Over at LitHub—the established water cooler for the literary/MFA publishing crowd—bookseller Drew Broussard wrote a piece last week, Have You Purchased a Weirdly Low-Quality Paperback Book Lately? This May Be Why.
The crux of his piece is that traditional publishers—the big ones in particular—are using print-on-demand to fulfill orders to deliver a crappy, overpriced product. As a bookseller, Broussard is disturbed by this, as it undercuts the quality he wants to represent, plus it can end up costing readers more at the register. Some publishers raise the price of paperbacks when moving to POD because it costs more per unit to print, even if the quality dips. That said, Broussard is not always in favor of higher production values. He notes that the rise of sprayed edges and hardcover reissues of popular novels are “morally-neutral late-capitalist cash-grabs.” (The Big Five have a very fine line to walk to be held in high regard today.)
Arguments about the role and quality of print on demand have been ongoing since the technology rose to prominence in the early 2000s.
POD started off being closely associated with the self-publishing market, as it allows authors to publish for hundreds of dollars, if not zero dollars. It has never really shaken off that association, even though it has been a godsend for authors and publishers alike. For authors, it eases the path to nationwide distribution and retail placement; both Amazon and Ingram use the technology (on their own or through printers for hire) to fulfill orders. And for bigger publishers, it has meant not losing sales when being caught short of stock, whether because of a prize win, a current event, or scheduling problems—any number of reasons, some better than others.
Broussard’s position is that POD is being used for convenience and not for really good reasons. From his perspective, I’m guessing a good reason might be fulfilling the extraordinary demand for specific titles in June 2020, after George Floyd’s murder. Titles on race filled the top 10 on the New York Times bestseller list in a way that no publisher could’ve ever anticipated. Ingram’s print-on-demand capabilities ensured that spike in demand could be met. Would it have been better to make readers wait? If so, they might have been waiting a very long time given supply chain problems during the pandemic. And I don’t think the authors of those books wanted readers to wait any more than the publishers did. Every retailer and distributor will tell you that if the book can’t be bought when the customer wants it, you’ve lost the sale.
This is perhaps why both Ingram and Amazon have been rather insistent that publishers give them permission, along with appropriate digital files, to produce titles using POD if and when stock runs out. When I worked at a midsize traditional publisher, this insistence came along with some favorable terms if certain conditions were met. These days, I have to wonder if the carrots have turned to sticks. One retired publisher commented on Threads—and I have heard the same from others—that there is pressure from a “specific retailer” (Amazon) to have the book available as POD even if stock is available. He writes, “It allows them to be never out of stock. That has driven the massive expansion of titles in the two POD programs. It also means that two customers who order a book from that retailer may get different quality goods in their delivery.”
Early POD books were noticeably low quality, but the technology has been advancing for nearly three decades now, and except for people really enmeshed in the industry, it can be impossible to distinguish a POD title from an offset title, at least for the average black-and-white paperback that’s mostly text. The “secret” often shared for identifying a POD book? Look at the last few pages for a barcode. That’s now the giveaway, rather than the paper, cover, or printing quality.
But it’s undeniably true that some POD titles just don’t look great.
For some titles, you definitely wouldn’t want to put the original, offset edition next to the POD edition as the differences would be glaring. So what’s going on? I can only speculate (and maybe some of you working at publishers or printers can enlighten me in the comments), but here are likely explanations. All of this applies to traditional publishers, especially Big Five publishers, and their normal business operations.
- The POD edition was not set up competently. This can be fixed. Publisher Anne Trubek discusses at length who’s to blame when POD looks bad, as well as the technical steps that go into printing a book. Don’t blame POD. Blame the care and competence of those setting up the POD edition.
- The POD printer somehow botched the job, or more likely the publisher chose lower quality materials, perhaps because better quality materials were not available. (Paper shortages are a thing, more on that in a minute.)
- The publisher never intended to keep the same level of production value for the book after the first edition or first print run sold out. They planned for the book to move to POD once it became a backlist book or started selling below a certain threshold of copies. The question always becomes, “Does that cover gloss [or special thing that adds cost but is only attainable from offset printing] sell more copies?” Often the answer is no.
- The original offset edition was never going to transition all that well to POD to begin with.
On this last point: For many years now, people who specialize in book printing and manufacturing have begged and pleaded with publishers to standardize how they produce their books (e.g., paper types, trim, finishes, and more). Standardization reduces costs for everyone in the supply chain, right down to the reader. Standardization also means that when publishers or retailers must use POD to fulfill orders, for any reason, the quality differences become less pronounced or don’t exist. You’re not changing the book trim, you’re not making big changes to the paper quality, etc. POD can do a lot of things well, but it has limited options for trims, papers or special printing operations.
Even 15 years ago, I was being pressured as an editorial director to standardize. That pressure has only been ratcheted up due to ongoing consolidation and transformation of the paper and printing industries. The cost of paper and printing keeps increasing and it’s not just an artifact of the pandemic. There’s a larger story here about the transformation of the paper and printing industry and economic forces at work that book publishing cannot control. I’ve written in my paid newsletter about this (see here, here, and here)—my husband worked for 20 years in book production, so you’re noticing some of that influence!—but it remains a rather boring topic except to a handful of insiders and specialists. But it has a dramatic effect on what Broussard is noticing and what is likely to happen in the future.
Smaller publishers rely on print on demand more than the big publishers.
It’s about money and financial risk. A print run is an investment that might not pay the publisher back in the form of sales. The money is tied up in inventory and it can incur ongoing warehousing costs. It means the publisher has less money for other things, like author advances or marketing. Even for a book that’s selling well, knowing when to go back to press and in what quantity can make the difference between a successful book and one that costs the business dearly. I do admit, however, that the aversion to inventory and warehousing can be taken too far. I saw it happen as an editor, when a focus on “just in time” inventory and reduced warehousing space could end up costing more in the end. But that’s another discussion. Suffice it to say, there’s a balance to be struck.
Authors have expressed frustration with their publishers about the lack of transparency and communication.
Usually the fact their book is being printed and fulfilled via POD is never disclosed. While I wouldn’t say the publisher is keeping it a secret exactly, in my experience, authors are rarely if ever notified about issues related to inventory, printing, or pricing changes. For my own book, my publisher certainly never told me about the move to POD or that the price had increased for that POD edition; I found out on my own. But the transition was seamless and I’ve never heard a single complaint from anyone. (Also, for traditional publishing contracts, authors can expect to be paid their usual royalty rate regardless of how the book is printed.)
It would be great if publishers could do better communicating these changes if only for the sake of transparency and increased trust, but it is highly unlikely the editors themselves—the point person for authors—are kept in the loop about such things. Once a book has sold through its first print run and is due for a reprint, not only has the editor moved on in many cases, but it’s a discussion between the production department and the people who manage inventory and reprints, maybe sales staff. So much depends on the publisher. Unfortunately, if authors are hearing about potential problems from booksellers and feeling blindsided, that’s undesirable for everyone.
Which brings me back to Broussard’s piece: His proclamations about POD on social media, by his own admission, have stoked author anxiety about publishers using POD for their books. He says authors are “shocked to see the product of their labors … given such short shrift.” While he says his criticism is really directed at big publishers in particular (they’re the late-capitalist greedy ones), I don’t see authors being educated as much as they’re being set against a method of printing that is needed by the industry and shouldn’t have a moral judgment tied to it.
The bottom line
I have no doubt that POD is getting misused in some cases and not executed well in others, but the wiser call to action is to ask how POD can produce a better outcome when it becomes the most logical, sustainable or economical choice for a book. It can produce outstanding outcomes where everyone is satisfied, but it does require advance planning and thoughtfulness. As editor Martha Bayne recently commented, “Print on demand is a technology, pure and simple. Some (many) print on demand books are of excellent quality, indistinguishable from an offset printed book. Almost all scholarly books are printed POD these days, which allows university presses to take risks on books that may only sell 300 copies and keep them in print. Some POD books are shoddily produced, due to printer error, publisher cost-cutting, or some weird combination of the two. But POD itself is value neutral.”
Jane Friedman has spent her entire career working in the publishing industry, with a focus on business reporting and author education. Established in 2015, her newsletter The Bottom Line provides nuanced market intelligence to thousands of authors and industry professionals; in 2023, she was named Publishing Commentator of the Year by Digital Book World.
Jane’s expertise regularly features in major media outlets such as The New York Times, The Atlantic, NPR, The Today Show, Wired, The Guardian, Fox News, and BBC. Her book, The Business of Being a Writer, Second Edition (The University of Chicago Press), is used as a classroom text by many writing and publishing degree programs. She reaches thousands through speaking engagements and workshops at diverse venues worldwide, including NYU’s Advanced Publishing Institute, Frankfurt Book Fair, and numerous MFA programs.
The LitHub piece exemplifies what I’ve long considered a false dichotomy in big publishing—the presumed conflict between quality and innovation. Technology consistently expands, rather than diminishes, literature’s reach.
Consider the extraordinary democratization of reading we’ve witnessed. E-books have made vast libraries instantly accessible to readers worldwide, while audiobooks have opened literature to new audiences and reading situations—from long commutes to those with visual impairments. Print-on-demand technology adds another vital dimension, eliminating artificial barriers between worthy books and their audiences.
The true measure of publishing lies not in format—whether it’s paper stock, pixel density, or audio quality—but in a book’s ability to reach and move the right readers at the right moment. The physical form of books must evolve alongside readers’ needs, while we maintain our commitment to editorial excellence.
The environmental implications are particularly significant. How can we ignore the wastefulness inherent in traditional models—the returned books, pulped copies, emissions from shipping? Digital formats, combined with POD’s precision, present an elegant solution to these concerns while democratizing the path to publication.
What matters most is not the vehicle of delivery but the impact of the words themselves. Every format that brings more readers to books deserves celebration, not scrutiny.
Thanks for this, Jane. It’s great to read your evenhanded view. I’d like to think the publishers will grow in the direction you suggest – toward transparency with authors, and toward practical, ethical use of technologies like POD.
Thanks, Jane, for outlining the issues inherent in POD these days. I knew little of this before reading your piece.
When our self-publishing clients share their concerns about POD quality, I point out that Ingram is reported to have more than 20 million books in its POD database from all sizes of publishers. However, it doesn’t change the fact that there are manufacturing inconsistencies that the publisher never sees, but the reader does, especially with online shopping. Some problems only the publisher would notice, while others can lead the reader to leave negative reviews or return the book.
POD printed books may be unique in commerce in that readers are not really sure who to blame for manufacturing defects. It’s not like KDP/Ingram/Lulu/etc. has a manufacture’s warranty in the front of the book. They have little or nothing to lose in this scenario. In fact, in some cases, if the reader returns the book for quality issues, the retailer will just resell it. Manufacturing is getting better and pros outweigh cons, but in the case of self-publishers using POD, they are the ones holding the bag when it comes to quality.
What are your thoughts about POD for books containing art work. I’ve been looking into Bookvault, I hear their quality is good. Thanks for addressing this important issue!
Hi Lora: Print-on-demand quality can’t match offset printing for full-color printing. It can do a good-enough job for some types of books, but it may not pass muster if you’re seeking a high-quality coffee table book, especially if color accuracy is important to you. BookVault is a well-recognized and well-used service, but I can’t speak to its quality for color books.
There’s a children’s author, Darcy Pattison, who has looked into this question for children’s books. You might appreciate her perspective:
https://www.darcypattison.com/publishing/online-bookstore/
https://www.indiekidsbooks.com/p/working-with-pod-printers
I’ve been in the book business at small and medium-sized publishers for over thirty years and have worked with distributors of all sizes. Here are a few points I’d offer by way of clarification based on my experience:
Thanks, Peter. For readers wanting to learn more about digital short runs, there’s a nice post here by someone who works at a printer that specializes in it. https://janefriedman.com/the-short-run-printing-option-pros-and-cons/
Again, for those reading, since I know self-pub authors may be browsing this: keep in mind that authors using Ingram or Amazon POD for both printing and distribution don’t have much choice/control here, unless you have the name of a customer service rep you’re working with (because you’re selling THAT many copies).
What authors should be concerned about is that POD means their book never goes out of print on a technicality, which will make rights reversion more contentious. It costs publishers nothing to hold dead titles in their catalog forever on the off chance a POD copy sells once in a while. Authors, meanwhile, are robbed of the ability to revive their work, repackage for a new audience, or use pricing as a promotional strategy while their books are held hostage in perpetuity.
Fortunately, most traditional publishing contracts signed within the last 10-15 years have language in them that bases out-of-print status on a specific sales threshold, not whether the book is technically in print or not. If you have an agent, they are ensuring you’re not caught here, and of course if you’re negotiating your own contract, do your due diligence and/or consult the Authors Guild model contract, free for everyone: https://authorsguild.org/resource/model-trade-book-contract/
Any author who feels trapped should consult with the Authors Guild or with a lawyer. It’s possible to get your rights back even in a situation where out-of-print is not well defined.
My thanks too, Jane! I too learned much from your even-handed report.
Much of your discussion feels way too writer/publisher centric. You are not addressing the concerns of customers.
There is usually (or at least very often) something off about POD books that gives me (a customer, a reader) a bad fuzzy. I could care less what the name of the imprint is inside the cover. But POD books often have strange sizes, paper, typos, sometimes photographic reproductions, etc. I’m thinking specifically of several books purchased recently, on Amazon. They just felt different.
An recent example was C.S. Lewis Screwtape Letters. Threw my mom’s tattered, more than half century old, paperback out. Ordered a replacement. It was graphic novel sized. Bizarre. Like a Fran Frazetta book…but with no art inside. Hard to hold and read. Didn’t fit on the shelf. Just…”huh”?
And why do I have to figure that out after the fact. That little surprise made its way to a “Little Library”. Although maybe I should have just trashed it.
I shouldn’t be able to sense a difference. But I can. I just can!
Oh…and “often” is too much, as a consumer. I don’t want to take a chance. Don’t want to be forced to prove which POD is good/bad. Want to be able to buy a product and know that it will feel right without having to “roll the dice”.
Couple things to consider: Barnes and Nobles (largest US brick and mortal book seller) refuses to stock POD. I talked with them and they said the retail customer can feel the difference and they get stuck with inventory (or returns, or lost shelf space) that is a waste. It’s also too hard to differentiate a good POD from a poor POD. Although they feel most is poor (in the sense of the retail customer senses a difference).
It is also troubling for me, when using Amazon (even the used books now as POD is infesting there too), that I can’t tell which books are POD or not. I don’t want to have to play Clue with ISBN numbers and publisher names. Want a clear designation, so that I can decide what to buy. And quite willing to pay a few more bucks to get known quality. (In any case, it is my choice. I’m fine if someone else with less income buys the off brand stuff.) I just want clear labeling.
At this point, I almost always go to Puffin or the like for out of copyright novels like The Little Princess. If you do a search of reddit threads, you’ll see retail customers like me concerned with how to even detect (and avoid) buying POD books, when purchasing online.
All I can say is: There is more POD and short digital run printing in the average bookstore, including Barnes & Noble, than the average customer realizes or can identify. In fact, Barnes & Noble would not be able to reliably stock its stores without it. There is no separate ISBN number applied to a book based on how it is printed, because how books get printed and where they get printed – that changes all the time. Publishers of all sizes use digital printing for myriad reasons, for the biggest bestsellers as well as the old classics. When readers notice that something’s “off” with the book, it’s because the production wasn’t managed well. POD once upon a time was low quality and easy to spot, but in 2025, that is not the case.
The other problem here is the rise of counterfeits on Amazon, or poor facsimiles of the real thing. That creates a lot of confusion and Amazon does nothing to prevent it. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/technology/amazon-orwell-1984.html
I have no issue with POD as long as books sold are advertised as such, especially when an offset edition had been previously published and the quality is sufficient. Personally, when I’m paying 20GBP for a paperback, I expect quality.
Amazon are increasingly listing books by major publishers that are POD and not being upfront that it is a POD book. In Amazon’s case, the books (at least in the UK) suffer from: covers peeling on arrival, misaligned titles on the spine, variable legibility depending on the font in the original text, and cover quality unfaithful to the original design. In Amazon’s case, it’s the deception that I dislike, and yes, I think the publishers are also responsible, though I believe Amazon likely know what they are doing and let it slide so long as nobody causes a fuss.
An original offset edition and a POD book are not fungible, they are different goods, so I don’t like the slight of hand by Amazon/publishers using POD to “fulfill orders” as you can think you’re getting an offset edition but receive a POD. That in my view is egregious deception that constitutes action by trading standards organizations.
For indie publishers, I agree that POD is a revolution and support it greatly provided the publishers do a quality check of their book before release.
I would argue in the majority of cases, an offset printed book and a digitally printed book or POD book are in fact fungible, but it depends on a variety of factors. Most readers don’t notice the quality difference unless the original paperback had special production values (e.g., embossed or foil cover, sprayed edges), was an unusual trim, or used unusual papers. Increasingly, publishers are using more standard production values for all books so that when they inevitably convert to digital printing and/or POD, readers can’t tell the difference—because when it’s done well, there is no perceptible quality difference. The POD qualities you describe are associated with what was common in 2000, not 2025; the technology has progressed tremendously and if it looks as bad as what you describe, someone’s not doing their job.
Logistically, I’m not sure it would be possible for either Amazon or the publisher to make clear what printing is used for the book each customer orders because that also depends on myriad factors: Where is the copy coming from (which warehouse or distributor)? How long has that copy been sitting around? Is the book currently on backorder? Etc. Publishers switch back and forth between POD and offset and the situation is rather fluid.
So many issues with this.
> I would argue in the majority of cases, an offset printed book and a digitally printed book or POD book are in fact fungible.
This is a hypothetical situation which we may well arrive at but at present, the POD books, especially from Amazon are not up-to scratch and differ significantly from original offset editions. This is a fact.
Any book whos original offset qualities differ from POD is not fungible. It is a different good. This should be made clear by the seller.
> The POD qualities you describe are associated with what was common in 2000, not 2025
No. The POD qualities that I described are of POD books, from Amazon, printed in 2025.
> Logistically, I’m not sure it would be possible for either Amazon or the publisher to make clear what printing is used for the book each customer orders because that also depends on myriad factors
Quite possible and somewhat trivial: use a different product identifier (ISBN, SKU etc). It’s as simple as that. Feel free to show only one at a time on the website but be clear about which one is being sold. Not difficult.
Again: I’m not against POD, not demonizing POD, but there are very material differences between POD and original and it is being abused by the likes of Amazon for profit.
I just bought a “new” book from a major scientific publisher on Amazon only to find that it is an Amazon POD. The lower paper and print quality are immediately noticeable. I wouldn’t have grounds for complaint if Amazon stated they were actually selling a POD book, but they don’t. This has been a problem for a while and I’ve stopped buying “new” books from Amazon unless there is no alternative.
I very much agree! I wish I didn’t have to guess whether I’ll be receiving a POD or an offset edition from Amazon, but since I do, I will henceforth be buying books elsewhere. I’ve received what would probably be described as high-quality POD books from Amazon (nice paper, clear print, etc.) – BUT – they don’t list the original date of publication of the book on the copyright page, or they don’t identify the cover art or artist, or the cover art and title are ever so slightly blurry, or… in short, every one of them is in one annoying way or another easily identifiable as POD even before I find the barcode tell on the last page. I can see how POD is great for pretty much everyone in the industry – except for readers who actually care about books. The medium is part of the message, not separable from it!
I think some bad actors are getting conflated here with those who make legitimate and quality use of POD. Traditional publishers, whether they use POD or not, always list the date of publication on the copyright page. They credit cover artists if there is a cover artist (there isn’t always). If the cover art/title are blurry, that’s not a POD problem, that’s a production problem that also happens with offset printing. The only way to know for sure if a book is POD is to look for the barcode, and even then there are many POD books that don’t have a barcode in the back because they weren’t produced through Ingram or Amazon’s POD services. (There are many ways to use POD printing outside of those two companies.)