Does Size Matter?

I have covered this topic before, in terms of paperback sales.  But lately I have been thinking that in terms of hardcover sales, size may also matter.  The type of smaller hardcovers produced by some small presses and by some larger ones –

Soho, Forge and St. Martin’s come to mind – are somehow more appealing to a reader, in an unscientific study.

Books, luckily (I hope) for booksellers, are not just a way to deliver a story – though of course they are that – but they are also an aesthetic experience.  The way the cover looks, the way the paper feels, and as I’ve mentioned, the size of the book, all make a difference.  Something you enjoy holding in your hand while you’re reading may or may not affect how you feel about the content of the book, but it will certainly affect your decision to buy it.

Some of our bestselling hardcovers have been of the “smaller” variety – In the Bleak Midwinter, Maisie Dobbs, Her Royal Spyness, Still Life, The Coroner’s Lunch, The Reaper – all were the smaller sized hardcovers and all sold like crazy.   Of course I could enthusiastically recommend all of those books, which helped, but somehow when I handed them to a customer they were – and there’s no other word for it – smitten.  Maisie Dobbs especially had an unusually beautiful cover and I think when people saw it they had to have it.

Right now there’s a new book out, The Sweetness at the Bottom of the Pie, that may have the same trajectory.  Not only is it small with unusual and appealing artwork on the cover, but it has no dust jacket.  Because it’s also a quirky read that at the same time fits into the popular classic British mystery mode, I think the sales figures for it might be lively.

This may be a crazy theory but I have also noticed that one of our bestselling authors, Loren Estleman, when he moved to Forge began to get smaller hardcovers that were also quite lovely (Forge does a nice job).  His latest, The Branch and the Scaffold, not even a mystery, has done really well for us.  The black cover with the noose on it doesn’t hurt.  I don’t know if any other booksellers have found this to be true – and we certainly see no sales resistance to traditionally sized hardcovers by writers like Lee Child, Donna Leon or Michael Connelly – but it may be the size for a launch.

This goes hand in hand with the true fact that if a customer comes in and doesn’t touch the books he/she won’t buy one.  If books for you are not a tactile experience, you probably aren’t the type of reader we happen to encounter most often.  In any case, though it IS what’s inside that matters, the thing is you want someone to pick the book up in the first place.

Comments

[Kevin R. Tipple]

It might becuase bigger books (especially bestsellers) seem to be padded with larger type, whitespace, blank facing pages at the end/start of chapters, etc. A smaller book, by appearance, would imply more story these days.

[Maria]

I recently read Bite Me by Parker Blue (no I am not making up that author name. It's cool, I wish I'd thought of it for a character.)

Anyway, my point: The book was the size of a large hardback, but it was paperback. Not trade sized, large hardback size. I didn't like it at first (Bite Me is YA btw, I don't know if that is why it was a different size.) But then I decided it was okay. At first it was like holding a notebook. Felt unwieldy. Large. But I don't know. It wasn't heavy like a hardback. The type was easy to read. I'm not all that fond of trade (especially when they are kinda cheap paper like mass market, but you pay more because they are trade form.)

But I think in the end, I liked the form factor. I have no idea if I would have picked it up from a shelf. I imagine it might not have sat well next to other books, but who knows?

As you said. In the end, it's the words that matter.