Comments on: Publishing for profit http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2007/01/07/publishing-for-profit/ From landlord and tenant solicitor Tessa Shepperson Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:01:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Tessa http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2007/01/07/publishing-for-profit/comment-page-1/#comment-37 Tessa Tue, 09 Jan 2007 13:36:00 +0000 http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/?p=87#comment-37 My point really was that if a book is padded out with statutes which you can get for free elsewhere, it makes it look as if you are getting more for your money than you actually are. In many cases the analysis and comment (which is what you are generally buying the book for) is really only a very small part of the published product. <br /><br />Having the statutes is therefore a device for deceiving us into paying a high price for something which, if the padding were not there, we might consider too expensive and not buy. My point really was that if a book is padded out with statutes which you can get for free elsewhere, it makes it look as if you are getting more for your money than you actually are. In many cases the analysis and comment (which is what you are generally buying the book for) is really only a very small part of the published product.

Having the statutes is therefore a device for deceiving us into paying a high price for something which, if the padding were not there, we might consider too expensive and not buy.

]]> By: Nick http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2007/01/07/publishing-for-profit/comment-page-1/#comment-36 Nick Tue, 09 Jan 2007 13:22:00 +0000 http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/?p=87#comment-36 I think the publishers would judge the marginal value of the Appendices fairly low and if they published without them, realistically the price would not come down much more than the marginal production cost. You think they have close to nil value and may be right in this case, but there are always those who like to have everything in one place (ie portable / of use away from the desktop).<br /><br />What's more of a scandal is the cost attaching to source materials in multi-volume looseleafs. Not only do you pay £100s for this, you also have to spend precious time filing the pages. Publishers love looseleafs as their margin is extremely high on subscription renewals. The rest of us can't wait to see the back of them I think the publishers would judge the marginal value of the Appendices fairly low and if they published without them, realistically the price would not come down much more than the marginal production cost. You think they have close to nil value and may be right in this case, but there are always those who like to have everything in one place (ie portable / of use away from the desktop).

What’s more of a scandal is the cost attaching to source materials in multi-volume looseleafs. Not only do you pay £100s for this, you also have to spend precious time filing the pages. Publishers love looseleafs as their margin is extremely high on subscription renewals. The rest of us can’t wait to see the back of them

]]> By: Contact http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2007/01/07/publishing-for-profit/comment-page-1/#comment-35 Contact Sun, 07 Jan 2007 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/?p=87#comment-35 I have a good deal of respect for Andrew Dymond, we have instructed him quite often, but I completely agree with your point about the changing nature of legal publishing. The changes are barely taking hold yet but the direction is clear.<br /><br />Nick Holmes at Binary Law had an interesting post about this <a href="http://www.binarylaw.co.uk/index.php/articles/community-democracy-and-the-future-of-law-publishing/">here</a>. I added some thoughts on my blog in November. Control over information sources is key and that will not remain the same. I have a good deal of respect for Andrew Dymond, we have instructed him quite often, but I completely agree with your point about the changing nature of legal publishing. The changes are barely taking hold yet but the direction is clear.

Nick Holmes at Binary Law had an interesting post about this here. I added some thoughts on my blog in November. Control over information sources is key and that will not remain the same.

]]>