4 ms·
Putting aside the publishers' financial motives, it doesn't sit quite right with me to think of and reduce the value and purpose of the book in text form as bei
by danso 7y ago
Putting aside the publishers' financial motives, it doesn't sit quite right with me to think of and reduce the value and purpose of the book in text form as being completely subordinate and subsumed by its audiobook version, to the point that the text can be seen as nothing more than an inferior fallback mode not even worth charging for.
Of course I agree that distributing a book as text is basically nothing compared to producing and distributing audio. Making an audiobook (for the most part, I assume) requires the the book text exists in the first place, so the book text is a sunk cost in terms of production.
But it doesn't make economic sense, because a book in e-text format has actual value, and continues to have value and utility even if you end up buying the audio version too. As long as an e-text format has value, how could the market justify reducing its value to 0 when it's part of an audiobook purchase? Wouldn't the price for all audiobooks (that now come bundled with text for free) end up being increased across the board?
People still value the experience of text, enough to be satisfied with paying for text and text alone. Would the market be better if e-text prices stayed the same, and all audiobooks were bundled with text for "free", at a higher price? Sure, if you're the type to buy both audio and text. But not if you frequently buy just audiobooks and are now forced to pay a premium for the bundled text version.
Thinking of real-world factors, I'm assuming that the pay structure and system for audiobooks is different than it is for text. If a writer trades audio rights/royalties for better royalties from print/ebooks, giving away text with audio will hurt their bottom line.
- hrktb 7y ago> text form as being completely subordinate and subsumed by its audiobook version Close to this, an other angle is to see the text version as source, and the audiobook as a representation. The source having more information, or allowing for more representation has a real value. The same way raw files/original film in photography have a different value from a print. To go on with the analogy, historically we pay for photographic prints and rarely for the raw file (or the raw file would cost more than individual prints). And there is the same debate, when a photographer shoots a wedding and the couple didn't negotiate the raw files, they can be surprised they don't get them by default, even when paying for the print. I think in general the source/original material should be included in the sale of the representation, and the whole priced accordingly, but I get that it's not how the publishers see it, or how some customer would bargain to get only the cheapest part, and that behaviour becoming the least common denominator.
- scarface74 7y agoOf course I agree that distributing a book as text is basically nothing compared to producing and distributing audio. Making an audiobook (for the most part, I assume) requires the the book text exists in the first place, so the book text is a sunk cost in terms of production. Once you write a piece of software, it is also a sunk cost. Therefore I guess you shouldn’t be able to charge for it based on the number of people who are using it?
- lsaferite 7y agoBut this is more like being charged a full license cost for a CD copy and a Digital Download.