont resonate with the lived experiences of a lot of people today, myself included

I would imagine that this is because they are from a different age.

>25 HonorWulf: A great point, and several of these aren't even YA but children's. Noughts and Crosses was a surprise favorite with me and I'd love to see similarly great books published by FS.

There are amazing books at all age levels.

We shall see how FS's fortune fares as unsustainable debt consumes the discretionary income of Gen Z and others. FS's pivot under Ms. Omnichannel has resulted in this proud middle-aged white man spending his discretionary income elsewhere. My infrequent purchases of FS editions are now exclusively on the secondary market.

>33 ultrarightist: This is a very good point. Middle aged+ consumers have generally more disposable income, and more consistency in purchasing consumables in well-established hobbies and pastimes.

>10 Jayked: "I'll bet she pronounces it to rhyme with nouveau riche"

That's the standard pronunciation in the UK (slightly unexpectedly, perhaps, as I think it's normally American English which more closely preserves original French pronunciations).

>23 InVitrio: >28 RRCBS: I should say that the point of my (slightly tongue-in-cheek) rant in >19 ubiquitousuk: was to lament not the publishing of YA per se, but rather the cynical pursuit of social media clout. One has the impression that if TikTok were dominated by septuagenarian Latin scholars showing off their rubricated bling then Folio would immediately ditch the YA and SciFi and begin issuing 50 incunable facsimiles a year. It's completely cynical.

Now, the hard nosed among us (of which I am one) might say: yes, old boy, that's capitalism. Businesses are interested in printing one thing only: money. This is a fair objection. But the same principle works both ways. If the relationship with Folio is merely transactional then I am in no respects a devotee. I'm merely a customer (and increasingly an erstwhile customer).

>36 ubiquitousuk:

Your relationship has always been transactional with them whether you admit it or not. The very admission that you are becoming an “erstwhile” customer makes that self evident. The transaction terms are changing.

>37 User2024:

Transactional, perhaps, but far from solely transactional. I think. Speaking for myself here, of course.

Edited for speling.

>35 PeterFitzGerald: The standard pronunciation in the UK was "nitch" until recently when those with a smattering of French gave it a spelling pronunciation. Its basic meaning was an alcove in a wall designed to hold a statue. Like many architectural terms it came into English from Italian at a time when Italian architecture predominated.

>36 ubiquitousuk: Now, the hard nosed among us (of which I am one) might say: yes, old boy, that's capitalism. Businesses are interested in printing one thing only: money. This is a fair objection.

I agree with your overall sentiment, but the notion that businesses exist solely to maximize profits is a relatively modern, and in my opinion (if the hard nosed will allow for one), narrow view influenced by shareholder primacy theory. At this point the “this is capitalism” argument is becoming a bit too lazy and cynical to argue with.

>20 What_What: The jury will end after she jumps ship.

>8 LesMiserables: I do wonder how far she will go to chase the pound? Will it always be just about what's in vogue? Cue manga, erotica...

A little further than that. But I'll let Ms Reynolds answer in her own words. That's how she described her achievements as the CEO of Time-Life Europe:

"Streamlining the business and changed the cross-Europe (UK, Eire, Germany, Holland, Belgium and France) business model, replacing direct mail campaigns for glossy books with DRTV ads for DVDs and CDs. Within three years the business had moved from loss to significant profitability."

So as far as ditching those pesky things called books altogether.

>19 ubiquitousuk: I feel the same as >21 assemblyman:. There is still their extensive back catalog that I'm still a fan of.

>22 Noel_G: How many copies/editions from FS of Jane Austen/Dumas/etc. are you all buying that you think a company can survive on that alone?

That's a strawman argument. Those of us who are put off by Folio's current direction aren't asking for the 10th edition of Austen and the 27th edition of Shakespeare. That's just not the sentiment on these boards.

In Folio’s entire history, it has only just now started printing more contemporary works?

The issue with the current output is NOT that it's more contemporary. I'm totally fine with much more modern works. In fact, I recently placed a pre-order for Fitzcarraldo editions discussed in another thread, one of which was originally published in 2007 and the other in 2008.

And the argument that you can't make money publishing classics and respectable literary works doesn't hold up. Everyman's Library prints and sells a lot more copies of their editions, and yet they never had to lower the bar, let alone plunge into the depths FS has been exploring. Yes, mainstream pop will always bring the most $$$, whether in book publishing, music, cinema, food, etc. But there is still market outside of mainstream. One doesn't have to sell out.

>43 elladan0891: Agree. The nonsense that we are clambering for the 17th edition of A Brontë work is spurious.

Charles Ede's vision was to produce "editions of the world's great literature, in a format worthy of the contents, at a price within the reach of everyman".

Greatest literature. I believe there is still a market for that and is sustainable generation to generation.

There is so much in the field of 'greatest literature' and from the greatest authors of the past that remains untouched by the Folio Society.

>41 elladan0891: she could turn a respectable buck with a classics themed FS line of sugary breakfast cereals- Agatha Crispies, Wuthering Flakes, Oddysey-O’s etc.

>45 DanielOC: Haha! Don't give her ideas

>41 elladan0891: Time-Life is a very different beast from Folio. Their books have few, and aging, fans - as an Ebay seller, I often see them at thrift stores and garage sales being offered for a pittance, and not being bought. Transitioning to DVDs and CDs (many of them actually quite good, and with robust demand) was a smart move for that company. They never published works of fine literature.

Yes, I'd like to see fewer "popular books" and more actual literature. But popular books have a strong point in their favor - they're popular. The company I'd like to see is different from the company that can survive in the current market. I am a bit of a dinosaur, after all. Back in the glory days of the membership model, I sometimes struggled to find four books each year that I actually wanted, and recent years have generally presented four desirable books, even if they are outnumbered (and out-marketed) by YA books of no interest.

That said, Agatha Crispies might be fun.

>43 elladan0891:
Selling out? This is real life money and risk, not your favorite grunge band. You are way overestimating the ability of a book company like Folio Society in 2024 to ignore mainstream.

>48 User2024: I think you might have missed the sentiment here. It's not that we expect Folio to abandon the lucrative allure of the faddish, but to rather balance their production.

The Scotch Whisky Industry do this quite well. They might indulge the mob with a series of themed Game of Thrones branded bottles...Collect them all!... But revert quickly to core product.

>48 User2024: Ahem. This is rather amusing. Did you read only the last sentence of that paragraph? Because it actually had a counterexample showing the falsehood of the tired claim that you have to go mainstream pop to be successful.

>43 elladan0891: Isn’t Everyman’s Library isn’t a private business though. Not saying you have to go mainstream, but this seems like they would have a lot more leeway than FS.

>51 RRCBS: Everyman's Library is part of PRH, through their Knopf subsidiary. We don't know their exact finances, of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if the rest of the Penguin catalogue (esp. imprints dealing with popular literature) actually subsidize Everyman's. Their good production values are expensive for today's publishing standards.

>43 elladan0891: It’s not a strawman, Folio needs money to succeed and the books you claim to mourn the supposed loss of don’t sell.

Loads of these “old men yelling at clouds” are just reacting poorly to change. How many books were they actually buying (new) from Folio. Folio knows the number, as they are now data driven and not holding onto times past with nostalgic vision.

Everyman makes nice books, but with none of the art or effort of Folio. They aren’t comparable in costs, talent or time to produce.

Folio has transformed from a company going bankrupt to a prosperous business. Good for them.

>43 elladan0891: "That's a strawman argument. Those of us who are put off by Folio's current direction aren't asking for the 10th edition of Austen and the 27th edition of Shakespeare. That's just not the sentiment on these boards."

I would suggest that your comments need a little more context. Can you give some examples of books published, say, ten years ago, that meet your brief but in your opinion would not be published today?

>51 RRCBS: Well, they're neither state-owned nor a non-profit :) Everyman's Library was a private business before they got acquired by an also private Random House in 2002, and following a string of acquisitions and mergers of also private companies, now they're an imprint of Bertelsmann - a private German conglomerate that fully owns Penguin Random House. Sure, for the past couple of decades they've had access to their parent companies' distribution networks. But RH, Penguin, and Bertelsmann have never been charities. I don't know how much money EL makes, but we do know that their Classics series print number are MUCH higher than Folios. Which means that classics, even more obscure ones, DO sell.

>49 LesMiserables:

I’ve been reading people here complain and moan that FS doesn’t publish their personal interest library for years before I made an account here. I’ve got the sentiment exactly.

That counterexample doesn’t hold a drop of water. If FS competed by doing what EL does, they’d be out of business or laying people off within a few years.

Publishing new and popular content to stay in business is good. (though, please stay away from trash titles that diminish the prestige of the brand)

I think what's not happening at the desired rate is the subsidizing of both modern and classic authors' back catalogs that haven't been published (or published much) from the profits of the hyper-popular stuff. How 'bout that comically unfinished complete Dickens series? Where's that ~200th anniversary Sir Walter Scott series? Sure, it'd be nice to see all the titles from classic authors get published but at least try to venture beyond the one's that have been printed to death already. And let's be fair: some of those classic author's works aren't classic. Maybe some were just practice for some subsequent hit. Some may be abundantly average. That's all the more reason to publish them, though - the rarity factor. Would it really kill their profit margin to guarantee just one rarity or classic title in every release? I think that would go a long way with folks not after the hyper-popular offerings.

On the other hand, it would also be entirely appropriate for Folio to explicitly announce its current vision so none of us can point to Ede's "editions of the world's great literature, in a format worthy of the contents, at a price within the reach of everyman" as the purpose of the company. Clearly, that vision has changed: own up to it, Folio.

On the other hand, it would also be entirely appropriate for Folio to explicitly announce its current vision so none of us can point to Ede's "editions of the world's great literature, in a format worthy of the contents, at a price within the reach of everyman" as the purpose of the company. Clearly, that vision has changed: own up to it, Folio.

Yes, it's like their history has been expunged from their website. I'd also like to see exactly what their vision is.

It gets me thinking how would they fare if we cloud conversing dinosaurs, you know, the ones that kept the company alive, buggered off lock stock and barrel?

How would Folio go if they waged their fortunes on the whimsical weather vane of pop printing?

It's hard to argue against the charge they are moving towards doing just that incrementally.

Cue..
Attack on Titan in 34 volumes
The Complete Judge Dread
Vampire Academy
Forever Evermore series Scarlett Dawn
Rough Guide to Bali and Lombok

I loved the days of membership back when I joined in 2012, and their truly unique and generally affordable special editions from then in particular. But books like that hanging around for years and finally only selling through sales is not a viable business model. I wish the mix that has been suggested would work, but frankly, when they try some of the classics, they often fail miserably, be it Rob Roy or the last William Blake. One can't expect people to risk their living that way. I find it frustrating, too - I wish they'd continued the Brontes in their latest editions since I would have loved to get at least Villette like that, if not all the novels. But generally, classics already don't sell as well as a lot of other literature, and less known works more so. I don't blame FS, much as I might regret it in some cases. I'm pretty sure that starting Sharpe in reading order with less known novels is at least part of what killed the series off after three volumes. (The other being the stingy illustrations, with only a limited edition at least having colour.) It looked like they were trying to start another series like some old ones, especially the Aubrey Maturin series, but it just didn't work. It's safe to say that publishing more Sir Walter Scott or less-known books by Dickens would also turn out to be a disaster when it comes to sales.

I’m pretty fatalistic about it all knowing that true lovers of lit and belie lettres are rare birds and, in an age of digital alternatives, were unlikely to keep the operation solvent. FS always felt too good to be true and the old catalogs were an embarrassment of riches. While the transformation is preferable to extinction, the old FS will always be sorely missed by some of us.

>60 SF-72: It's safe to say that publishing more Sir Walter Scott or less-known books by Dickens would also turn out to be a disaster when it comes to sales.

Is it that straightforward?

If Folio are pushing an 'artisinal' narrative of books as works of art in themselves then they should have confidence given the correct production and most importantly the illustrations, that they can sell any books with anticipated ROI.

Isn't this the point of difference pitch they are bringing to the market?

Quite frankly the recent Rob Roy illustrations were nothing short of hideous.

Not sure if anyone got a rollicking for that commission but some illustrations Folio have commissioned over the years have been so bad.

>62 LesMiserables: Not sure if anyone got a rollicking for that commission but some illustrations Folio have commissioned over the years have been so bad.

Completely agree. I love the binding and slipcases of the six Austen novels, but I won't ever buy them because I find the illustrations in them to be hideous.

>62 LesMiserables:

I'm coming to that conclusion based on what sold how and how fast during the time I've been buying from FS, by now 12 years. When popular literature sells out in hours or weeks and classics take much longer and often need sales, that's of course less of a success business-wise. To me something like their Faerie Queene was much superior to several recent limited editions, for example, but it certainly didn't sell as well and easily. But I completely agree that the Rob Roy illustrations were a disaster. I don't know what FS were thinking there. Same goes for several of the Austens mentioned above, though there I wish they'd finished their Puttappipat-illustrated series anyway.

>64 SF-72: Yes, I think this is correct analysis, and I'm not naive to think we will step back from Marvel, YA etc. but pray for more exploration of classics.

>65 LesMiserables:

What I really miss were the fantastic limited editions, be it Faerie Queene, Japan, the vellum-spine series, or their William Morris facsimiles. The Luttrell Psalter is simply a treasure, and Studies from Nature too. And while they weren't cheap, they were a lot more affordable than similar releases from other publishers. I understand that the recent titles are a much safer bet, but then they aren't nearly as special / unusual and most often overpriced. It's an extreme turn from what there used to be. I'd really enjoy something in-between these extremes, but well, as I've written above, you can't argue with the facts when it comes to what sells well or doesn't. I think of the ones I mentioned, only Studies from Nature and the vellum-bound Alice in Wonderland sold within a reasonable time frame and at full price, though I can't swear to the latter when it comes to Studies.

One classic Folio could definitely consider publishing is 'Who Moved My Cheese?' ;)

>66 SF-72: I think the vellum bound The Wind in the Willows sold pretty quickly. Studies from Nature took some time but never went on sale. I waited for a sale and then gave up and bought when they were down to 20 copies. Money well spent, a wonderful facsimile.

>67 red_guy: 😄

>69 kdweber:

I wasn't a member yet when The Wind in the Willows sold and only knew it was a success, but not how fast it sold. Thank you for that information. The standard version of it was actually a freebie I got for becoming a member, which was an excellent choice by FS. It's really such a beautiful book.

‘Folio Society has abandoned the classics!’

Meanwhile, they keep releasing more.

Gotta keep the fires of indignation burning, though!

>72 Noel_G: ‘Folio Society has abandoned the classics!' Meanwhile, they keep releasing more.

More of the same?

>72 Noel_G: The difference is FS 2.0 has taken a mass market press approach to classics, only offering a very short list of famous, sure to sell, titles.

>73 mr.philistine: >74 DanielOC:

Precisely.

Businesses don’t normally desire to produce things that people aren’t going to buy. That’s a way to go out of business.

>76 Noel_G: That’s very true, but not very applicable in this case. Despite there being some business practices that Folio clearly had to sharpen up on, many of which have been discussed on here over many years, most agree that the product was good and was in demand.

>73 mr.philistine:, >74 DanielOC: Absolutely

There’s no doubt that their products are good. None of us would be here if they weren’t.

Folio uses data to make decisions, as any good business should. They see what sells, what is profitable over time.

>79 Noel_G: FS uses some historical and current data, making it reactive and driving short-term wins, but it’s not a strategic company. It’s easy to overlook insights that don’t fit neatly into data models. Long-term growth requires vision - something I believe FS currently lacks.

>79 Noel_G: there's plenty of doubt, hence many on these threads who haven't bought direct from Folio in a while or who've bemoaned a drop in production quality, yet who retain a fondness for earlier publications of FS, for the values of FS1.0, and for the ongoing discussions here. You don't have to believe in a god to go to a temple.

>79 Noel_G: Folio uses data to make decisions, as any good business should. They see what sells, what is profitable over time.

But isn’t this the point? That they are willing to sell anything for profit?

Many of us bemoaners , think that discernment is important.

>82 LesMiserables:
You forgot about the fact that they can only sell "anything " , because people buy it, no matter the costs.
Why should I sell a book for 100£ if I know I can sell it for 350£ ?
Even if it happens that people don't buy it for 350£ , I just dumb it in a super 50% sale for 175£ and have made 75£ more profit then I normally had... Win-Win

The fault is not by Folio, but by their customers. There is always the option to say "No".

Is there another publisher (of illustrated books) that holds as much concurrent stock as Folio. I wonder if the premium we are being asked to pay is to cover the convenience of being able to buy their books direct from them years after they are printed. (Should note I’m not defending just curious).

Have they always had such a large catalogue available at once?

>83 Ragnaroekk: The fault is not by Folio, but by their customers. There is always the option to say "No".

O yes of course, and we are way down that track. I have said 'no' to new Folio for some time now: not absolutely, as I might look at their sales and be open to some new publication if it takes my fancy, but practically speaking my de facto present experience is buy only from second hand sources.

>84 anthonyfawkes:
They usually print 3-4,000 copies of each new edition, then reprint as required. Their stock holdings are not huge.

>83 Ragnaroekk: Again, no vision. A perfect example is the signed copy markup from 200 to 450. I’m sure plenty of people noticed and got defensive about the hike whether they wanted to buy it, or not. Was it really worth the 3000 or so extra profit? I believe this obvious kind of short-term greed hurts them in the long run, and honestly, it didn’t make a dent in their yearly revenue anyway. Sure, they found their 15 golden customers, but they’re gradually alienating a much bigger chunk.

>87 bacchus.:

True.

>87 bacchus.:
Hmm.
The only problem I have with Folio is that every book, even LE, are potential candidates for a 50% discount. That's why I only buy at sales, because I find that poliitic disgusting.

The “new” Folio boss has been there for 8 years, and has increased sales by 55% during that time(according to the linked article).
That’s not quite short term, nor is it failing.

They are doing just fine.

You don’t want to buy an expensive signature? Don’t.

You don’t like the selection? Don’t buy it.

I don’t bemoan the costs or sales of things I’m not interested in. What is the point of that activity? “Oh, whoa is me, they are selling signatures at ridiculous prices (in my opinion) that I was never going to buy. It’s a sign of decline! How could Folio abandon me as a customer?”

The “only buy used”, “only buy on clearance”, “only buy an edition every year or so” crowd isn’t going to drive their decisions on what to publish. It’s “these are selling, so we print more.” It’s not an industry secret formula to success.

If you want a publisher to cater to only your wants, the only way to find that is to open your own publishing house.