B format books

[marwel7]

I have noticed over the last few months that a lot of general fiction has been published in a larger format.I worked in the book trade over 10 years ago and this format was known as B format.It was mainly used for literary fiction,imprints such as Picador,Vintage,Abacus,etc.General fiction was usually published in the smaller A fomat.
Does anyone know why B format is now favoured?

[dotty.]

I work in a store that has been selling a great deal of these since New Year, it's because a publishing house has bought the rights to spew out some older titles with new covers as a budget range, titles mainly that were no longer ranged for most stores. They are specifically aimed at the sale/bargain shelves

[saxy_jag]

I work in libraries, where we don't tend to work with these format sizes - that is, we don't use the same terminology as the book trade. Can't say I've noticed a prevalence of any one size over the others, though.

What I have noticed, however, is the steady increase of (mainly fiction) produced as 'trade paperbacks' - paperbacks with dust jackets and end flaps. I wonder whether there's any more profit in it for the publishers/printers, because I can't really see any advantage. In fact, when it comes to library servicing, they're a nightmare.

[marwel7]

Thanks to you both.
Dotty,that's interesting.But the titles I meant are new.In my local Tesco almost all the new titles are in B format.The Millenium Trilogy,the new Dick Francis and Lee Child come to mind.I wonder if this could be specific to supermarkets. And some I have bought from Amazon,like the latest Robert B Parker's.Quercus seem to have embraced the B format.
In my day,saxy-jag,trade paperbacks didn't happen that much but they weere like a third bite of the cherry between the hardback and mass market editions.They were especially popular for SF and fantasy titles.

[Canary42]

Perhaps it's in response to Cameron's Big Society :-)

[heathfield]

I look upon it as an excuse dreamt up by publishers to charge a higher price for a book. The book is physically bigger to make us think we're getting something more for our money. But I detest this format, with its often larger font, and a line spacing that gives you about twenty lines of text to a page. And, it means these books no longer fit most pockets. Shun them, I say.

[marwel7]

You must have big pockets,Heathfield,A formats never fitted any of my pockets.

[LeMarchand]

I was wondering this, too. As you say, it used to denote "literary" fiction, but it seems to be the standard size now.

I asked a few people I still keep in contact with in the trade and the feeling is that (as suggested above) the larger size means that the publishers can charge a quid or two more. In addition a "standard" size means that the production costs are lower. I did come across someone who had calculated exactly how it all worked out, but can't find the link.

[heathfield]

Big pockets? You bet, Marwell. I usually wear a US airforce type parka most of the time, with the front left open during the summer, and zipped up in winter weather. The pockets can hold two bottles of wine, two A-size novels, a sandwich box, a couple of packets of ciggies, and a large bunch of keys without anyone else knowing what I'm carrying!

[chelle7272]

I'm glad someoine asked this, I've noticed too with a lot of crime thrillers at least. I find it quite annoying as they're a bit unwieldy to carry about (even in a bag never mind large pockets).