Headlines By Email
Get LISNews via email! Enter Your Email Address:
Navigation
User login
Recent comments
- Nice analysis 1 month 2 weeks ago
- Justifying the practice... 2 months 1 day ago
- Details 2 months 3 weeks ago
- Congrats on 20 years. 3 months 1 week ago
- Happy Brithday 3 months 1 week ago
- Happy birthday, LISNews! 3 months 2 weeks ago
- chapter 1-8 claims 10 months 1 week ago
- Not a novella? 1 year 1 week ago
- women of a certain age (sounds like a criticism right there...) 1 year 8 months ago
- Reading as a punishment 1 year 10 months ago
Recent blog posts
- Appreciating the ‘powerful good’ of the public library
- New Domain, New Blog
- A.I. as virtual research mediators
- Fed Life Working Without Pay
- Dismantling Utopia: How Information Ended the Soviet Union
- Cites & Insights December 2018 (18:9) available
- Cites & Insights 18:7 (October 2018) available
- Cites & Insights 18:6 (September 2018) available
- Apparently Alex Jones isn't totally silenced
- Cites & Insights 18.5 (August 2018) available
Because Laube's claimed "fact" trumps theirs?
Given that Laube flatly states that the assertion isn't true, but--in fact--offers no actual evidence other than a bunch of calculations he prepared (none backed by any apparent real-world evidence, and I'm pretty sure the Big Six aren't releasing their per-title costs!), it's a he-says-she-says situation.
Nor did I say--anywhere--that books that don't earn out their advances can't be profitable for publishers. That would be like saying that motion pictures that never return a cent to "profit participants" aren't profitable: The accounting practices of Big Media are well-designed to hide all sorts of profits.