[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Agreed, however pricing all ebooks at $1.99 is a worse business strategy, I agree that backlist books should be cheaper but looking at it from the publishers perspective if someone buys a book from them at $1.99 instead of a book at $9.99 thats cutting into their own profits rather badly.

Well, but first off, I'm not arguing for a set price for all ebooks. That's my point, that doesn't make sense. Imagine if there were some "set price" for all hardcovers, or all paperbacks. There's a set range, usually, but to say that ALL X format should be Y price is ridiculous.

And a $1.99 price only "cuts into profits" if comparable numbers of people would have bought at the $9.99 price. Assuming that is assuming facts very much not in evidence. I have no doubt that your reasoning matches the publishers' reasoning, but I think it's based on wrong starting assumptions.

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Also - bear in mind that I am not talking about any specific title here - I am talking about a general policy. So, for the publisher, to cannibalise it's own sales with cheaper backlist books is a bit detrimental to them.

And this is a classic case of not understanding the market. The idea that I won't buy Galenorn's new Sisters of the Moon book for $9.99 because I spent all my money on Faulkner's "Sound and the Fury" at $2.99 and now I'm good, thanks, totally misunderstands book buying habits. The idea that the backlist cannibalizes the current market is, in my personal opinion, silly.

Furthermore, that backlist already exists. If I want to buy Faulkner at $2.99, I can do that VERY easily. But the money will go to Half Price Books instead of straight into the Knopf coffers. Not the best outcome for Knopf, no?

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

I understand that some (possibly many) will buy a different book from a cheaper source. But if all the publishers start with a race to the lowest price to try to catch all sales they will very quickly be out of business.

The slippery slope argument is also silly. Again, it's predicated on some kind of notion that if the publishers don't stand together, then the world will end because people only buy based on price. If Scholastic prices Bob Butler's "MURDER WITH A SIDE OF CHEESE" at $8.50, then how can Knopf's price of Jim Johnson's "A MONKEY TO REMEMBER" at $9.99 possibly compete?!

It will compete because readers have different preferences and different shopping habits. It will compete because it's a different author, a different genre, and a different book altogether. It will compete because -- again -- readers aren't just wallets flying towards the smallest price point.

I'm not buying up Harlequin romance novels at $4 a pop and neglecting new fantasy lit at $6 because, HEY BARGAIN, because I don't like romance novels. If the slippery slope argument were true, all our base would already belong to Harlequin and Knopf and Scholastic wouldn't even exist.

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

There are many backlist books I haven't read and though I would be happy if the prices dropped to £2 per eBook for the backlist I would no longer buy any new(ish) releases if that happened (bearing in mind that I don't buy at hardback prices to start with). You could probably get away with this on pop culture books as they would no longer be as relevant when they hit backlist status but with SF, Fantasy, Urban Fantasy etc you would be hard pressed to explain why anyone should pay more for newer (paperback price) titles than for backlist (I doubt many people will think an urban fantasy book is incredibly dated because no one uses a smartphone for example).

For the purpose of my argument here I'm classing anything more than about 4 years old as backlist.

You might be able to make a case that books more than 25 years old (number randomly pulled out of my hat) should be cheaper, although if the publisher thinks there are not enough people to buy at paperback equivalent prices I doubt they will go the the trouble of digitising the book.

No, no, no. I'm not saying that we should introduce a pricing scheme based on some kind of age-of-book algorithm. I'm saying that the market needs to be MORE flexible than that. This "what should we price this book at, Bob?" "well, let's pull out the PRICE-O-METER chart and check" mentality is part of the problem.