Are printed books worth the effort?

So happy to scroll down below and read the many favorable comments on the virtues of the printed page. Even that book just sitting on the shelf seems to beckon your re-visit to its familiar print.

Thank you and Amen.

It’s important to have hard copies of your books on hand for book signings and other events that showcase your work. Print on Demand (POD) is the most cost effective way to go about it.  CreateSpace and IngramSpark are excellent sources to consider.

My readers love the feel of actual book in their hands. They say it's their way to connect with the author. I tend to agree with them because I loved curling up in chair or lean against a tree with a book in my hands. It fed my imagination and sense of adventure. But I know people connect with electronic gadgets because they don't want to lug books everywhere they go like on vacations. But I know people like both, so you give your readers all possible options then they will follow you. I tend to love holding a book in my hands but give my readers options. So it's worth it to me.

Yes.

I have experience with both - one of my two first novels was published as an e-book only, while the other was both paperback and Kindle.

I spent about three years trying to convince the e-book publisher to bring the book out in paperback at least, as I had a number of people wanting a physical copy of it, as did I, for sales at bookstore and other events. 

Also, most contests require a physical copy of the book or manuscript - some even require two. 

The publisher, White & MacLean, never did publish 'Sympathy for the Devil' in paperback, though it remains available as an e-book. I think the lack of physical representation of writing hurts its sales; the publisher thought it wasn't worth it.

With today's "print-on-demand" technology, it isn't much more expensive to publish a physical copy of a book than it is a digital copy. 

Nathan Bransford, a former Curtis Brown literary agent-turned-novelist, has a blog and in it he used to list the cost comparisons to publishers for hard-cover, paperback and digital publication of average books. Turned out the greatest expense to publishers isn't the actual printing, but the money thrown around for "placement" in bookstores and publicity/advertising/reviews etc.

So. A physical book (paperback or hardcover) also is more likely to last, on your shelf or in a library, than a digital one anyway, just as its been discovered by photographers that negatives, if preserved properly, last longer than digital photo images. 

Besides. It is a much bigger thrill when that first box of author's copies arrives at your doorstep than some notification that your "book" is now "live."

As a book designer, I have found that most of the authors and ghostwriters I work with want printed books first and foremost. It's tangible and is a great way to establish thought leadership even if you don't sell a lot of them. 

The feeling you get when you hold the book in your hand and think "I did this," is irreplaceable.

Not only do I like the feel of a book in my hand, I like carrying the books wherever I like.

Definitely both. It's rather difficult to have a book signing with only e-books. ;) If you have to pay for your paperback books, than you're with the wrong publisher. A reputable publisher does not charge to have paperbacks printed. I hope this answer helps you. 

Yes I do. I love books and so do other readers. Also people like to have them autographed so I order some to sign and mail to people who message me. I have sold more print books than digital.

It depends on the book. I have some on Kindle and that's good enough but, give me a beautifully executed art or photography book or even an epic novel in print in hand any time. There is something contemplative about holding a beautiful book in my hands rather than staring into a screen all day.