The Early Years of Television and the BBC

[MB]

Bit expensive for most of us but this was promoted on the BBC History list.


Please forgive the self-promotion (and cross-posting), but my book on
the early years of television and the BBC has just been published.
Details at
https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-the-early-years-of-television-and-the-bbc.html.


https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-the-early-years-of-television-and-the-bbc.html

[williamwright]

Congratulations on the book! I'm astonished at the price!

Bill

[Andy Burns]

williamwright wrote:

> MB wrote:
>
>> Bit expensive for most of us but this was promoted on the BBC History list.
>>
>> Please forgive the self-promotion (and cross-posting), but my book on the
>> early years of television and the BBC has just been published. Details at
>> https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-the-early-years-of-television-and-the-bbc.html.
>>
>> https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-the-early-years-of-television-and-the-bbc.html
>
> Congratulations on the book!

I don't think MB is saying he's the author

> I'm astonished at the price!

Especially that the ebook is no cheaper than the hardback?

[MB]

On 16/06/2022 08:31, Andy Burns wrote:
> Especially that the ebook is no cheaper than the hardback?

I don't think that is uncommon, the cost and value is in the research
and writing of a book. Printing costs are a small part.

[Chris J Dixon]

Andy Burns wrote:

>williamwright wrote:
>
>> MB wrote:
>>
>>> Bit expensive for most of us but this was promoted on the BBC History list.
>>>
>>> Please forgive the self-promotion (and cross-posting), but my book on the
>>> early years of television and the BBC has just been published. Details at
>>> https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-the-early-years-of-television-and-the-bbc.html.
>>>
>>> https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-the-early-years-of-television-and-the-bbc.html
>>
>> Congratulations on the book!
>
>I don't think MB is saying he's the author

I must admit I thought the same, then re-read the original post,
and it is somewhat ambiguous. Perhaps MB would have made it
clearer if he had formatted his copied text as Quoted, unless it
is actually his work.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
ch...@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

[Roderick Stewart]

If you look at books on Amazon, you'll see that it *is* uncommon for
the Kindle price to be the same as the dead tree price.

Nevertheless, I think that even if the Kindle version was cheaper, for
a textbook it might be worth paying the extra for a physical book,
because Kindle probably isn't the best medium for that kind of
material, but that's another story.

Rod.

[Brian Gaff]

Bit expensive. I'd have accepted half that price. If they did that they
would undoubtedly sell far more, I'd imagine.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"MB" <M...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:t8chj3$b0f$1...@dont-email.me...

[Theo]

It's pretty standard in academic publishing. The author is possibly not
getting paid by the publisher much if at all to write it (they're employed
as an academic and research/writing is what they do in between teaching and
admin), but the cover price basically covers the publisher's costs in terms
of editing, typesetting, any promotion etc.

They know they will sell at least X library copies and that's enough to
recoup their costs. Any others are a bonus. The libraries will buy the
hardback, and they might get a deal where they get electronic access as
well.

Printing costs are minimal compared with their overheads and there's no
reason to offer a cheaper way to get the book, since that will mean they
don't recoup their expenses from the libraries.

So, if you want to read it, wait a few months and then see if you can get it
from your library on inter-library loan.

Theo