are you participating in the 9.99 boycott?

[JaneD]

I guess I kind of am participating by default, just because I'm a cheapskate. I rarely buy any book over $10 anyway.

[ellenoc]

I guess I am since there's no way I'm paying more than $9.99 for an ebook and there are darn few worth that in my world. (Speaking of fiction here. I have paid more for non-fiction and probably will again.) However, I don't wait for prices to come down, I just put a hold on at the library and read the overpriced books for free. Everybody loses except me.

I wonder how the boycott is doing. If I'm interpreting things I've seen here and there correctly, ebook sales were up 127% for April (I think April) over the same month last year. However, ebook sales in April 2010 were less than in March 2010.

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by drofgnal

Hey, all we can do is try to have our voice heard. Better than sticking our heads in the sand. A movement has to start somewhere.

I'm not sticking my head in the sand -- I'm making an individual decision about what works for me and what doesn't. I don't see why $9.99 is a line in the sand. It strikes me as arbitrary, and as I said, I would much rather pay $12.99 for a new release when the alternative is an $15-$18 hardcover I don't have the space for. But at least I'm not being charged extra for the privilege of not buying paper and ink.

The $9.99 "movement" doesn't at all address what I see as the biggest publisher abuse of all -- charging more for backlist titles than the cheapest in-print paper edition. I don't at all feel cheated by paying $12.99 for a brand-new title when the hardcover is $15+. I feel cheated as hell, however, when the price for an ebook of a 1995 title is $8.99 when there is a $6.99 paperback still in print.

If the "boycott" had as its battle cry "no ebook should cost more than the cheapest available paper edition" I would probably join, for all the good it would do. But $9.99 is, to me, an arbitrary number, and a "boycott" based on that arbitrary number does not at all address, IMO, the far more transparent, money-grubbing publisher abuse of pricing backlist ebook titles higher than paperbacks.

[simplyparticular]

Originally Posted by ellenoc

I wonder how the boycott is doing. If I'm interpreting things I've seen here and there correctly, ebook sales were up 127% for April (I think April) over the same month last year. However, ebook sales in April 2010 were less than in March 2010.

That doesn't surprise me. Although I'm sure they weren't the juggernaut that Amazon is, Fictionwise and eReader (and a few other ebook sites) had to have been responsible for a decent percentage of overall eBooks sales. Since they don't have the Big 5 anymore, that's going to impact overall sales. I've spent $19 in the last 11 weeks - I would have spent $80-100.

Even before the Big 5, my sweet spot was $6-8, and I was willing to try an unknown author with a decent blurb for $5 or less. And with WiFi on my iPhone, I was much more impulsive than I had been with my PDAs.

Now I check my local library and the eNYPL for impulse reads, and have only purchased 2 books from must-buy series.

I did notice I'm reading more nonfiction and literary fiction because of the OverDrive catalog my libraries offer, vs. my old standby, genre fiction.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by ellenoc

I wonder how the boycott is doing. If I'm interpreting things I've seen here and there correctly, ebook sales were up 127% for April (I think April) over the same month last year. However, ebook sales in April 2010 were less than in March 2010.

April was also the start of Agency Pricing and most stores didn't have books for sale from the Agency 5 for that month (or at least part of it).

[drofgnal]

Originally Posted by whitearrow

I'm not sticking my head in the sand -- I'm making an individual decision about what works for me and what doesn't. I don't see why $9.99 is a line in the sand. It strikes me as arbitrary, and as I said, I would much rather pay $12.99 for a new release when the alternative is an $15-$18 hardcover I don't have the space for. But at least I'm not being charged extra for the privilege of not buying paper and ink.

The $9.99 "movement" doesn't at all address what I see as the biggest publisher abuse of all -- charging more for backlist titles than the cheapest in-print paper edition. I don't at all feel cheated by paying $12.99 for a brand-new title when the hardcover is $15+. I feel cheated as hell, however, when the price for an ebook of a 1995 title is $8.99 when there is a $6.99 paperback still in print.

If the "boycott" had as its battle cry "no ebook should cost more than the cheapest available paper edition" I would probably join, for all the good it would do. But $9.99 is, to me, an arbitrary number, and a "boycott" based on that arbitrary number does not at all address, IMO, the far more transparent, money-grubbing publisher abuse of pricing backlist ebook titles higher than paperbacks.

I wasn't implying you were. In fact if you read my post carefully you'll find we agree. My biggest gripe is the cost of an ebook more expensive than something that is out in paperback. The 9.99 vs 12.99 for a new release hardbook is not my grip either. Its the paperback release cost issue for me. So I've avoided all paperback releases in ebook more than the paperback prices.

Maybe that is the publisher's strategy. Price ebooks of paperback releases to high prices and push ebook readers to buy when new as opposed to when paperbacks are released.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by whitearrow

I'm not sticking my head in the sand -- I'm making an individual decision about what works for me and what doesn't. I don't see why $9.99 is a line in the sand. It strikes me as arbitrary, and as I said, I would much rather pay $12.99 for a new release when the alternative is an $15-$18 hardcover I don't have the space for. But at least I'm not being charged extra for the privilege of not buying paper and ink.

The $9.99 "movement" doesn't at all address what I see as the biggest publisher abuse of all -- charging more for backlist titles than the cheapest in-print paper edition. I don't at all feel cheated by paying $12.99 for a brand-new title when the hardcover is $15+. I feel cheated as hell, however, when the price for an ebook of a 1995 title is $8.99 when there is a $6.99 paperback still in print.

If the "boycott" had as its battle cry "no ebook should cost more than the cheapest available paper edition" I would probably join, for all the good it would do. But $9.99 is, to me, an arbitrary number, and a "boycott" based on that arbitrary number does not at all address, IMO, the far more transparent, money-grubbing publisher abuse of pricing backlist ebook titles higher than paperbacks.

it is not an arbitrary number. it's the hook that Amazon set to snag many of us Kindle owners

[BVLarson]

I am participating very directly... I sell all my books for cheap!

But seriously, the market will take care of this. If everyone who wants cheap books only buys cheap books and the pricey ones don't sell... Well, just watch, it will be like magic! The prices will drop. If you want cheaper ebooks => buy lots of cheap ebooks. They are all crunching these numbers every day, and they will see a trend and figure it out very fast.

None of the big boys care about tagging, etc. just buying habits. Buy Indie to run them out of town.

[DiapDealer]

it is not an arbitrary number. it's the hook that Amazon set to snag many of us Kindle owners

I was paying print price for ebooks long before the Kindle came along. The $9.99 was nice while it lasted. Now the price has gone back up a bit, but they're still slightly cheaper than when I was paying hardcover price for a brand new ebook release. I'm actually quite content right now.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I was paying print price for ebooks long before the Kindle came along. The $9.99 was nice while it lasted. Now the price has gone back up a bit, but they're still slightly cheaper than when I was paying hardcover price for a brand new ebook release. I'm actually quite content right now.

Exactly. And it was a hook to sell Kindles so I do not get why people assumed it would be permanent.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by tompe

Exactly. And it was a hook to sell Kindles so I do not get why people assumed it would be permanent.

it was promised

[=X=]

Yes I am. There are a few exceptions, but these books are rare.

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

it is not an arbitrary number. it's the hook that Amazon set to snag many of us Kindle owners

It's utterly irrelevant now that 5 of the 6 big publishers are using the agency model. Amazon isn't setting the prices, and has no control over them. What Amazon said in its marketing 2+ years ago just doesn't matter now.

Not that it matters, but it was never a promise or a guarantee that *all* books would be $9.99 or less.

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

it was promised

Oh really? Link to a screencap, please.

It was *never* promised or guaranteed. "Most bestsellers $9.99 or less" is what they were advertising at the time of that ad. It was never guaranteed to last forever or to apply to every book.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

it was promised

Nope, they never promised anything of the sort. As far as it goes Amazon is still doing the $9.99 thing on books they sell, they simply aren't the seller for all the books anymore. The Agency 5 are setup like any other 3rd party seller on Amazon.