Quote:
Originally Posted by jament
People keep making the "hardcover vs paperback" comparison for this pricing model but I don't think it's valid.
When you pay a premium for the hardcover version, you get a premium "hardcover" version of the book. It comes with a slip cover. It's more durably bound. The page format is larger. It's superior in every way to the paperback.
|
I prefer paperbacks for casual reading. They're smaller & lighter, which has always been more important to me than durability. (How many times am I going to read that novel anyway? If I'm going to re-read it enough to wear it out, why not just replace the paperback every couple of years?)
When I have the option of both at the same price, or almost the same price (bag of books for $4, or .50 for paperbacks & $1 for hardcovers at yard sales), I choose paperbacks. I wouldn't pay *more* for paperbacks--but if the two were exactly the same price, I'd want the paperback most of the time.
Ebooks, being even smaller and lighter than paperbacks (yaay!), but lacking nice covers, and having absolutely no prestige value (lawyers can't show off the wall of fancy ebooks), have always seemed like a paperback replacements to me. I expect to pay paperback prices for them--here's the most compact, efficient way to get this data from the author into your head, no pretty packaging included.
I have no idea why publishers think they should be equivalent to hardcovers in market value. (Maybe it's a tech thing. "Only readable on expensive computers or expensive other devices; ergo, must be a niche luxury item; overprice like hardcovers.")