Amazon vs. Hachette Update - It's About Price

[BelleZora]

Just received an email from Warren Adler with this link to his response to the Amazon vs. Hachette feud:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/warren...34075-41253673

This was on the Huffington Post a couple of days ago, but I missed it until getting the email. Interesting.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Amazon is in a position to know how much they sell of a specific book at a specific price. It doesn't follow that they are in a better position than the publishing industry to know what is the most profitable pricing model to price books at.

I think this point is almost unassailable (except that it has been assailed). Amazon doesn't know the total sales for a title, just what people bought at Amazon.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I think that writers that I enjoy reading should be able to make a good living writing. That way they will write more books for me to read.

This point -- about writing more books -- I don't see -- especially as concerns fiction. And I'm a little surprised your critics don't pounce on it.

If a writer makes less money per book, he or she is likely going to write more books, not fewer, in an attempt to retain similar income. Kindle Direct Publishing is the proof that when publishers don't vigorously edit, and pay their median sales authors less than a pittance, more books get written. Ultimately, the only justification for the prices you and I consider reasonable is that they lead to better books. The not-so-secret secret of good writing is rewriting based on strong feedback, and that slows down production. Of course, I think that's, more often than not, good.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

My point is that I am a consumer, I don't like Amazon's race to the bottom pricing. Ergo, simply assuming that your point of view is the default generic point of view is a fallacy. Simply crying FUD in an attempt to dismiss the view of someone you disagree with is also a form of FUD, you know.

I will keep that in mind just in case I ever decide to "simply cry FUD". Fortunately, that question will not arise here...

[ApK]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

If a writer makes less money per book, he or she is likely going to write more books, not fewer, in an attempt to retain similar income.

Bloody doubtful. A poor soul with no options might slave away in a sweatshop until death at a penny a piece or try to shovel more and more coal until he collapses.
A writer will likely turn to other ways to pay the mortgage and relagate writing to a hobby or something to try to fit into his spare time.

At least until we go to my system of grants, crowd funding or patronage.

You keep separating fiction from your precious Chinese history masterpiece as if fiction takes no time, effort or research, not to mention artistic and creative inspiration, and anyone should be able to pop out a 100,000 word best seller every week.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I don't discount anything and I never said how much cheaper they are. Even if it's only $0.75 cheaper than a paperback or $2 cheaper than a hardcover; they're still cheaper to produce.

Actually, cheaper to produce hasn't been indisputably established. It is true that ebooks don't have certain costs such as warehousing and returns. But other costs are (or can be higher). For example, it may cost more to hire someone who can convert the book and check that the conversion is correct (especially for nonfiction, less so for fiction).

The other fallacy in the argument is that it segregates books as if each book were a business in itself. IOW, those who only read fiction from the top 10 list only count those books in the cost equation, ignoring the many other books that the publisher also has to fund. Here on MR, many commenters insist on ignoring anything but what they care to read (witness the discussion about subsidizing books on China when all the commenter wants to read is Victorian romance).

The other fallacy is to segregate ebooks from pbooks. From a business perspective, they are not severable unless the only thing the publishing company does is publish ebooks (think self-publishing Smashwords authors).

When publishers set prices they do not simply look at the cost for producing the particular book; they look to the overall business costs of running the publishing company.

One other thing. The comparison is often made between pricing that publishers set and the pricing indie authors set. The discussion often devolves into how publishers should not use the books that the commenter wants to read and buy to support those the commenter does not want to read and buy. Yet no mention is ever made of the fact that the vast majority of authors have "day" jobs that provide a form of subsidy that allows them to price their ebook at $2.99 and be "profitable".

I know this is ground that has been tilled innumerable times, but it is worth remembering that declarations of fact are not necessarily factually based rather than opinion based.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

...

This point -- about writing more books -- I don't see -- especially as concerns fiction. And I'm a little surprised your critics don't pounce on it.

If a writer makes less money per book, he or she is likely going to write more books, not fewer, in an attempt to retain similar income. Kindle Direct Publishing is the proof that when publishers don't vigorously edit, and pay their median sales authors less than a pittance, more books get written. Ultimately, the only justification for the prices you and I consider reasonable is that they lead to better books. The not-so-secret secret of good writing is rewriting based on strong feedback, and that slows down production. Of course, I think that's, more often than not, good.

Not necessarily. I've seen a number of authors that I really liked drop out of writing and go back to their day jobs because they couldn't make a living at it. Others have gone the route of writing books for hire and churning out books, but those books tend not to be very good and I stopped reading them. It really comes down to a writer's writing style and what they feel comfortable with. I suspect that writers like Patrick Rothfuss could no more churn out books than they could fly to the moon by flapping their arms.

I discovered a writer who started out self published and then went the published route, Michael J Sullivan, and have been reading his books recently. I just finished The Crown Tower, which seems to be his first book that was written from start to finish for a publisher. In the acknowledgement section he talks about all the people from the publisher and the effort that they put into his book. It gives an interesting picture into what exactly is the difference between using a publisher and the associated talent available to polish a book and doing it on your own.

As I've mentioned in the past, I really do not see the publishers go away in my lifetime (hopefully a very long time ) They provide a lot more value than some are willing to acknowledge. There are probably some authors who have a day job and social infrastructure that allows them to write quality books without the support of a publisher, but I suspect that is the exception rather than the norm. Most will probably write a few books, stick them out there, make a few bucks and then quietly stop trying when they can't make a living at it.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

This point -- about writing more books -- I don't see -- especially as concerns fiction. And I'm a little surprised your critics don't pounce on it.

Why pounce on the obvious? If I do not agree with the way to reach a certain goal, but I share a certain goal, then why would I complain about sharing the same goal? The only way that makes sense is to admit that I share the same goal, but that I have a complete different opinion in how to reach it and even why the goal is there. Let me drag it out a little bit further:

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I'm perfectly willing to pay hardback prices to support authors that I like to read. I do not view books as generic product and that one author/book is as good as another.

This is a short quote out of a rather long post. That post is basically the endresult of a heated rather long exchange between pwalker8 and me. If you have not followed it closely it basically boiled down to pwalker8 making a blanket statement (I as consumer want higher prices for ebooks). That, imo, did not make any sense at all. Out of context that is. So we kept pushing the issue. In the end it is a rather simple "supply and demand" kind of thing. It satisfied my own personal curiosity, and I did not feel the need to push further. So I ended up posting this:

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

That I can understand and is reasonable. I personally do not share the same opinion about it as you do, but how boring would life be if everybody had the same opinion.

What I should have replied instead was pointing out in detail what I agreed with and what I didn't. But I did not want to start an ugly fight about difference in opinion which has been clearly established earlier in the thread as: we agree to disagree on certain issues. So I completely forgot to mention in my post that I am also willing to pay whatever price I have to for a product (specific ebook written by a specific author) that I want bad enough. I also do not want to jeopardize any future books by same author I enjoy. Simple supply and demand. Where I disagree on is the means to do so. Pwalker8 believes that reaching the goal is best done by enforced higher prices. While I only agree to pay higher prices when my demand to have my favorite book right now is higher than the limited supply (none) of this book being acceptable priced (for me). Any other book that is priced that high is being ignored by me.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

... Pwalker8 believes that reaching the goal is best done by enforced higher prices. While I only agree to pay higher prices when my demand to have my favorite book right now is higher than the limited supply (none) of this book being acceptable priced (for me). Any other book that is priced that high is being ignored by me.

Actually, my view is rather more complex than that and may not be as different from what you just expressed as you think. Rather obviously, if I'm not interested in the author, I'm not going to pay anything for his or her book, heck, I probably wouldn't even download it for free.

There are a group of authors whom I buy as soon as a new book becomes available, even at hard back prices (note this is the money that is lost with the Amazon one size fits all model). I do that for a couple of reasons, first I greatly enjoy reading their books and second because I want to encourage them to write more. So I view it as something similar to tipping a waiter or waitress for good service, a little extra to encourage behavior that I like. This group isn't all that big maybe 20 or 30 authors who are currently active. There is also a list of books that I would be willing to pay hardback prices if they come out as ebooks. These are books that are my favorites.

The next group is authors that I buy at paperback prices. This includes authors whom I basically like, but that I don't consider particularly special. There are a lot of books and authors in this group. I will take a chance on a new author at paper back prices if the book looks interesting, while I probably won't do so at hardback prices.

Enforcing higher prices is not the phrase that matches my view. It is more accurate to say that I believe that publishers have developed a business model that does a better job of maximizing revenue for the subset of authors who sell a significant number of hardbacks than simply selling all books at paperback prices would and that I do not begrudge them that revenue.

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Enforcing higher prices is not the phrase that matches my view. It is more accurate to say that I believe that publishers have developed a business model that does a better job of maximizing revenue for the subset of authors who sell a significant number of hardbacks than simply selling all books at paperback prices would and that I do not begrudge them that revenue.

I do begrudge them that business model. That model has done a very good job of squeezing many mid-list authors (that I would like to read more of) entirely out of writing. Some of those authors are back again after the big publisher business model has been broken a little bit. The illegal collusion to raise prices tends not to engender any sympathy either.

Greg

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by gweeks

I do begrudge them that business model. That model has done a very good job of squeezing many mid-list authors (that I would like to read more of) entirely out of writing. Some of those authors are back again after the big publisher business model has been broken a little bit. The illegal collusion to raise prices tends not to engender any sympathy either.

Greg

I have no idea how it would squeeze them out of writing. Not selling books would squeeze them out of writing. It wasn't all that long ago that most mid-list type authors were paper back only since only top of the line authors.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I have no idea how it would squeeze them out of writing. Not selling books would squeeze them out of writing. It wasn't all that long ago that most mid-list type authors were paper back only since only top of the line authors.

I have no idea how Not Selling Books can fail to squeeze them out of writing while simultaneously squeezing them out of writing... Or did you not read what @gweeks actually said?

In other words:

by making them unable to sell books?

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by rhadin

I know this is ground that has been tilled innumerable times, but it is worth remembering that declarations of fact are not necessarily factually based rather than opinion based.

That's the problem with ALL of these arguments and speculations: the book industry is so tight lipped about EVERYTHING that people have to resort to guessing if they wish to talk about it at all.

I don't know what secret sauce these companies are afraid of spilling, but when speculation is all that people have, speculate is what they will do. And they positively encourage it, by shepherding consumers in to their scuffles (normally to use them as a big stick for whacking things).

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I have no idea how Not Selling Books can fail to squeeze them out of writing while simultaneously squeezing them out of writing... Or did you not read what @gweeks actually said?

In other words:

by making them unable to sell books?

Oh I read what he said, but I don't see how it applies. In general, mid-tier authors may go directly to paper and not come out in hardback, so for them the hardback price isn't germaine. Hey, if they really think that publishers are costing them sells, then they can always go indie.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Anthem

That's the problem with ALL of these arguments and speculations: the book industry is so tight lipped about EVERYTHING that people have to resort to guessing if they wish to talk about it at all.

I don't know what secret sauce these companies are afraid of spilling, but when speculation is all that people have, speculate is what they will do. And they positively encourage it, by shepherding consumers in to their scuffles (normally to use them as a big stick for whacking things).

Most companies tend to treat such information as proprietary. When was the last time Amazon gave out detailed info on the number of kindles they sold and at what price point?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Oh I read what he said, but I don't see how it applies. In general, mid-tier authors may go directly to paper and not come out in hardback, so for them the hardback price isn't germaine. Hey, if they really think that publishers are costing them sells, then they can always go indie.

Hmm, let's try rereading again...

Originally Posted by gweeks

I do begrudge them that business model. That model has done a very good job of squeezing many mid-list authors (that I would like to read more of) entirely out of writing. Some of those authors are back again after the big publisher business model has been broken a little bit. The illegal collusion to raise prices tends not to engender any sympathy either.

Greg

And then:

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I have no idea how it would squeeze them out of writing. Not selling books would squeeze them out of writing. It wasn't all that long ago that most mid-list type authors were paper back only since only top of the line authors.

Clever, clever you!

If the BWMs' business model decided they weren't worth keeping as authors (nothing to do with "costing them sells sales", sorry) then they should just go indie? I think you are missing the point here.

That business model was the only choice! At the time they were squeezed out!