5 ms·

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

by 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
    I'm actually trying to make the opposite point, which is the physical cost of a book is relatively unimportant. LuLu actually throws you way off. They quoted me $7.95 for the cost of a 300 page perfect-print edition. They are a small volume printer, <1000 copies. At Volume (2000+ copies), a perfect-print 300 Page book can cost as little as $2.50 - And there are, and always have been, a lot of printers that could that work for you. You are correct in indicating that the big publishing houses have access to scale and vertical integration in which they are probably paying around $1 for each book - but, at 2000 copies, $5000 vs $2000 doesn't matter very much when you consider all of the fixed costs associated with a book. Where a big publisher CAN take advantage of their scale, is in spreading the risk over thousands of books. Sure, a lot of their $5K advances will yield a grand total of 75 books sold. Or, in fact, be completed but not published (Seen that happen). But, many of those books will break even, some will make a profit, and every so often, JK Rowling will show up. Note - a private publisher is risking everything. If their 3-4 months worth of heartfelt effort turn out to sell 70 books at $10, and they get to keep all of it, well, 100% of $700 is still less than an advance of $5,000. Almost all of the time, energy, risk(!) and money associated with creating a book come before the actual physical creation. I'd be prepared to say that for a 5000 book run, (which is considered a success, for most authors), approximately 90% of the cost is associated with the creation of the book, advertising, marketing of the book, and only 10% in the manufacturing of it. Now, where we can reduce costs is in the marketing/advertising - with eBooks, you don't really need shelf space. And Social Networks/intelligence engines can do a better job of getting me the book I'm interested in anyways. But, to create a great book, requires a team of professionals. And those people have to eat.... [edit: And, to steal a point from retric above, "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." - That's true, the other strength of the Publisher is controlling the channel, aka the bookshelf in the past. But, given that there is no "bookshelf" to control anymore, hopefully great content will rise to the top, and that is yet _another_ inefficiency that we will be able to eliminate ]

by ja30278 17y ago

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
  I'm actually trying to make the opposite point, which is the physical cost of a book is relatively unimportant. LuLu actually throws you way off. They quoted me $7.95 for the cost of a 300 page perfect-print edition. They are a small volume printer, <1000 copies. At Volume (2000+ copies), a perfect-print 300 Page book can cost as little as $2.50 - And there are, and always have been, a lot of printers that could that work for you. You are correct in indicating that the big publishing houses have access to scale and vertical integration in which they are probably paying around $1 for each book - but, at 2000 copies, $5000 vs $2000 doesn't matter very much when you consider all of the fixed costs associated with a book. Where a big publisher CAN take advantage of their scale, is in spreading the risk over thousands of books. Sure, a lot of their $5K advances will yield a grand total of 75 books sold. Or, in fact, be completed but not published (Seen that happen). But, many of those books will break even, some will make a profit, and every so often, JK Rowling will show up. Note - a private publisher is risking everything. If their 3-4 months worth of heartfelt effort turn out to sell 70 books at $10, and they get to keep all of it, well, 100% of $700 is still less than an advance of $5,000. Almost all of the time, energy, risk(!) and money associated with creating a book come before the actual physical creation. I'd be prepared to say that for a 5000 book run, (which is considered a success, for most authors), approximately 90% of the cost is associated with the creation of the book, advertising, marketing of the book, and only 10% in the manufacturing of it. Now, where we can reduce costs is in the marketing/advertising - with eBooks, you don't really need shelf space. And Social Networks/intelligence engines can do a better job of getting me the book I'm interested in anyways. But, to create a great book, requires a team of professionals. And those people have to eat.... [edit: And, to steal a point from retric above, "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." - That's true, the other strength of the Publisher is controlling the channel, aka the bookshelf in the past. But, given that there is no "bookshelf" to control anymore, hopefully great content will rise to the top, and that is yet _another_ inefficiency that we will be able to eliminate ]