> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:49:19 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
>>But it turns out that the book money is small potatoes compared to >>what Gore could earn from his various eco-friendly investments. As a >>partner at Silicon Valley venture capital heavyweight Kleiner Perkins >>Caulfield & Byers, Gore is poised to reap hundreds of millions from >>investments in the companies that will benefit from the government's >>increased emphasis on green technology. According to The New York >>Times's John Broder, Gore could become the world's first "carbon >>billionaire."
> A good idea, eh? > Go thou & do similar. > Stupidity does not pay well, does it?
No idea. How much DO you make at it?
-- So, how's that whole "hopey - changey" thing working out for you so far?
>>> Book still has pre-production costs. >>> Book still has marketing costs. >>> Book still has printing costs. >>> Book will pay <how much?> in royalties to Palin? Zero (do >>> the math--if you can).
>>-- >> So, how's that whole "hopey - changey" thing working out for you so >> far?
> She got an advance, a big one. It's called an advance because it is an > advance against royalties. She has already received beaucoup royalties > and she doesn't have to pay it back no matter how poorly the book sells.
Of course, the book is NOT selling poorly at all, Negative Nelly.
-- So, how's that whole "hopey - changey" thing working out for you so far?
>> >> > Why does Sarah Palin scare you pussies so much?
>> >> Because in the liberal world, you have women that are strong and ugly, or >> >> beautiful and weak. Palin, a strong and beautiful woman, scares the shit >> >> out of them... They are used to ugly asses like Hitlary.
>> >Many of us who choose to let others live their own lives without the >> >government mandating what is acceptable in their bedrooms dislike her >> >because she is an almost perfect cult heroine for those of you who feel >> >you must have a government that mandates everything you do in your >> >social life.
>> Wait, what? That's the fucking liberals' battle cry. They want to >> make it against the law to think bad thoughts. They want to control >> every aspect of American life from the foods you eat to the way your >> company pays you. To say what you said up there proves that you have >> no fucking clue what you're talking about... >> -- >> lab~rat >:-) >> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
>The social conservative movement wants to ban any expression of self >that conflicts with the rabidly conservative evangelical christian >ethos.
There are some that do, I don't personally.
>My arguement is for greater individual liberty.
Then we're on the same page.
>You seem to be agueing >against it, using the false pretenses of the Republican economic policy. >Are you a Boardmember or CEO getting paid over 300 times what the >average Joe on the factory floor is? Perhaps you have overlooked how >difficult it is to support a family on a single wage earner's income >nowadays. What happened? Tax cuts to the rich, increased tax burden to >the middle class.
You have to be kidding me. When do you think that dual incomes started? In 2000? Dual incomes are a result of women entering the workplace back in the 60s, causing a glut of jobs. Supply and demand explains why now, with a glut of workers, the value is less.
>Sure, more people have more jobs. But they are >earning the same or less when adjusted for inflation, while the upper >class gets away with economic murder.
You aren't drawing me into a class warfare discussion. I don't see things the way you do, and I'm against Barry's "redistributive change".
>You appear ready to sacrifice our social freedom for the sake of the >almighty dollar.
You mean the social freedom of setting our own wages for ourselves and our employees? Our freedom from oppressive health care laws and the associated taxes? Freedom to study what we want in college regardless if we get government loans? C'mon.
>I do not vote along strictly party lines. I want rational centrist >legislation, so I typically vote for the most fiscally-conservative >social progressive. Republican or Democrat is not as important as that >person's actual stances on my personal "hot-button" issues.
When a Democrat aligns with my personal "hot-button" issues, I'll vote for one, but that hasn't happened in a LONG time. Since Lawton Chiles, and I regret that to a degree.
>Unfortunately, the GOP has decided that no Republican can allow >abortion, gay rights, or equality of pay between sexes to exist. The >GOP has become ultra-social-conservative, at the same time it presided >over the most massive spending increases in our nation's history.
Each and every thing you typed up there is a ridiculous stereotype talking point. Do you even *know* any conservatives?
>By the way, do you have a language deficit? Or do you always fall back >on base cusswords in an attempt to insult, rather than explain your >views?
If you read enough of my posts, you'll realize that I don't insult anyone unless they do so first. As for the "cusswords", I use them to pepper my content with emphasis. Words on a screen are flat and black. I don't think you'll see a case where I have a problem expressing myself... -- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
>>>>Free if you subscribe. >>>>ROFLMAO !!! >>>>Now THAT is below cost.
>>>>Book still has pre-production costs. Say $3.50 x 1.5-million = $5.25 >>>>million. Book still has marketing costs. Say $1.00 x 1.5-million = >>>>$1.50 million (dropped from $2 ea) Book still has printing costs. Say >>>>$3.00 x 1.5-million = $4.50 million. Book will pay <how much?> in >>>>royalties to Palin? Zero (do the math--if you can). Advance of >>>>$1.5-million (estimate) vs royalties.
>>> She gets whatever the contract says she gets. It's the publishers >>> problem whether their deal makes or looses money. I guess you are too >>> liberal to understand finance and contracts.
> Total publisher payout = $12.75 million for 1.5-million > books in the initial run.
> Revenue = ????
> Why don't you tell us? ROFLMAO !!!
ROFL is right! You fabricate a mess of numbers out of nothing more than your fevered imagination and you want me to balance the books for you? You're ridiculous. "Pre-production costs" are not "per book". It is the amount involved in designing THE book, cover, jacket, etc. That amount is divided by the number of books sold, not the other way around. The same can be said of marketing costs, at least partially. I assume a publisher would spend more marketing a best seller like this one, or perhaps it requires less marketing spending given all the free publicity it gets in the news and word-of-mouth. She is no doubt also getting free advertising via her facebook page, which has almost a million onlookers, reportedly.
Royalties and printing costs are per book.
> No more payments to Palin until the original publishing of > 1.5-million books has sold over $12.75 million.
Palin received a $1.25 million advance. Unless she was very generous in her dealings with the publisher, she should get over $4 per book, which means after 300,000 or so are sold, her advance is covered. The publisher is not giving the books away to Newsmax subscribers. Newsmax makes their money back from the subscriptions. That's Republican math.
>> You would think that even they could figure out that when you're losing >>money on a book that you think you're going to be stuck with, you don't lower >>the price even further to get still more orders before you even place your >>order to the publisher.
>> Man! Their thinking is so convoluted I'm not sure it made sense the way I >> put it.
> Your Republican't business math and ideology strikes again. > You don't know what a "profit margin" is, so how could you > figure they suffer a loss or make a profit?
You said a "publisher margin". I didn't know what you meant. I know what a profit margin is, dimwit.
> You can't do the math, and it shows.
Your math is about 80% fabrication. That makes it hard to follow.
> They are stuck with trying to sell their proclaimed initial > run of about 1.5-million books and getting back their > initial layout of $12.75-million (= $8.50/book).
They aren't required to recoup an amount you have fabricated.
> However, the publisher will save money on marketing and > promotion because Palin is avoiding almost everywhere with > an airport and a significant population. She is going on a > bus tour to smaller towns for about three weeks or so to > promote her book--and that seems about it. The only major > city on her tour is essentially the last stop--Chicago, to > be on Oprah. ROFLMAO !!!
She's appearing on Oprah (not sure where you see humor in that, but you seem to laugh at the strangest moments) the day BEFORE the release date. Why would one go on a book tour to book stores that didn't have the book yet?
says the book tour has been announced, and it is now less than two weeks till the release date, so where you get the 'three weeks ending with an Oprah appearance' I don't know. Perhaps the same place you get your other numbers?
>>> http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/03/al-gore-the-worlds-first-carbon- >>> billionaire/print/ Al Gore's latest eco-treatise, Our Choice: A Plan To >>> Solve the Climate Crisis, is set to hit stores Tuesday. The former >>> vice-president says he will donate 100 percent of the proceeds from the >>> book to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a green group.
>>> But it turns out that the book money is small potatoes compared to >>> what Gore could earn from his various eco-friendly investments. As a >>> partner at Silicon Valley venture capital heavyweight Kleiner Perkins >>> Caulfield & Byers, Gore is poised to reap hundreds of millions from >>> investments in the companies that will benefit from the government's >>> increased emphasis on green technology. According to The New York >>> Times's John Broder, Gore could become the world's first "carbon >>> billionaire."
>>On Oct 31, 9:19 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote: >>> Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >On Oct 30, 10:21 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote: >>> >> Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote: >>> >> > I wrote "marketing Palin".
>>> >> Tell a lie often enough and someone will believe it. You wrote "the >>> >> neocons & wingers were marketing Palin". But they are not. You are >>> >> full of shit.- Hide quoted text -
>>> >But of course they are Winston.
>>> >If you really don't realize that then I am disappointed in your >>> >judgment.
>>> What judgment is that?
>>> The Bush had a shitty economy or that Obama has a shittier economy?
>>> That Bush was engaged in an illegal war or that Obama wants to >>> escalate it?
>>> That jobs were disappearing under Bush or that they are disappearing >>> faster under Obama?
>>> That Bush had open borders or that Obama wants to keep them open and >>> add amnesty as a sweetener?
>>> That Bush tortured illegally or that Obama is trying to make torture >>> legal?
>>> That Bush passed the Patriot Act or that Obama wants to keep it?
>>> That Bush set up a nation wide phone tap system or that Obama wants to >>> keep it?
>>> That Bush loved to ram unpopular legislation through by locking out >>> the other party or that Obama not only does it but brags about it?
>>> That Bush gave away the public treasury to Banksters or that Obama has >>> seen him and raised him?
>>> Or perhaps you object to my use of the words ObamaCare, ObamaMotors, >>> ObamaMortgage, ObamaBank, and ObamaEquity for the industries our boy >>> has nationalized in just a few short months?
>>Lie much?
>>Try settling on one of your so called issues and perhaps we can >>discuss it.
> The one issue is Obama. I say he is a disaster.
> Bush ended his term about one year after it became obvious to the > average guy that the processed food stuff had truly hit the fan and > Bush was correctly hated and despised for the disasters he brought on.
> Obama has been in office about one year. His great plans have done > nothing at best, probably actually hurt. In any case he has zero to > show for any initiative. He does read teleprompter much better than > Bush. That's his good point.
> Obama = Bush.
And what makes you think Obama's policies have hurt?
>>>>Try settling on one of your so called issues and perhaps we can >>>>discuss it.
>>> The one issue is Obama. I say he is a disaster.
>>> Bush ended his term about one year after it became obvious to the >>> average guy that the processed food stuff had truly hit the fan and >>> Bush was correctly hated and despised for the disasters he brought on.
>>> Obama has been in office about one year. His great plans have done >>> nothing at best, probably actually hurt. In any case he has zero to >>> show for any initiative. He does read teleprompter much better than >>> Bush. That's his good point.
>>> Obama = Bush.
>>And what makes you think Obama's policies have hurt?
> Are you telling us that they have helped?
I'm not telling you anything. I'm asking why you think the policies have "hurt."
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:55:56 -0600, Jim Alder > <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>> ROFL is right! You fabricate a mess of numbers out of nothing more >> than >>your fevered imagination and you want me to balance the books for you?
> You haven't explained why you count lot sales of > 2500-5,000 books given away free for subscriptions or > deals in TownHall, Faux Snooze, Moonie Times, World Nut > Daily, The American Spectator, Human Events, or dozens > of other rightwing propaganda mills
> THen claim "best seller"
These loons are 'depressed' when they can't grab their ankles for some icon.
>>> ROFL is right! You fabricate a mess of numbers out of nothing more >>> than your fevered imagination and you want me to balance the books >>> for you?
>> You haven't explained why you count lot sales of >> 2500-5,000 books given away free for subscriptions or >> deals in TownHall, Faux Snooze, Moonie Times, World Nut >> Daily, The American Spectator, Human Events, or dozens >> of other rightwing propaganda mills
>> THen claim "best seller"
> These loons are 'depressed' when they can't grab their ankles for some icon.
These Lefties aren't happy unless they're talking about taking it up the ass.
-- So, how's that whole "hopey - changey" thing working out for you so far?
<jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote: >>>>>Book still has pre-production costs. Say $3.50 x 1.5-million = $5.25 >>>>>million. Book still has marketing costs. Say $1.00 x 1.5-million = >>>>>$1.50 million (dropped from $2 ea) Book still has printing costs. Say >>>>>$3.00 x 1.5-million = $4.50 million. Book will pay <how much?> in >>>>>royalties to Palin? Zero (do the math--if you can). Advance of >>>>>$1.5-million (estimate) vs royalties.
>>>> She gets whatever the contract says she gets. It's the publishers >>>> problem whether their deal makes or looses money. I guess you are too >>>> liberal to understand finance and contracts.
>> Total publisher payout = $12.75 million for 1.5-million >> books in the initial run.
>> Revenue = ????
>> Why don't you tell us? ROFLMAO !!!
> ROFL is right! You fabricate a mess of numbers out of nothing more than >your fevered imagination and you want me to balance the books for you? You're >ridiculous. "Pre-production costs" are not "per book". It is the amount >involved in designing THE book, cover, jacket, etc. That amount is divided by >the number of books sold, not the other way around. The same can be said of >marketing costs, at least partially. I assume a publisher would spend more >marketing a best seller like this one, or perhaps it requires less marketing >spending given all the free publicity it gets in the news and word-of-mouth. >She is no doubt also getting free advertising via her facebook page, which has >almost a million onlookers, reportedly.
Are you claiming I created the "what it costs to publish a book" page--to which I provided a link? Or what? None of us have seen YOU produce anything relevant to the discussion in terms of COST OR REVENUE INFO for analysis purposes.
> Royalties and printing costs are per book.
>> No more payments to Palin until the original publishing of >> 1.5-million books has sold over $12.75 million.
> Palin received a $1.25 million advance. Unless she was very generous in >her dealings with the publisher, she should get over $4 per book, which means >after 300,000 or so are sold, her advance is covered. The publisher is not >giving the books away to Newsmax subscribers. Newsmax makes their money back >from the subscriptions. That's Republican math.
And from where did you get the 300k number? IMO, you pulled it out of your ass--because you don't know at what price the publisher sold the book.
>>> You would think that even they could figure out that when you're losing >>>money on a book that you think you're going to be stuck with, you don't >lower >>>the price even further to get still more orders before you even place your >>>order to the publisher.
>>> Man! Their thinking is so convoluted I'm not sure it made sense the way >I >>> put it.
>> Your Republican't business math and ideology strikes again. >> You don't know what a "profit margin" is, so how could you >> figure they suffer a loss or make a profit?
Looks like I was right. Republican't math comes up with 300k books sold--and then it is profitable. Only problem--you don't know the cost and you don't know the selling price. So, show us your Republican't math. ROFLMAO !!!
> You said a "publisher margin". I didn't know what you meant. I know what a >profit margin is, dimwit.
>> You can't do the math, and it shows.
> Your math is about 80% fabrication. That makes it hard to follow.
If you know what a "margin" is, then you know what "publisher margin" is. Come on, show us how selling 300k books reaches profitability per Republican't math. Let's see, $4.97 * 300k = less than $1.5-million. That is less CASH coming in than the cost of printing the 1.5-million books (which is about $4.5-million CASH going out).
>> They are stuck with trying to sell their proclaimed initial >> run of about 1.5-million books and getting back their >> initial layout of $12.75-million (= $8.50/book).
> They aren't required to recoup an amount you have fabricated.
I said they spent about $12.75-miillion to publish the book--based on independent factual evidence from a comparably (slightly LOWER) priced hard-back book. What we don't see is any factual evidence from you that contradicts my claim. All you do is talk--and talk--and talk--and talk--and talk--and talk--and talk--and talk--and talk...
>> However, the publisher will save money on marketing and >> promotion because Palin is avoiding almost everywhere with >> an airport and a significant population. She is going on a >> bus tour to smaller towns for about three weeks or so to >> promote her book--and that seems about it. The only major >> city on her tour is essentially the last stop--Chicago, to >> be on Oprah. ROFLMAO !!!
> She's appearing on Oprah (not sure where you see humor in that, but you >seem to laugh at the strangest moments) the day BEFORE the release date. Why >would one go on a book tour to book stores that didn't have the book yet?
> says the book tour has been announced, and it is now less than two weeks >till the release date, so where you get the 'three weeks ending with an Oprah >appearance' I don't know. Perhaps the same place you get your other numbers?
Oprah is not a conservative (LOL). But she is willing to let Palin be a voluntary public idiot on her show. Be interesting to see what screwups Palin makes this time....
I thought the Oprah show was the last stop in December--but it appears it is the first in November. Be interesting to see if she gives away any books then (or not). Usually, they do (one to each audience member). Anyway, the clown roadshow ends about Dec 10, so it runs maybe three weeks (total)--with Thanksgiving in there also. Ah, maybe it will be a "Black Friday" bonus !!! Buy one turkey at 58-68 cents per lb, get one free (Palin's book) !!! The math works...
Gerald Abrahamson <jerr...@visi.com> wrote: > Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Book still has pre-production costs. Say $3.50 x 1.5-million = $5.25 >>>>>>million. Book still has marketing costs. Say $1.00 x 1.5-million = >>>>>>$1.50 million (dropped from $2 ea) Book still has printing costs. Say >>>>>>$3.00 x 1.5-million = $4.50 million. Book will pay <how much?> in >>>>>>royalties to Palin? Zero (do the math--if you can). Advance of $1.5- million >>>>>>(estimate) vs royalties.
>>>>> She gets whatever the contract says she gets. It's the publishers >>>>> problem whether their deal makes or looses money. I guess you are too >>>>> liberal to understand finance and contracts.
>>> Total publisher payout = $12.75 million for 1.5-million >>> books in the initial run.
>>> Revenue = ????
>>> Why don't you tell us? ROFLMAO !!!
>> ROFL is right! You fabricate a mess of numbers out of nothing more than >>your fevered imagination and you want me to balance the books for you? You're >>ridiculous. "Pre-production costs" are not "per book". It is the amount >>involved in designing THE book, cover, jacket, etc. That amount is divided by >>the number of books sold, not the other way around. The same can be said of >>marketing costs, at least partially. I assume a publisher would spend more >>marketing a best seller like this one, or perhaps it requires less marketing >>spending given all the free publicity it gets in the news and word-of-mouth. >>She is no doubt also getting free advertising via her facebook page, which has >>almost a million onlookers, reportedly.
> Are you claiming I created the "what it costs to publish a > book" page--to which I provided a link? Or what?
Oh, is that where you got the numbers? Okay, fair enough. Still, as I've tried to point out, those are average percentages for most of the expenses.
> None of us > have seen YOU produce anything relevant to the discussion in > terms of COST OR REVENUE INFO for analysis purposes. >> Royalties and printing costs are per book.
>>> No more payments to Palin until the original publishing of 1.5-million books >>> has sold over $12.75 million.
>> Palin received a $1.25 million advance. Unless she was very generous in >>her dealings with the publisher, she should get over $4 per book, which means >>after 300,000 or so are sold, her advance is covered. The publisher is not >>giving the books away to Newsmax subscribers. Newsmax makes their money back >>from the subscriptions. That's Republican math.
> And from where did you get the 300k number? IMO, you pulled > it out of your ass--because you don't know at what price the > publisher sold the book.
I got it from your link. 15% of list price, or $28.99 is $4.35. Divide $1.25 million by that and you get about 300,000. I would assume that the author's cut is the same no matter how many are sold. I could be wrong.
>>>> You would think that even they could figure out that when you're losing >>>> money on a book that you think you're going to be stuck with, you don't >>>> lower >>>>the price even further to get still more orders before you even place your >>>>order to the publisher.
>>>> Man! Their thinking is so convoluted I'm not sure it made sense the way >>>> I put it.
>>> Your Republican't business math and ideology strikes again. >>> You don't know what a "profit margin" is, so how could you figure they >>> suffer a loss or make a profit?
> Looks like I was right. Republican't math comes up with 300k > books sold--and then it is profitable. Only problem--you > don't know the cost and you don't know the selling price. > So, show us your Republican't math. ROFLMAO !!!
>> You said a "publisher margin". I didn't know what you meant. I know what a >>profit margin is, dimwit.
>>> You can't do the math, and it shows.
>> Your math is about 80% fabrication. That makes it hard to follow.
> If you know what a "margin" is, then you know what > "publisher margin" is.
Nope, didn't. It could have been the white part on the left side of the page, asshole. :)
> Come on, show us how selling 300k > books reaches profitability per Republican't math.
That's three times you asked me the same fucking question in the same goddam post, ya fucking moron! Just how do you think this Usenet thing works? You laugh at me (apparently your sole reason for being in this thread) for not knowing what you meant by "publishers margin" but you can't decipher this sentence;
"Unless she was very generous in her dealings with the publisher, she should get over $4 per book, which means after 300,000 or so are sold, her advance is covered."
Sounds mighty straightforward and self-explanatory to me, but you're clueless?
> Let's see, $4.97 * 300k = less than $1.5-million.
$4.97? To whom did the publisher sell "Going Rogue" at that price?
> That is less > CASH coming in than the cost of printing the 1.5-million > books (which is about $4.5-million CASH going out).
Notice I didn't ask you a second time where you got the $4.97? See, I didn't expect you to answer BEFORE I finished typing this post.
>>> They are stuck with trying to sell their proclaimed initial >>> run of about 1.5-million books and getting back their initial layout >>> of $12.75-million (= $8.50/book).
>> They aren't required to recoup an amount you have fabricated.
> I said they spent about $12.75-miillion to publish the > book--based on independent factual evidence from a > comparably (slightly LOWER) priced hard-back book.
What book was it, do you know? You call it a comparable book, but is it? Or is it a set of statistical averages? Does a best seller fall under the same parameters?
> What we > don't see is any factual evidence from you that contradicts > my claim. All you do is talk--and talk--and talk--and > talk--and talk--and talk--and talk--and talk--and talk...
I think if we checked, we'd find the preponderance of verbosity is on your side, not mine.
>>> However, the publisher will save money on marketing and >>> promotion because Palin is avoiding almost everywhere with >>> an airport and a significant population. She is going on a >>> bus tour to smaller towns for about three weeks or so to >>> promote her book--and that seems about it. The only major >>> city on her tour is essentially the last stop--Chicago, to be on Oprah. >>> ROFLMAO !!!
>> She's appearing on Oprah (not sure where you see humor in that, but you >>seem to laugh at the strangest moments) the day BEFORE the release date. Why >>would one go on a book tour to book stores that didn't have the book yet?
>> says the book tour has been announced, and it is now less than two weeks >>till the release date, so where you get the 'three weeks ending with an Oprah >>appearance' I don't know. Perhaps the same place you get your other numbers?
> Oprah is not a conservative (LOL). But she is willing to let > Palin be a voluntary public idiot on her show.
I guess if you can judge the book before it comes out, you can critique the show before it airs, too. I think you missed your calling. You should be taking Ms. Cleo's place.
> Be interesting to see what screwups Palin makes this time....
More interesting that you thought someone would go on a book tour before the book was released.
> I thought the Oprah show was the last stop in December--but > it appears it is the first in November. Be interesting to > see if she gives away any books then (or not). Usually, they > do (one to each audience member).
Then they probably will this time. And you will laugh derisively that they are giving away Palin's book, and wonder how Oprah can afford to give away a couple hundred books. LOL!! Didn't she give them all CARS one show?
> Anyway, the clown roadshow > ends about Dec 10, so it runs maybe three weeks > (total)--with Thanksgiving in there also. Ah, maybe it will > be a "Black Friday" bonus !!! Buy one turkey at 58-68 cents > per lb, get one free (Palin's book) !!! The math works...
So does the hate. Works for you, anyway.
-- So, how's that whole "hopey - changey" thing working out for you so far?
>>> Palin received a $1.25 million advance. Unless she was very generous in >>>her dealings with the publisher, she should get over $4 per book, which >means >>>after 300,000 or so are sold, her advance is covered. The publisher is not >>>giving the books away to Newsmax subscribers. Newsmax makes their money back >>>from the subscriptions. That's Republican math.
>> And from where did you get the 300k number? IMO, you pulled >> it out of your ass--because you don't know at what price the >> publisher sold the book.
> I got it from your link. 15% of list price, or $28.99 is $4.35. Divide >$1.25 million by that and you get about 300,000. I would assume that the >author's cut is the same no matter how many are sold. I could be wrong.
But who says she gets 15%? Walmart and Target are NOT selling below cost. So, that means the delivered cost to the store approximates $9/book. So there is no 15% in it for anyone. However, if the publisher is dumping the book on the market to get rid of it, my point is made.
>>>You would think that even they could figure out that when you're >>>losing money on a book that you think you're going to be stuck with, >>>you don't lower the price even further to get still more orders before >>>you even place your order to the publisher.
But if they are contracted to print 1.5-million books, then they have to dump them somewhere, to someone....
>> Looks like I was right. Republican't math comes up with 300k >> books sold--and then it is profitable. Only problem--you >> don't know the cost and you don't know the selling price. >> So, show us your Republican't math. ROFLMAO !!!
>>> Your math is about 80% fabrication. That makes it hard to follow.
> Nope, didn't. It could have been the white part on the left side of the >page, asshole. :)
So, if it is printed in reverse, there is no margin... Interesting....
>> Come on, show us how selling 300k >> books reaches profitability per Republican't math.
> "Unless she was very generous in her dealings with the publisher, she >should get over $4 per book, which means after 300,000 or so are sold, her >advance is covered."
> Sounds mighty straightforward and self-explanatory to me, but you're >clueless?
If the books sell she gets a commisson AFTER the advance is paid off. So far, no sign that has happened.
>> Let's see, $4.97 * 300k = less than $1.5-million.
> $4.97? To whom did the publisher sell "Going Rogue" at that price?
People like you.
>> That is less CASH coming in than the cost of printing the 1.5-million >> books (which is about $4.5-million CASH going out).
>>>> They are stuck with trying to sell their proclaimed initial >>>> run of about 1.5-million books and getting back their initial layout >>>> of $12.75-million (= $8.50/book).
>>> They aren't required to recoup an amount you have fabricated.
That is approximately what it costs. Haven't seen any figures to contradict it.
>> I said they spent about $12.75-miillion to publish the >> book--based on independent factual evidence from a >> comparably (slightly LOWER) priced hard-back book.
> What book was it, do you know? You call it a comparable book, but is it? >Or is it a set of statistical averages? Does a best seller fall under the same >parameters?
Tell us how a "best seller" is sold BELOW COST before it is released....
> I think if we checked, we'd find the preponderance of verbosity is on your >side, not mine.
My talk is factual--and documented. Yours is not.
>>>> However, the publisher will save money on marketing and >>>> promotion because Palin is avoiding almost everywhere with >>>> an airport and a significant population. She is going on a >>>> bus tour to smaller towns for about three weeks or so to >>>> promote her book--and that seems about it. The only major >>>> city on her tour is essentially the last stop--Chicago, to be on Oprah. >>>> ROFLMAO !!!
>>> She's appearing on Oprah (not sure where you see humor in that, but you >>>seem to laugh at the strangest moments) the day BEFORE the release date. Why >>>would one go on a book tour to book stores that didn't have the book yet?
She is on Oprah before the release date...
>> Oprah is not a conservative (LOL). But she is willing to let >> Palin be a voluntary public idiot on her show.
> I guess if you can judge the book before it comes out, you can critique >the show before it airs, too. I think you missed your calling. You should be >taking Ms. Cleo's place.
Just about the whole world has seen Palin in action. And she did NOT write the book. So, unless she went to acting classes intensively for the past six months, we won't see a change. Maybe THAT is why we haven't seen much Tina Fay on TV for the past approximately six months....
As long as Palin is in public, Tina Fay will be able to make a living. ROFLMAO !!!
>> Be interesting to see what screwups Palin makes this time....
> More interesting that you thought someone would go on a book tour before >the book was released.
> Then they probably will this time. And you will laugh derisively that they >are giving away Palin's book, and wonder how Oprah can afford to give away a >couple hundred books. LOL!! Didn't she give them all CARS one show?
Clueless once again. Those are free from the publisher (PR or marketing expense--a cost of doing business and added to/included in the cost of the book).
Plus, Oprah screwed up with car giveaway. She forgot about gift taxes and other costs. So, she had to work out a deal to cover those costs as well (because some/many people could not afford the cars with the taxes they would owe).
>> Anyway, the clown roadshow >> ends about Dec 10, so it runs maybe three weeks >> (total)--with Thanksgiving in there also. Ah, maybe it will >> be a "Black Friday" bonus !!! Buy one turkey at 58-68 cents >> per lb, get one free (Palin's book) !!! The math works...
> So does the hate. Works for you, anyway.
Disdain for Palin's incompetence and malfeasance. After Palin leaves the political scene, she will no longer be a legitimate target. Until then, she is as much in the public scope as a wolf--and for the same reason(s).
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:25:23 -0800, TinLizziedl <noth...@donttry.com> wrote:
>One of the reasons Government exists is to protect the rights of it's >citizens, both the Majority and the Minorities. The social conservative >movement is not about protecting anyone. Except possibly the bastard >spawn of rapists....
Its fascinating h ow Tinlizzard picks the tiny minority of Conservatives that are bible belters and make the claim they are everyone in the Right side of the asle.
And totally ignores the Marxists that control the DNC.
Are you simply blind, stupid or just fucking crazy? Or are you a DNC shill?
In article <oj5af5pi6avouc9s3rnrk9s0jhudgao...@4ax.com>, gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net says...
> >so I typically vote for the most fiscally-conservative > >>social progressive.
> Blink blink..then Pelosi, Barny Frank and Hillary are your top picks..
> Right?
I didn't vote for any of them. The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans in this respect: The hard-line wingers of both parties do their damnedest to control who gets the top positions. Centrists are disdained and demeaned by all as "not real" Democrats or Republicans.
Try to hold a rational conversation with either side and a centrist is lambasted.
Many here have chosen to view me as a far-left-wing democrat because I typically use my vote to promote a few relatively minor social issues. I'm pro-choice, pro-gay rights, anti-tax'n'spend. It is unfortunate that in American politics, there is no viable third party.
Both of our major parties have let us down, IMHO. I just happen to feel very strongly about a few social issues that makes a very great many socially-concervative republicans furious. Is it my fault that the republican party as a whole is leaning farther and farther to the socially-conservative right, while promoting many of the same economic policies that I feel helped land us in our current recession?
I want to see a socially-progressive party that promotes economically viable policies. Right now, that leaves me out in the cold....
I also live in a region that wouldn't exist if it were not for the military bases in this area. Do I know a few Republicans? Ya' tink? I work around hundreds of them every day! Some good enough to accept my viewpoints, many want to paint a bulls-eye on my back.
-- Tin Lizzie "Elephant: A mouse built to government specifications."-Lazarus Long
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 07:50:29 -0800, TinLizziedl <noth...@donttry.com> wrote:
>I want to see a socially-progressive party that promotes economically >viable policies. Right now, that leaves me out in the cold....
Thats never going to happen. Socially Progressive is a buzz word for Socialist. Socialists are never economically viable. They are nearly Marxists.
>I also live in a region that wouldn't exist if it were not for the >military bases in this area. Do I know a few Republicans? Ya' tink? I >work around hundreds of them every day! Some good enough to accept my >viewpoints, many want to paint a bulls-eye on my back.
After reading your posts..I can fully understand why they would be bringing the paint.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
In article <868bf5h4mntssulh6beafvqa4e2948p...@4ax.com>, gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net says...
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 07:50:29 -0800, TinLizziedl <noth...@donttry.com> > wrote:
> >I want to see a socially-progressive party that promotes economically > >viable policies. Right now, that leaves me out in the cold....
> Thats never going to happen. Socially Progressive is a buzz word for > Socialist. Socialists are never economically viable. They are nearly > Marxists.
You have no idea how I stand on a great many topics. Entitlement programs? Most should be abolished. Welfare state? A temporary safety net is needed, but to allow permanent welfare status is beyond the pale. We all slap convienient labels on each other, using words that we believe suffice to capture the essence of what those people believe. Refusing to accept nuanced positions is one of the hallmarks of present day social-conservatives. My issue is that there presently is NO party that supports my views. I could be a Democrat if it weren't for their tax'n'spend ways, or I could be a Republican if it weren't for their near-universal stance on abortion, gay-rights, and gun-control.
There should be more to the Republican party than the strict social policies they are pursuing, but those policies have become litmus tests. If you're Pro-Choice, you're not a Republican anymore. If you're pro- gay-rights, you're not a republican. Pro-gun control, not republican. It no longer matters how I feel about democratic fiscal profligacy, I get lumped in with them because of my social views, not my fiscal ones.
> >I also live in a region that wouldn't exist if it were not for the > >military bases in this area. Do I know a few Republicans? Ya' tink? I > >work around hundreds of them every day! Some good enough to accept my > >viewpoints, many want to paint a bulls-eye on my back.
> After reading your posts..I can fully understand why they would be > bringing the paint.
Because they are becoming more intolerant? Because many spout simple- minded bs that they've been indoctrinated with rather than give rational explainations for their beliefs? I happen to feel that, "Cause God Said It In The Bible!!" is not a rational explaination for why they belive they can legislate their brand of morality.
> "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the > pursuit of justice is no virtue."
> Gunner
-- Tin Lizzie "Elephant: A mouse built to government specifications."-Lazarus Long
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 10:11:42 -0800, TinLizziedl <noth...@donttry.com> wrote:
>> After reading your posts..I can fully understand why they would be >> bringing the paint.
>Because they are becoming more intolerant? Because many spout simple- >minded bs that they've been indoctrinated with rather than give rational >explainations for their beliefs? I happen to feel that, "Cause God Said >It In The Bible!!" is not a rational explaination for why they belive >they can legislate their brand of morality.
You just born yesterday? Its because for the past 50+ yrs..the Left has been taking one liberty at a time, fractional slices that pretty soon add up to an entire hand, then arm, then toes, then legs...before long you have a human that is great at playing 3rd base..and nothing else.
And the 80% of this country that is Conservative has gotten tired of it..and they are waking up to this gradual erosian of their rights and liberties..the only rights they have are sexual. Period. And thats the total intent of the Left. End program, full stop, enditenditendit.
And the Conservtives are pissed..and getting more and more pissed. Sooner than later..they are simply going to realize that the Left has robbed them of nearly all their freedoms, used the Constitution as butt wipe and threw away the Founders.
And are going to simply rise up and kill the Leftwingers who have damaged this nation to terribly. Nothing else has worked..not elections, not good intentions and they are finally realizing that enough is enough..
Shrug..and its long long past time.
Jefferson..a founder long disparaged by the Left said it quite clearly...
.......Wonderful is the effect of impudent & persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure....
>> "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the >> pursuit of justice is no virtue."
>>>> Palin received a $1.25 million advance. Unless she was very generous in >>>> her dealings with the publisher, she should get over $4 per book, which >>>> means >>>>after 300,000 or so are sold, her advance is covered. The publisher is not >>>>giving the books away to Newsmax subscribers. Newsmax makes their money back >>>>from the subscriptions. That's Republican math.
>>> And from where did you get the 300k number? IMO, you pulled >>> it out of your ass--because you don't know at what price the publisher sold >>> the book.
>> I got it from your link. 15% of list price, or $28.99 is $4.35. Divide >>$1.25 million by that and you get about 300,000. I would assume that the >>author's cut is the same no matter how many are sold. I could be wrong.
> But who says she gets 15%?
YOUR LINK SAYS SO! What, you can treat the numbers like they're carved on stone tablets, but when I use them I'm "pulling numbers out of my ass", as you so eloquently put it?
> Walmart and Target are NOT selling below cost.
Some here say they are. I am still skeptical, but I suppose it's possible.
> So, that means the delivered cost to the > store approximates $9/book. So there is no 15% in it for > anyone. However, if the publisher is dumping the book on the > market to get rid of it, my point is made.
A point that makes no sense. You don't 'dump' a book you haven't received yet, nor do you encourage a flood of orders for a book you want to 'dump' but will still have to order.
>>>>You would think that even they could figure out that when you're >>>>losing money on a book that you think you're going to be stuck with, >>>>you don't lower the price even further to get still more orders >>>>before you even place your order to the publisher.
> But if they are contracted to print 1.5-million books, then > they have to dump them somewhere, to someone....
A writer does not 'contract' a publisher to print X number of books. The publisher contracts the WRITER to write one. They print what they think will sell.
>>> Looks like I was right. Republican't math comes up with 300k >>> books sold--and then it is profitable. Only problem--you >>> don't know the cost and you don't know the selling price. >>> So, show us your Republican't math. ROFLMAO !!!
>>>> Your math is about 80% fabrication. That makes it hard to follow.
>> Nope, didn't. It could have been the white part on the left side of the >>page, asshole. :)
> So, if it is printed in reverse, there is no margin... > Interesting....
>>> Come on, show us how selling 300k books reaches profitability per >>> Republican't math.
>> "Unless she was very generous in her dealings with the publisher, she >>should get over $4 per book, which means after 300,000 or so are sold, her >>advance is covered."
>> Sounds mighty straightforward and self-explanatory to me, but you're >> clueless?
> If the books sell she gets a commisson AFTER the advance is > paid off. So far, no sign that has happened.
Really? No one has contacted you to update you on the sales of the book nor the status of Palin's compensation? Obviously someone is slipping.
>>> Let's see, $4.97 * 300k = less than $1.5-million.
>> $4.97? To whom did the publisher sell "Going Rogue" at that price?
> People like you.
I haven't bought a copy to date. I asked where you got that price. Shall I assume you dragged it out of your ass?
>>> That is less CASH coming in than the cost of printing the 1.5-million >>> books (which is about $4.5-million CASH going out).
>>>>> They are stuck with trying to sell their proclaimed initial >>>>> run of about 1.5-million books and getting back their initial layout >>>>> of $12.75-million (= $8.50/book).
>>>> They aren't required to recoup an amount you have fabricated.
> That is approximately what it costs. Haven't seen any > figures to contradict it.
Haven't really seen any to validate it.
>>> I said they spent about $12.75-miillion to publish the >>> book--based on independent factual evidence from a comparably (slightly >>> LOWER) priced hard-back book.
>> What book was it, do you know? You call it a comparable book, but is it? >>Or is it a set of statistical averages? Does a best seller fall under the same >>parameters?
> Tell us how a "best seller" is sold BELOW COST before it is > released....
I have told you the difference. You just won't shut up long enough to read what someone else says, apparently.
>> I think if we checked, we'd find the preponderance of verbosity is on your >> side, not mine.
> My talk is factual--and documented. Yours is not.
No, yours is not.
>>>>> However, the publisher will save money on marketing and >>>>> promotion because Palin is avoiding almost everywhere with >>>>> an airport and a significant population. She is going on a >>>>> bus tour to smaller towns for about three weeks or so to >>>>> promote her book--and that seems about it. The only major >>>>> city on her tour is essentially the last stop--Chicago, to be on Oprah. >>>>> ROFLMAO !!!
>>>> She's appearing on Oprah (not sure where you see humor in that, but you >>>>seem to laugh at the strangest moments) the day BEFORE the release date. Why >>>>would one go on a book tour to book stores that didn't have the book yet?
> She is on Oprah before the release date...
The DAY BEFORE. Do you not see the difference between appearing on a TV show the day before a release vs appearing at bookstores to sign books that aren't there?
>>> Oprah is not a conservative (LOL). But she is willing to let >>> Palin be a voluntary public idiot on her show.
>> I guess if you can judge the book before it comes out, you can critique >>the show before it airs, too. I think you missed your calling. You should be >>taking Ms. Cleo's place.
> Just about the whole world has seen Palin in action. And she > did NOT write the book. So, unless she went to acting > classes intensively for the past six months, we won't see a > change.
People like you won't see a change because you see what your preconceived ideas tell you to see.
> Maybe THAT is why we haven't seen much Tina Fay on > TV for the past approximately six months....
I believe she's still on 30 Rock. She was a one trick pony as far as Palin was concerned. I'm sure SNL will bring her back to trash the book and Palin's future campaigns, if any.
> As long as Palin is in public, Tina Fay will be able to make > a living. ROFLMAO !!!
As long as there are hatefilled dimwits on the Left, the leftwing media will survive.
>>> Be interesting to see what screwups Palin makes this time....
>> More interesting that you thought someone would go on a book tour before >>the book was released.
>> Then they probably will this time. And you will laugh derisively that they >>are giving away Palin's book, and wonder how Oprah can afford to give away a >>couple hundred books. LOL!! Didn't she give them all CARS one show?
> Clueless once again. Those are free from the publisher (PR > or marketing expense--a cost of doing business and added > to/included in the cost of the book).
The cars, too?
> Plus, Oprah screwed up with car giveaway. She forgot about > gift taxes and other costs. So, she had to work out a deal > to cover those costs as well (because some/many people could > not afford the cars with the taxes they would owe).
Pertinent to nothing.
>>> Anyway, the clown roadshow >>> ends about Dec 10, so it runs maybe three weeks >>> (total)--with Thanksgiving in there also. Ah, maybe it will >>> be a "Black Friday" bonus !!! Buy one turkey at 58-68 cents per lb, >>> get one free (Palin's book) !!! The math works...
>> So does the hate. Works for you, anyway.
> Disdain for Palin's incompetence and malfeasance.
She demonstrated neither in her career. Just because a circus of leftwing fops point and jeer at a mannerism or malaprop is meaningless hatemongering, and says more about the Left than it does abotu Palin.
> After Palin leaves the political scene, she will no longer be a > legitimate target.
Hasn't stopped the talk show hosts from still maligning Bush and Cheney.
> Until then, she is as much in the public > scope as a wolf--and for the same reason(s).
Yes, because she, like the wolf, has been maligned and persecuted unfairly.
-- So, how's that whole "hopey - changey" thing working out for you so far?
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:53:56 -0600, Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote: >Gogarty <Goga...@Clongowes.edu.ie> wrote in news:20091105-143801.788.0 >@Gogarty.news.bway.net:
>>>> Book still has pre-production costs. >>>> Book still has marketing costs. >>>> Book still has printing costs. >>>> Book will pay <how much?> in royalties to Palin? Zero (do >>>> the math--if you can).
>>>-- >>> So, how's that whole "hopey - changey" thing working out for you so >>> far?
>> She got an advance, a big one. It's called an advance because it is an >> advance against royalties. She has already received beaucoup royalties >> and she doesn't have to pay it back no matter how poorly the book sells.
> Of course, the book is NOT selling poorly at all, Negative Nelly.
http://www.casavaria.com/cafesentido/2009/10/20/4930/newsmax-confirms... "Newsmax Confirms It is Rigging Palin’s Book Sales" [ Newsmax had in recent weeks tried to debunk Keith Olberman’s report that conservative blogs, political action committees and front groups were buying Sarah Palin’s book in massive quantities to rig book sales, by claiming they are doing the opposite, with the following claim:
But the truth is that Newsmax has not purchased one book from Amazon.
In fact, we are offering the book both FREE and at an incredible discount to Amazon.
The defense is so transparent as to be an explicit confession: we’re not buying in bulk to rig bestseller lists, we’ve just bought so many, we plan to give the book free to booksellers so they can sell it for $20 of the list price (that’s 69.85% off), before it even comes out! ]
http://blog.buzzflash.com/analysis/934 "Palin's Book Soars on Inflated Sales Receipts" " ... giving it away is a classic strategy to appear more popular than you are."
|
