Thad McIlroy seems to be puzzled about the origin of the terms backlist and front list. (Yes, I believe that one is one word and the other two words.) The origin seems pretty clear to me: front list refers books displayed in the front of a bookshop: backlist the opposite.
Mr McIlroy’s piece is immensely long, and he often seems intent on straining at gnats. Front/backlist has nothing to do with sales volume, so why waste space talking about it. Cambridge University Press’s bestselling front list could never rack up sales numbers that’d come within miles of Godfrey & Siddons Four-Figure Tables, but nobody got confused about what they were doing. That book’s still there, selling away — no doubt less well than it used to when every teenager in Britain needed a copy because the cell phone hadn’t been invented and you couldn’t afford (weren’t allowed) a calculator.
Publishers love backlist sales because they are sales made (one hopes) after all the set-up costs involved in getting a book produced have been earned out, and so are relatively profitable. Bennet Cerf, founder of Random House, opined “backlist is like reaching down and picking up gold from the sidewalk”. But promoting backlist is almost a contradiction in terms — backlist books sell because people want/need them, not because the publisher is bringing the books to their attention. High-priced executives have from time to time exhorted their employees to publish for the backlist. This is only marginally less crazy than those other execs who insisted their guys should only sign bestsellers. Backlisting is inevitable. When this year’s front list comes out and gets all the marketing and sales attention, last year’s old front list gets added to the backlist. When publishers say backlist is valuable, they are of course referring to backlist that sells in large numbers without any activity on the part of the publisher other than packing and shipping the books. Backlist that doesn’t sell at all is a horse of a different color.
About the best promotion-type activity you can do with your backlist nowadays is to beef up the metadata. Most metadata for backlist was done years ago, when we were innocents in this regard; so improving discoverability by expanding metadata should be relatively easy. Of course this sort of work costs money, and is hard to tie directly to any sales data — so almost nobody does it.
Keeping an old book in print used to be much harder than it is today. In order to justify the cost of reprinting you used to have to be able to predict a reasonable number of sales, invest the money, and wait for your prediction to pan out. This meant that many books which might well have sold a few more copies never got the chance to do so because a reprint looked too risky. Nowadays when we can print tiny numbers, even down to one copy, backlist need never go away.* Out-of-print is a vanishing state. This, along with all the other speculation about how readers “discover” books, is the main reason for higher book sales in the backlist category: there’s just more of it.
_______________
*Many authors and agents are not happy about this, as publishers’ contracts usually specify that they will retain rights until the book goes out of print. Some form of contract terminology allowing for the reversion of copyright to the author at some sensible point is needed. I assume that many authors are already getting such language into their contracts.