Amazon vs. Hachette Update - It's About Price

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

Of course there is. At this time these name authors have established a following with the help of the traditional publishers. This will later change. I will usually wait for the price to come down, or borrow it from the library. Some people no doubt simply pirate it. The traditional model was that Publishers would be inundated with manuscripts and would pick a few of them to publish, not of course on the basis of quality but on the basis of how many they thought they could sell. Anecdotes abound of publishers rejecting books which later proved to be very succesful, even household names. Publishers acted as "gatekeepers", sometimes not very good ones. That model is dying, and there is a cost to it. Instead of being force fed a diet of publisher selected content, we float on a veritable ocean of essentially self-published authors. There is much rubbish to sort through, but also many gems. And new means of discovering those gems are emerging all the time. And many of these new authors will become the new name authors. I would have thought that the BPH would have sought to hang on to this gatekeeper role, but I can't see them doing it at $14.99 for a MMPB.

To me, a new release by a name author is worth $9.99. If I see a book by a new author with a similar theme or which I might like, I am not prepared to pay $9.99. I might only be prepared to pay $1.99, or $3.99 or $6.99, depending on the circumstances. Sometimes, if I like the theme, I may even be tempted by a giveaway. If I really like the book and the author's future work I may reach the point where I will pay $9.99.

Good publishers publish books that they think will appeal to their customers. Many publishers are fairly specialized. Baen and Tor do SF, so they are probably going to reject a mystery, no matter how good it is.

Some readers enjoy wading through the sea of drek to find those occasional gems. If you like it, great. Not my cup of tea though, and I suspect that the number of readers who are willing to do that is pretty small. I'm pretty sure there is always going to be demand for someone the filter out the drek. 10 or 15 years ago, it was widely predicted with iTunes that traditional record labels would go away and everyone would be an indy. Hasn't happened. Publishers provide a lot more services than you give them credit, both for the author and for the consumer.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

My sincere congratulations. The worst thing was that the scholarship offered was at best mediocre.

You mean the quality of the book was mediocre or that you bought the book trying to get a scholarship that was mediocre? The book that I bought was pretty dry, most scholarly texts are but it had some very interesting info on a subject that I find interesting.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Barcey

The questions that I have are why go public with it and why now?

This statement is clearly to get the public on Amazon's side but it is surely going to get Hachette's back up (not to mention the other big publishers).

Why now?
Pretty obvious.
Because the "Authors United" are talking boycott.
Because Amazon is fed up with the propaganda campaign and want Hachette to put up or shut up; either negotiate or pull their books.

So yes, getting their back up is the objective. Forces them to act themselves instead of using proxies.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Which makes you not a target customer. Why would they try to price books at a level where someone who brags about not buying books would buy it?

I wouldn't expect them to. But, I do buy products where I'm a target customer; and if I feel the price is too high, I'll buy something else or wait for a sale. The bottom line is that I'm the one who decides what something should cost; not the seller.

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

The bottom line is that I'm the one who decides what something should cost; not the seller.

I'd also call you somewhat of an anomaly. That's not a bad thing, mind you, just recognition that most people find a way to acquire the things that they want at the price point that's set by the seller.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Shane R

I'd also call you somewhat of an anomaly. That's not a bad thing, mind you, just recognition that most people find a way to acquire the things that they want at the price point that's set by the seller.

But the things I get are priced by the seller. The difference is, I'm willing to wait until the price drops.

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

But the things I get are priced by the seller. The difference is, I'm willing to wait until the price drops.

Understood -- perhaps I should have said "without much waiting". I'm speaking of consumables like entertainment, of course.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Shane R

Understood -- perhaps I should have said "without much waiting". I'm speaking of consumables like entertainment, of course.

Valid point.

Even there, I'll wait. Blockbuster movie? I'll watch it when it's on a free TV channel. Bestseller? I'll read it when it hits my library. HBO shows? Now that some of them are on Prime Video, I'll watch.

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Valid point.

Even there, I'll wait. Blockbuster movie? I'll watch it when it's on a free TV channel. Bestseller? I'll read it when it hits my library. HBO shows? Now that some of them are on Prime Video, I'll watch.

Some movies beg to be seen on the big screen. That's a treat though - most I wait for.

I'll definitely wait for books. I've got enough of them (and audiobooks) queued up that I'm musing over taking a year long hiatus from buying any (as a personal challenge) with the exception of those $3 and $5 dollar Amazon credits I seem to run across from time to time. The web produces a bumper crop of free reading material too (load up your read-it-later queue with New Yorker articles while they're still free!)

No need to spend frivolously.

[Crusader]

Scalzi has an interesting take on things (the voice of reason, methinks) - http://whatever.scalzi.com/2014/07/3...latest-volley/

Amazon’s math of “you will sell 1.74 times as many books at $9.99 than at $14.99″ is also suspect, because it appears to come with the ground assumption that books are interchangable units of entertainment, each equally as salable as the next, and that pricing is the only thing consumers react to. They’re not, and it’s not. Someone who wants the latest John Ringo novel on the day of release will not likely find the latest Jodi Picoult book a satisfactory replacement, or vice versa; likewise, someone who wants a eBook now may be perfectly happy to pay $14.99 to get it now, in which case the publisher and author should be able to charge what the market will bear, and adjust the prices down (or up! But most likely down) as demand moves about.

(This is where many people decide to opine that the cost of eBooks should reflect the cost of production in some way that allows them to say that whatever price point they prefer is the naturally correct one. This is where I say: You know what, if you’ve ever paid more than twenty cents for a soda at a fast food restaurant, or have ever bought bottled water at a store, then I feel perfectly justified in considering your cost of production position vis a vis publishing as entirely hypocritical. Please stop making the cost of production argument for books and apparently nothing else in your daily consumer life. I think less of you when you do.)

Bear in mind it’s entirely possible that Amazon sells 1.74 times as many books at $9.99 than at $14.99, but then Amazon deals with gross numbers of product, while publishers deal with somewhat smaller numbers, and the author, of course, deals with only her own list of books. As the focus tightens, the general rules stop being as applicable. What’s good for Amazon isn’t necessarily good for publishers, or authors.

3. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: I think it’s very likely that if $9.99 becomes the upper bound for pricing on eBooks, then you are going to find $9.99 becomes the standard price for eBooks, period, because publishers who lose money up at the top of the pricing scale will need to recoup that money somewhere else, and the bottom of the pricing scale is a fine place to do it. Yes, the mass of self-published authors out there will create a tier of value-priced books (this has already been done), and I’m sure in a couple of years Amazon will release another spate of numbers that will show how much more profitable $6.99 eBooks are as compared to $9.99 eBooks, and so on. But at the end of the day there will be authors and publishers who can charge $9.99, forever, and they will. If you destroy the top end of the market, the chances you destroy the bottom end go up, fast.

[tubemonkey]

Someone who wants the latest John Ringo novel on the day of release will not likely find the latest Jodi Picoult book a satisfactory replacement, or vice versa; likewise, someone who wants a eBook now may be perfectly happy to pay $14.99 to get it now, in which case the publisher and author should be able to charge what the market will bear, and adjust the prices down (or up! But most likely down) as demand moves about.

They should; and if Amazon refuses to sell books at that price (they have that right), then why don't the publishers pull their catalogs and go elsewhere to peddle their wares? Why this 3-ring circus when it's the publishers who have the ultimate say on pricing?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

They should; and if Amazon refuses to sell books at that price (they have that right), then why don't the publishers pull their catalogs and go elsewhere to peddle their wares? Why this 3-ring circus when it's the publishers who have the ultimate say on pricing?

Because they need Amazon's selling expertise (the same expertise they find "suspect") to move their books. They just want Amazon to meekly play lapdog and serve them and their agenda, against their own interests.
Not going to happen.
Amazon is effectively daring them to pull out.

[the.Mtn.Man]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

They should; and if Amazon refuses to sell books at that price (they have that right), then why don't the publishers pull their catalogs and go elsewhere to peddle their wares? Why this 3-ring circus when it's the publishers who have the ultimate say on pricing?

It's basically like this: Amazon can make more money across the board selling books at $9.99 even if it means that individual publishers might take a loss, but those publishers would probably take a bigger loss pulling their catalogs from Amazon.

In other words, Amazon is essentially telling publishers, "You either take a small loss or a big loss. Your choice. Either way, we win." It's a pretty scummy way of doing business.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by the.Mtn.Man

In other words, Amazon is essentially telling publishers, "You either take a small loss or a big loss. Your choice. Either way, we win." It's a pretty scummy way of doing business.

I don't understand how you can see a problem in what you describe.
Every business negation in the world is one side saying "Pay me what I ask, or else you can't have it."
and the other side saying "Give me a lower price or else I won't buy it."

You can argue that the offered price is too low and should be rejected, but there is nothing "scummy" about it at all.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by the.Mtn.Man

It's basically like this: Amazon can make more money across the board selling books at $9.99 even if it means that individual publishers might take a loss, but those publishers would probably take a bigger loss pulling their catalogs from Amazon.

Or, you know.... They could just go back to the wholesale way they had before and let Amazon sell books at the prices they want. You know, like the rest of paper book industry does.