Would you like to see the return of agency pricing with no discount?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Even going with the lower price of $14, many people don't have the money to spend $14 per three days on books. That would be $1700 a year. I could do it, but I don't want to. A 300-ish page fantasy story isn't worth that much for me.

How many people do you think buy and read a book every three days?

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Catlady

How many people do you think buy and read a book every three days?

Over here on MobileRead? Many, I think.

In the real world? I think people in the real world don't read anymore. Besides one colleague and my aunt, who reads a biography (mostly of mistreated children and such... not my stuff) once every three months or so, I don't know *anybody* who has touched a book after leaving school.

For the people I normally talk to, such as colleagues, friends and family, gaming, facebooking, youtubeing, or watching an (illegally downloaded) movie every day seems to be the norm. Some don't even seem to be able to grasp the concept that reading a book (or playing a musical instrument, for that matter) can be a valid pastime.

One colleague actually responded like this, some time ago:

"What did you do this weekend?"
- "I read a book / studied a piece at the organ..."
"Meh. Don't you have a life or something?"

That's a different topic, however.

That reading colleague is of the opinion that he reads a lot (about one book per month), and even he is not interested in buying any, not even when 75% Kobo codes are available. "Why pay? I'll just torrent them."

To a lot of people books are utterly worthless nowadays, especially now that they are digital.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Even going with the lower price of $14, many people don't have the money to spend $14 per three days on books. That would be $1700 a year.

That would be more than half of median world per capita annual income.

But even if the price is halved, and the number of books purchased is halved, the average person on this planet (median per capita worldwide annual income is about $3,000) can't reasonably afford to buy new books. Even for the average English-literate person (think India, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Bangladesh) new books, as a personal purchase, will continue to be a luxury item. Other than by governmental aid to libraries, I don't see how that threat to freedom to read can be avoided.

Originally Posted by Katsunami

That reading colleague is of the opinion that he reads a lot (about one book per month), and even he is not interested in buying any, not even when 75% Kobo codes are available. "Why pay? I'll just torrent them."

Good story. The discount gotten by piracy is 100 percent regardless of the price charged by an authorized reseller, so lower eBook prices would only reduce piracy slightly.

Originally Posted by Catlady

How many people do you think buy and read a book every three days?

I agree with your general perspective, but: What percentage of books people start do they finish? If less than 50 percent, a book every three days would be more common than you think.

[Catlady]

Katsunami was using a price of $14 per book, 120 books a year. How many people buy--buy, not necessarily read--that many books, at that price point?

[eschwartz]

I don't really understand this thread or the responses.

The OP asked if people would rather be in a situation of buying books at Agency prices, or buying the same books at wholesale-enabled discounts.

Two different possible futures.

Not one future where you have the choice to buy from two different(ly priced) groups of books.

Anyone who answers yes, or says they don't care, is NOT saying they would buy the book because it is worth it to buy the book no matter the cost, or "price doesn't enter into my calculations". They are saying, given two different offered prices for the same book, they are perfectly OK with paying the higher price, just ... because. It isn't even worth it to idly wish for/agree it would be nice if prices were lower. In which case, as I have already said, I would be happy to accept all that extra money you don't care about.

Or because they want to "support the author". In which case, by all means, say so! I'll probably disagree with you, but it is a valid opinion...

[rcentros]

Yes. And I want to be hit in the head with a pickaxe also.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

I find hardcover books at Target that are cheaper than the Agency books were. I find the inability to lend the ebook to a friend or donate it to the library to be a significant detriment. Therefore, I think an ebook should cost less than the hardcover version, both because of the increased costs of pbooks and the decreased rights with ebooks.

Absolutely. It's ridiculous that an ebook should cost as much (or almost as much) as a hardback or paperback book. There's almost no cost in publishing (after the page setup), there is almost no cost in distribution ... there are no paper costs and an ebook is basically a "one use" sale. Who knows how many times a hardback or paperback is passed on or resold? The publishers should embrace cheaper ebooks realizing that in the long run they will make much more money on a popular title.

First scenario. I'm reading a hardback novel I bought for $15. I tell my friend about it. When I'm done I hand it off ... when he's done, he hands it off ... and so one. Second scenario, ebook sells for $5. I tell my friend about it. He buys one. He tells another friend ... he buys one, etc. More sales, more royalties for authors, more money for the publishers. Why are they bucking against this?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Absolutely. It's ridiculous that an ebook should cost as much (or almost as much) as a hardback or paperback book.

They don't. Can you give an example of an ebook that costs as much as the list price of a hardback or paperback? If a particular retailer chooses to discount a paper book, that's nothing to do with the publisher.

I buy what many people would consider to be a lot of ebooks - 3 or 4 a week - almost all of which are from mainstream publishers, and typically pay about half the list price of the printed book, which I consider to be entirely reasonable. Eg, my most recent purchase was "Monk's Hood" by Ellis Peters. List price for the paperback: £8.99; Kindle price: £3.99.

[mgbino]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Katsunami was using a price of $14 per book, 120 books a year. How many people buy--buy, not necessarily read--that many books, at that price point?

(-----This guy... sort of. I usually read between 100-150 books a year (depending on length, obviously). I always buy the digital version to read and a physical hardback for collection purposes. I easily spend between $2,000- $4,000 a year on books - more if I were to include what I spend on buying books for my son and wife.

Reading is my main hobby, so I don't mind paying for books. If there are sales or coupons, I'll jump on them to save money, but I really don't care. I've never once blinked at paying $60.00 dollars for a PS3 game, why should $15.00 for a book bother me?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Or because they want to "support the author". In which case, by all means, say so! I'll probably disagree with you, but it is a valid opinion...

In that case, Paypal-ing the author a buck or two would do the job a lot more effectively.

I find it amusing that even the price-insensitive begin with the assumption that publisher price control = higher prices for consumers. Which, of course, recent history has shown to be true. More, those recent consumer price hikes under Agency came at the expense of authors and (in at least some cases) the publishers themselves, who made less money per book under agency than under the previous wholesale business model. Which, of course, negates the whole rationale of wanting to support authors and encourage them to keep writing.

The Agency implementation that the BPHs colluded to introduce (and which three of them have publicly stated they want back) is one where consumers pay more and authors get less.

Now, who wants to see that again?

[mgbino]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Now, who wants to see that again?

Publishers?

[Yapyap]

Originally Posted by HarryT

They don't. Can you give an example of an ebook that costs as much as the list price of a hardback or paperback? If a particular retailer chooses to discount a paper book, that's nothing to do with the publisher.

I buy what many people would consider to be a lot of ebooks - 3 or 4 a week - almost all of which are from mainstream publishers, and typically pay about half the list price of the printed book, which I consider to be entirely reasonable. Eg, my most recent purchase was "Monk's Hood" by Ellis Peters. List price for the paperback: £8.99; Kindle price: £3.99.

This is basically what I would have to deal with if I bought all my books on Amazon and logged in with my actual, correct territory - it's a rare case that the ebook, as sold by Amazon, is cheaper than the list price of the paperback:

http://i.imgur.com/BXQPVI9.png (URL goes to an image, which is too large to be inserted directly here)

In other words, this is a random example of a popular urban fantasy author's not-extremely-new books - for two of them, the Kindle version costs $10.30 for me, with the list price of the paperback being $7.99, and for the other two, Kindle book is $7.99, equal to the list price of the paperback.

Yes, if I bought the paperback, I'd also have to count in shipping (and on Amazon - any variety of Amazon - shipping costs for books are horrendous, which is why I haven't bought a paper book on Amazon for years - on BookDepository, each of those paperbacks would cost me well under €7 with free shipping though), but it is an example of how at least to some of us, ebooks are more expensive than the list price of new paperbacks.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by mgbino

Publishers?

Yup.
They are actually willing to reduce their own income (and not just the author's) just to increase "customer spend".
Friendly sorts, those BPHs...

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I don't really understand this thread or the responses.

The OP asked if people would rather be in a situation of buying books at Agency prices, or buying the same books at wholesale-enabled discounts.

Two different possible futures.

Not one future where you have the choice to buy from two different(ly priced) groups of books.

Anyone who answers yes, or says they don't care, is NOT saying they would buy the book because it is worth it to buy the book no matter the cost, or "price doesn't enter into my calculations". They are saying, given two different offered prices for the same book, they are perfectly OK with paying the higher price, just ... because. It isn't even worth it to idly wish for/agree it would be nice if prices were lower. In which case, as I have already said, I would be happy to accept all that extra money you don't care about.

Or because they want to "support the author". In which case, by all means, say so! I'll probably disagree with you, but it is a valid opinion...

What I mean by "I don't care" is that I don't care how the price is achieved or how the pie is cut. I don't care about the author or the publisher or the bookseller, except in the broadest sense.

I care only about getting books I want to read, in exchange for reasonable payment. What I consider reasonable fluctuates depending on how much I want the book, but generally anything under $20 seems reasonable.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

In that case, Paypal-ing the author a buck or two would do the job a lot more effectively.

I find it amusing that even the price-insensitive begin with the assumption that publisher price control = higher prices for consumers. Which, of course, recent history has shown to be true. More, those recent consumer price hikes under Agency came at the expense of authors and (in at least some cases) the publishers themselves, who made less money per book under agency than under the previous wholesale business model. Which, of course, negates the whole rationale of wanting to support authors and encourage them to keep writing.

The Agency implementation that the BPHs colluded to introduce (and which three of them have publicly stated they want back) is one where consumers pay more and authors get less.

Now, who wants to see that again?

I agree but at least it means someone has an actual logical thought process behind their willingness to switch universes to one where books cost more. Even if it is ineffective.