5 ms·

It hurts the reader, in that they can't get cheap eBooks until a year after they are released One of the lessons I have learned from this debacle is that I sho

It hurts the reader, in that they can't get cheap eBooks until a year after they are released One of the lessons I have learned from this debacle is that I should be careful what I wish for. It turns out, according to my favorite authors, that time-sensitive pricing is a huge part of what makes the economics of their business work. After all, an author's hardcore fans are willing to pay more, and time-sensitive pricing -- with books costing more on the day of release, then gradually getting cheaper -- is the established mechanism for extracting that premium. The "hardcover" vs "softcover" vs "remaindered" thing is the industry's way of signalling the different price points. I've suddenly started looking at hardcover buyers with more respect. These people aren't suckers, or at least they aren't mere suckers. They are the patrons, the hardcore fans, that are keeping my favorite writers in business. It would be the height of irony if I eventually got what I used to think was my wish -- flat-rate ebooks at, say, $5 per copy, no premium pricing -- only to see my favorite authors either go out of business or figure out some other way -- exclusive early releases by subscription, the street performer protocol, selling T-shirts, product placement -- to recover the equivalent of the cost of a hardcover book! We're all going to save money in the e-book era, but I'm not really sure it's going to be that much money: Writers and editors and marketers still need to be paid. We'll save on printing and shipping, but that may be about it. There just aren't tons of excess profits sitting around in book publishing: The audiences are too small. I might not even save money on bricks and mortar: I like visiting bookstores or the equivalent, even if just to sit and drink tea while surrounded by media.

ja30278 17y ago
There may not be tons of excess profits, but there are certainly tons of efficiencies to be gained by eliminating the print/ship/warehouse model of distribution. I simply don't accept the argument that ebooks can't be sold drastically more cheaply than paper books. To me, there's no reason for the publisher to exist at all (not that the various functions they provide don't need to be done, just that they don't need to be provided by a single large entity). Not to mention that, as sold, Ebooks represent a drastically _worse_ value than paper books. They aren't lendable, they're often linked to a single device, and the right to read them can even be revoked remotely. Publishers are offering a worse product for nearly the same price, while simultaneously crying poor.
- ghshephard 17y ago
  What most people don't realize, is that the "physical" cost of a book isn't a particularly significant portion of its cost at low volumes, and very little of its risk (You can do multiple printings should a book do better than expected) The author here: http://www.tobiasbuckell.com/2010/01/31/why-my-books-are-no-longer-for-sale-via-amazon/ http://www.tobiasbuckell.com/2010/01/31/why-my-books-are-no-... Did a great job of capturing many of the costs of publishing a book - Author's Advance, editor, copy-editor, proof reader, typography, design, art, Marketing/Advertising - regardless of whether it is physical or electronic. I've only ever been on the periphery, as a technical editor - but I can tell you, watching the birth of even _one_ book, is a painful, extensive, and incredibly expensive process involving a ton of highly qualified professionals. The actual "physical" production of the book is almost an after-thought. And, every author I know in the technical industry, has always had to have a "real job" in order to make a living. So, no - I don't actually think there really is much difference between the cost of a physical book and an eBook for normal volumes < 10,000 copies, which is considered a good success for most authors - the fixed costs are pretty significant. I do agree with you, though, that there are a lot of liabilities associated with DRM encumbered eBooks, that hopefully publishers will drop, and therefore _enhance_ the value of eBooks. I certainly am willing to pay more for a non-drm encumbered eBook than it's paper equivalent. With the number of Ebook readers I have (iPhone, K1, K2) - they simply are more valuabe.
  - mattmcknight 17y ago
    What you are missing from the argument is that the reason the publishers existed was not for the ancillary services, but because of the huge capital costs of running a printing press and moving that object down the production chain to the network of distributors and retailers. If we can accept that the printed book is no longer the primary artifact, we can accept that we no longer need huge publishing houses to wrap all of the costs in. The cost differences between producing a paper book and an eBook are striking to me. I read the linked article and it makes some imaginative leaps in assigning all costs to the eBook venture, resulting in some ridiculous numbers. If you compare the costs of physically printing the book to publishing an eBook, there is obviously a huge difference. Look at lulu.com for starters on this. On the other hand, his argument for flexible pricing is quite sensible. The difference as we go to eBooks will be that the popular books will cost more, and the less popular books will cost less, as we get the physical production costs out of the way and the overhead is greatly reduced. Just like recording artists and labels, authors will separate from publishers, as publishers fragment into the the physical production, editorial service providers and financial risk backing operations.
ghshephard 17y ago
Every word of your analysis and reflection is spot on regarding the importance of time-sensitive pricing, incenting authors to produce great works, and, what I believe, is my _moral_ responsibility to reward those authors/software publishers/directors/actors/content creators who give me so much pleasure. I'm happy to see there are others out there who share my worldview. So, I think it's really important to emphasize, that Amazon wasn't suggesting non time-sensitive pricing, instead, they were requesting the ability to set the prices, EVEN IF it meant they would pay Macmillan $25 and sell a book for $9.99. The net result would be - I get a great book, day one, cheap. MacMillan (and the author) get their cut of the $25. Amazon gets my business. (Because, once I'm at amazon.com, good chance I'll go back when buying my EOS 7D). Walmart mastered the art of selling something at a loss to get you in the door, Amazon is just following in their well understood footsteps. The publishing industry, though, has done the analysis and realized that setting a price point of $9.99 constantly, means that readers will have a difficult time paying more than that. Which means that, eventually, Amazon.com doesn't have to sell the books at a loss, because that is the only price that books will sell at. I don't really buy the argument - I'm going to purchase the next Peter Hamilton Void Series Book on Day 1, even if it is $50; but clearly the publishing companies do, because they desperately want to control the price that the _reader_ sees, regardless of what the publisher is being paid. Ergo, the "Agency Model". Amazon is no longer a Book Buyer/Seller for MacMillan, and will not be able to discount eBooks to get more volume. There is a meta-game being played here, and it is for control of the Channel - to some degree, the party that controls the pricing controls the channel. If Amazon can set the pricing to a below-cost number, then they grow their (already strong) control over the channel, and make it up on all the other elements that people purchase. By turning Amazon into an Agency that has to price their books at the same price as everyone else, Macmillan has regained that control.
- Retric 17y ago
  If you can quickly crate high quality books that people actually like you will make a lot of money as an author. To paraphrase one of the best "We don't subsidize an incompetent hore why must we subsidize incompetent authors." Most published authors suck which has a lot to do with them making no money. What publishers focus on is not high quality books but rather figuring out how to convince people to buy crap books that they will not actually read. Amazon cut's into this in two ways, if you can read reviews before you buy you are less likely to pickup something you don't like. The other approach is by removing the limited shelf space at the book store you reduce the control large publishing houses have over the channel which allows higher quality books to compete without backing from a major publishing houses .
patio11 17y ago
I've suddenly started looking at hardcover buyers with more respect. These people aren't suckers, or at least they aren't mere suckers. They are the patrons, the hardcore fans, that are keeping my favorite writers in business. For years I felt proud of that -- as I mentioned yesterday, I used to buy hardcovers pretty indiscriminately. I'll happily pay extra for quicker access. That's why I shelled out $350 for the machine which teleports books directly into my hand. When I hear publishers talking about windowing books on my Kindle to protect their no-longer-relevant-to-me hardcovers and physical distribution systems, I get a little upset. I mentioned so on my blog. This morning, I woke up to an inbox full of mail from people who profess to be professional communicators telling me that I "stabbed them in the back" and was a "useless parasite" and "tightwad" for expressing my desire to continue paying them thousands of dollars in return for fastest possible access. I think of myself as a patron. They clearly think of me as a sucker. Did the Medicis ever have to put up with this? Of course not: in addition to hiring artists they also had assassins on the payroll. I'm strangely tempted. It seems like six authors have a radically different understanding of the patronage relationship than I do. In a not totally unrelated turn of events, today my To Read list got shorter by two books.
- jstevens85 17y ago
  > When I hear publishers talking about windowing books on my Kindle to protect their no-longer-relevant-to-me hardcovers and physical distribution systems, I get a little upset. It's important to note that Macmillan was only considering windowing books on the Kindle because Amazon was forcing them to sell their books at a price below what they believed was profitable. Had Amazon been more flexible in allowing publishers to set prices for the content they own, then this never would've happened.
  - ghshephard 17y ago
    To be clear, publishers can set any price they want on the content they own. Amazon never set (nor could it) the price at which Macmillan was selling their content. Amazon was just asking for the freedom to determine what price they could sell it to their customer at - even if it was below they price they were purchasing it at. You don't think Amazon/WalMart/Target forced Scribner to sell "Under the Dome" for $9, do you? Hardcover releases are typically sold at a 47 percent discount, Under the Dome has a list of $35, so amazon probably paid around $18.00 for that, and turned around and sold it to their customer for $9. That's what Amazon was trying to get the rights to do with eBooks. Macmillan didn't want Amazon discounting books to their customers.

ja30278 17y ago

There may not be tons of excess profits, but there are certainly tons of efficiencies to be gained by eliminating the print/ship/warehouse model of distribution. I simply don't accept the argument that ebooks can't be sold drastically more cheaply than paper books. To me, there's no reason for the publisher to exist at all (not that the various functions they provide don't need to be done, just that they don't need to be provided by a single large entity). Not to mention that, as sold, Ebooks represent a drastically _worse_ value than paper books. They aren't lendable, they're often linked to a single device, and the right to read them can even be revoked remotely. Publishers are offering a worse product for nearly the same price, while simultaneously crying poor.

ghshephard 17y ago
What most people don't realize, is that the "physical" cost of a book isn't a particularly significant portion of its cost at low volumes, and very little of its risk (You can do multiple printings should a book do better than expected) The author here: http://www.tobiasbuckell.com/2010/01/31/why-my-books-are-no-longer-for-sale-via-amazon/ http://www.tobiasbuckell.com/2010/01/31/why-my-books-are-no-... Did a great job of capturing many of the costs of publishing a book - Author's Advance, editor, copy-editor, proof reader, typography, design, art, Marketing/Advertising - regardless of whether it is physical or electronic. I've only ever been on the periphery, as a technical editor - but I can tell you, watching the birth of even _one_ book, is a painful, extensive, and incredibly expensive process involving a ton of highly qualified professionals. The actual "physical" production of the book is almost an after-thought. And, every author I know in the technical industry, has always had to have a "real job" in order to make a living. So, no - I don't actually think there really is much difference between the cost of a physical book and an eBook for normal volumes < 10,000 copies, which is considered a good success for most authors - the fixed costs are pretty significant. I do agree with you, though, that there are a lot of liabilities associated with DRM encumbered eBooks, that hopefully publishers will drop, and therefore _enhance_ the value of eBooks. I certainly am willing to pay more for a non-drm encumbered eBook than it's paper equivalent. With the number of Ebook readers I have (iPhone, K1, K2) - they simply are more valuabe.
- mattmcknight 17y ago
  What you are missing from the argument is that the reason the publishers existed was not for the ancillary services, but because of the huge capital costs of running a printing press and moving that object down the production chain to the network of distributors and retailers. If we can accept that the printed book is no longer the primary artifact, we can accept that we no longer need huge publishing houses to wrap all of the costs in. The cost differences between producing a paper book and an eBook are striking to me. I read the linked article and it makes some imaginative leaps in assigning all costs to the eBook venture, resulting in some ridiculous numbers. If you compare the costs of physically printing the book to publishing an eBook, there is obviously a huge difference. Look at lulu.com for starters on this. On the other hand, his argument for flexible pricing is quite sensible. The difference as we go to eBooks will be that the popular books will cost more, and the less popular books will cost less, as we get the physical production costs out of the way and the overhead is greatly reduced. Just like recording artists and labels, authors will separate from publishers, as publishers fragment into the the physical production, editorial service providers and financial risk backing operations.

ghshephard 17y ago

Every word of your analysis and reflection is spot on regarding the importance of time-sensitive pricing, incenting authors to produce great works, and, what I believe, is my _moral_ responsibility to reward those authors/software publishers/directors/actors/content creators who give me so much pleasure. I'm happy to see there are others out there who share my worldview. So, I think it's really important to emphasize, that Amazon wasn't suggesting non time-sensitive pricing, instead, they were requesting the ability to set the prices, EVEN IF it meant they would pay Macmillan $25 and sell a book for $9.99. The net result would be - I get a great book, day one, cheap. MacMillan (and the author) get their cut of the $25. Amazon gets my business. (Because, once I'm at amazon.com, good chance I'll go back when buying my EOS 7D). Walmart mastered the art of selling something at a loss to get you in the door, Amazon is just following in their well understood footsteps. The publishing industry, though, has done the analysis and realized that setting a price point of $9.99 constantly, means that readers will have a difficult time paying more than that. Which means that, eventually, Amazon.com doesn't have to sell the books at a loss, because that is the only price that books will sell at. I don't really buy the argument - I'm going to purchase the next Peter Hamilton Void Series Book on Day 1, even if it is $50; but clearly the publishing companies do, because they desperately want to control the price that the _reader_ sees, regardless of what the publisher is being paid. Ergo, the "Agency Model". Amazon is no longer a Book Buyer/Seller for MacMillan, and will not be able to discount eBooks to get more volume. There is a meta-game being played here, and it is for control of the Channel - to some degree, the party that controls the pricing controls the channel. If Amazon can set the pricing to a below-cost number, then they grow their (already strong) control over the channel, and make it up on all the other elements that people purchase. By turning Amazon into an Agency that has to price their books at the same price as everyone else, Macmillan has regained that control.

Retric 17y ago
If you can quickly crate high quality books that people actually like you will make a lot of money as an author. To paraphrase one of the best "We don't subsidize an incompetent hore why must we subsidize incompetent authors." Most published authors suck which has a lot to do with them making no money. What publishers focus on is not high quality books but rather figuring out how to convince people to buy crap books that they will not actually read. Amazon cut's into this in two ways, if you can read reviews before you buy you are less likely to pickup something you don't like. The other approach is by removing the limited shelf space at the book store you reduce the control large publishing houses have over the channel which allows higher quality books to compete without backing from a major publishing houses .

patio11 17y ago

I've suddenly started looking at hardcover buyers with more respect. These people aren't suckers, or at least they aren't mere suckers. They are the patrons, the hardcore fans, that are keeping my favorite writers in business. For years I felt proud of that -- as I mentioned yesterday, I used to buy hardcovers pretty indiscriminately. I'll happily pay extra for quicker access. That's why I shelled out $350 for the machine which teleports books directly into my hand. When I hear publishers talking about windowing books on my Kindle to protect their no-longer-relevant-to-me hardcovers and physical distribution systems, I get a little upset. I mentioned so on my blog. This morning, I woke up to an inbox full of mail from people who profess to be professional communicators telling me that I "stabbed them in the back" and was a "useless parasite" and "tightwad" for expressing my desire to continue paying them thousands of dollars in return for fastest possible access. I think of myself as a patron. They clearly think of me as a sucker. Did the Medicis ever have to put up with this? Of course not: in addition to hiring artists they also had assassins on the payroll. I'm strangely tempted. It seems like six authors have a radically different understanding of the patronage relationship than I do. In a not totally unrelated turn of events, today my To Read list got shorter by two books.

jstevens85 17y ago
> When I hear publishers talking about windowing books on my Kindle to protect their no-longer-relevant-to-me hardcovers and physical distribution systems, I get a little upset. It's important to note that Macmillan was only considering windowing books on the Kindle because Amazon was forcing them to sell their books at a price below what they believed was profitable. Had Amazon been more flexible in allowing publishers to set prices for the content they own, then this never would've happened.
- ghshephard 17y ago
  To be clear, publishers can set any price they want on the content they own. Amazon never set (nor could it) the price at which Macmillan was selling their content. Amazon was just asking for the freedom to determine what price they could sell it to their customer at - even if it was below they price they were purchasing it at. You don't think Amazon/WalMart/Target forced Scribner to sell "Under the Dome" for $9, do you? Hardcover releases are typically sold at a 47 percent discount, Under the Dome has a list of $35, so amazon probably paid around $18.00 for that, and turned around and sold it to their customer for $9. That's what Amazon was trying to get the rights to do with eBooks. Macmillan didn't want Amazon discounting books to their customers.