Has anyone had any good experience with a lay-flat binding vs. standard perfect binding? Advantages or disadvantages?

As a gamer: I LOVE spiral/comb binding. It makes playing with that book much, much easier, and I can leave it flat for things like 2-page spreads or fold it over for easy viewing of a page. Whenever I can get a game with spiral binding, I do.

As a forum-reader: There's a spectrum of opinion, from "I will only buy a perfect-bound hardcover" to "I will buy anything, regardless of format." The advantages of spiral-binding are primarily for play purposes, or if you're trying to go for that "look." The disadvantages are that they don't fit well on a bookshelf, and are hard for retailers to display and sell. And that some people just  don't like them, for one of those reasons or reasons of aesthetic. 

As a publisher: I decided to offer Timestream in multiple formats, to appeal to different audiences. So I have a full-color, perfectbound edition (26.00), and a black-and-white, spiral-bound edition (16.00). So far, they have been selling in almost equivalent amounts. I think I've sold one more perfectbound than spiralbound.

What this tells me, I think, is that I'm not losing any sales by offering both, but if I offered only the perfectbound, I may not have as many.

Does that help?

Absolutely. In fact, there is a form of perfect binding that will lay flat. A lot of technical manuals use it. It preserves the spine area for the book shelf but allows you to lay the book flat in order to be busily doing something else while still being able to reference materials.

Thanks for your input.

Matt

"standard perfect binding" ... makes me cry.  I wrote and then deleted a rant about how perfect binding is not "standard" but it unfortunately probably is, these days.

Perfect binding is actually something of a shortcut and cost-cutter; it glues a stack of pages together along one edge, and then glues that edge to a spine (sometimes an internal spine).  Pages can fall out when the glue unsticks.  Sewn binding, which used to be and I wish still was "standard," gathers pages into folded signatures, sews the signatures together with thread or wire, and then glues that book block to endsheets and the endsheets to the cover.  Pages don't fall out without being torn out.  It is also able to lay open, since the threading allows the signatures to shift slightly.

Matt, I think the thing you're calling 'lay-flat perfect binding' is probably sewn or similar.  Perfect binding doesn't lay flat unless you have a ton of pages, and even then it only lays flat if you've got it open somewhere around the middle.  Reference materials are almost always sewn, because they get a lot of handling and use, and need to be more rugged than a disposable paperback.  RPG books are reference books almost any way you slice 'em -- it's a pity they're perfect-bound like paperbacks.

Addendum: Oh, there is a "lay-flat perfect binding" technique that uses an internal spine and then glues the cover only to either edge of the internal spine, thus giving the book block a little "flex".  Unfortunately, it results in a very weak binding, and the cover can come off of the book block pretty easily.  I would not recommend it for anything that's going to be handled at all regularly.

Joshua -- what are the printing options for sewn binding?

yrs--
--Ben

What do you mean exactly, Ben?  Like, margins and paper weights, or something else?

I mean, actually, this is a total tangent to the thread.  Let's take it up in e-mail.

yrs--
--Ben

Joshua wrote:
Matt, I think the thing you're calling 'lay-flat perfect binding' is probably sewn or similar. 

Tangent:
What sizes do comb or spiral binding come in? Is it possible to get a book made on 8 1/2 x 11, but set up landscape orientaion rather than portrait easily?

Just about all shapes, sizes, and colors that you can think of, Bob.  Landscape 8.5 x 11 is more than possible, and widely available.

It seems like this is a bit outdated, but have you considered ring binding? It has a number of advantages:

• Lays flat; but doesn't completely fold back, though, like spiral binding allows--but comb binding doesn't allow that either, usually.
• Closes easily, especially if you get binders with back-cover-mounted rings (as opposed to spine-mounted). One thing I've always disliked about comb binding is its tendency to cause little hang-ups and folds in the page gutters, when being closed; but ring binders with decent page guards close quickly and neatly.
• Easy addenda, which can be a nice bonus for small-press, so long as your general typesetting makes some room for text expansion (i.e. so you can squeeze a little extra content onto replacement pages, if needed).
• Cover gimmicks: given that some ring binder covers have clear sleeves on front, back, and spine, you can do some funky things that would be expensive/impossible with soft or hard cover of any other kind. Customized (as in, per customer) text for each printout to be inserted; several covers from which the customer may choose; use of alternative materials (as applicable; e.g. construction paper, metal foil, whatever fits the clear sleeves). Of course, many printers can offer printed binders, too, which has a bit more of a professional feel than inserts in clear sleeves. And I ain't even scratching the surface of what you could custom order for ring binders: different material types and colors, cutouts (i.e. holes in the binder), odd shapes, etc....
• Expansion-ready: if your product supports releases of small, specific expansions of the rules, then the base book could come with the (customized?) binder, and future expansions that require the base book could be released as shrink-wrapped loose pages to be inserted into the end/middle/wherever of the binder.
• Supports tabs: while perfect/spiral/comb binding only support bleeds for section organization*, you can easily provide actual tabs with a ring binder (given that they are usually a bit oversized); and most on-demand printers in my area offer that as a trivial option for ring binding.
• Olde Skool Charm: your product could REALLY stand out on a retailer's shelf, being ring bound, tabbed, with cool cover inserts.

[sub](* Yes, you can use thumbnail cutouts or you can make oversize covers to accommodate tabs, with any binding; but they are pricey options, usually.)
[/sub]

And the disadvantage: pages can tear out easier, especially the first and last few, which endure a lot of torquing by the binder cover during movement. Good page guards can mitigate this; heavy paper weights can too (for the commensurate costs). A front and back tab can, too; though one becomes tempted to put cover art and text onto those tabs, and the price just keeps going up.

But I'll put it this way: for nearly every game manual that I own which I've heavily used, at some point, I have shaved off the spine, had it drilled (or hole-punched it) and put it into a ring binder. Yes, you have to be gentle with the first few (and last few) sheets, but the end utility is well worth the minor risk and occasional ring hole repair.

Just my 2¢;
David

I suspect, David, that "ring binding" falls into sort of the same category as comb and spiral binding -- that is, while it could certainly be applicable to a very specific "indie" feel, it's pretty much anithetical to any other marketing strategy, and the "common gamer" would turn his nose up without even opening the book.  The irony, of course, being that the binding is exactly what the actual use of the book demands, and offers a lot of functional advantages.  It's only missing the one advantage that's absolutely essential -- getting sold.

However, I recently went back to school (to take Accounting courses -- how exciting does that sound?) and the textbook for the course was available as perfectbound or as unbound and three-hole drilled for ring binding.  The unbound was a little less than the perfectbound, and I had empty folders at home, so I went that route.  Offering both options (much like folks using Lulu can offer the same book in hardbound, perfect-soft, and spiralbound) is probably a workable idea.

Concerning print-on-demand, here is a company I have used professionally, and they could do just about anything:
Laser Image - Products & Services

They take a PDF, do whatever the heck you want with it, and do runs as small as 25 (for most formats; higher  minimums for some jobs, like tabs). They can do per-page replacement, from one run to the next--once they have your doc on their DocuTechs, it's trivial to tweak them. They even do mail-merge... say, if you had 30 orders and you wanted the Intro page to have the customer name on it somewhere. And, of course, they'd do fulfillment of such a list, too. They do all the tabs and so forth, too: on-demand color, laminated, all kinds of drilling and binding, etc. Frankly, the emergence of such companies is what has made me ready to go for My First Product.

Concerning the unviability of marketing a ring-bound book: your idea of making it an on-order option isn't a bad one, but it leaves the binder to the customer. That's sort of a "push": they self-select, but you lose a bit of brand penetration. As my examples above show, there's a LOT you can do with custom binder ordering and stylizing that, in my opinion, would eliminate the "ugh factor" that you think they'd suffer. After all, look at all the styles and shapes of binders available for Your Favorite CCG. Look at how many gamers ring-bind their own perfect bound books (I am surely not the only one--I got the idea from someone else). And, as you point out, it is just about ideal for the purposes of gamer handling (table-top, that is; I think 5x7 spiral bound is perfect for LARP, as it fits in a waistband when not in use).

Of course, there's the whole "you don't see the Big Companies doing it" argument--though I always am leery of such arguments, as they presume these "authoritative" others actually (a) market test and (b) have thought of the notion and (c) have tested it and (d) found it lacking in adoption. Oh, (e) for a large enough sample to be statistically meaningful. Meanwhile, I have worked for several software and hardware development firms (from IBM to Cisco, on down) who still use ring bound manuals to this day.

Remember, uniqueness is not always a bane: No one thought the world wanted Silly Putty until an experiment went awry and someone decided to foist it off on impressionable kids. ;-)

But ultimately, it would be a gamble: well executed, a value add; shoddily done, a doom. If you are purely web-sales and some local shelf space (i.e. no major distribution contract, which would have issues with a non-standard format), then I'd say to try it out: you'd risk maybe 100 binders cost and 25 (min) drilled printouts. Further, if your game is modular--or your product planning will be--then go for it, too, and make the customer totally aware that the game is "expandable." Take it from a "weird format" to a "necessary format, given the future product plans."

Just 2¢ more;
David

Hey, I like the ring binder idea, and would like to learn more. Specifically, cost: assuming you'd do your own composition, how much for an empty binder with plastic sleeves you can slip covers into? Assuming it's anywhere near competitive with perfect-binding, I can see how that'd work well for many kinds of rpg projects.

Joshua: I think this is one of those places where usability trumps looks. If your game works better (not all would) with loose leaves and easy expandability, I see making the sale as a minor problem. Considering how rare the binder approach is nowadays, I would even say that you'd have a slight edge in being distinctive. I know I hadn't seen a binder approach for years when I spotted one guy running Harnmaster in a convention last weekend. For web sales the binding is pretty much irrelevant, and in conventions you're making the sale yourself, and can explain the reasoning behing the binder. If there is a disadvantage, it's in retailer sales.

Other than Hârnmaster, the other example I can recall of a published 3-ring binder product were the Monstrous Compendia for AD&D2. In most of these I saw, pages were falling out from wear and tear. I'm not sure that this format has an actual practical advantage, other than a nice marketing gimmick. (Look! You can take out just the pages you need! Put them in any order!)

If you used the "no tear" paper, then I wouldn't feel ripped off, but this is likely prohibitively expensive.