We need to stand up to ebook pricing NOW.

[Jonas777]

I believe we need to be able to buy the book anywhere and not depending on what brand is on your reader. As long as the readers are locked up to a special seller (like the Kindle for topsellers) there will be no real competition with lower prices.

[mcl]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

Hmm-act of writing has no cost, is your time available for free? I have a *huge* number of projects for which I'd like to hire you then. Since you don't charge for your time.

Also, you're correct about the paper book having already paid for most of the costs-*if* you're willing to wait for the ebook until pbook sales reach the point where those costs have been recouped. (BTW, most books don't ever reach this point.) See other threads for protests over publishers delaying their release of ebooks.

If you desire, as I assume you do, that publishers release both ebooks & pbooks at the same time then you should understand that sales of both releases will be used to recoup the costs-in which case the prep, etc. *are* costs relating to the release of the ebook.

i said there were opportunity costs to writing, and that I wouldn't go into them. You simply chose to ignore that.

You're assuming that ebooks should cover the costs of producing paper books. I am staunchly opposed to that. They could cover their own costs, nothing more. Your argument is flawed, since it would only be valid if the editing, etc. did not occur except in cases where ebooks were produced. Since they occur anyway, you cannot blame ebooks for the fact that many books never recoup their publishing costs. Ebooks are not a scapegoat to be used by the publishing industry to cover those costs, and their prices should not reflect that. If the industry wants to view profits from ebooks as offsetting print costs, that's fine. But to price them such that those costs are reflected in the ebooks' prices is fundamentally wrong in my opinion, and I refuse to support such a pricing model.

The publishers delay ebook releases to prop up physical book sales, not to recoup costs of publishing.

I do not have a position on the release time of ebooks. I'd be happy to wait. But I am deeply opposed to pricing ebooks such that they are intended to prop up the print market, in the same way I'd be opposed to MP3s priced to prop up the CD market.

Punitive pricing of new media in order to prop up old media markets is a shortsighted and, frankly, stupid practice by myopic, Luddite publishers of media who would rather fight tooth and nail to preserve their existing business models rather than adapt to the new media and increase their profits.

As a case study, look at wax cylinder recordings in the 1800s. Or the sheet music market. or piano rolls. Or cassette tapes. VHS tapes. CD-Rs. DVD-Rs. DVDs. CDs. Records (from 78s to 33 1/3 to 45s). To current streaming media and digital media.

In every case, the media publishers fought desperately to cling to their old business models. In every case, they eventually capitulated. In every case, their cries of "the new media is destroying our market!" were not only wrong, but they wound up profiting more from the new media than they ever did from the old media.

The RIAA has made this mistake. Repeatedly. The MPAA likewise. And now the publishing industry, rather than learning from history, is repeating it in spades.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by asjogren

Cost, Value, and Perceived Value.

I suggest that Perceived Value is the salient feature. In other realms, the public has less Perceived Value to electronic media than physical. Advertising, magazines, and newspapers are good examples. The paper based sell for more.

Some have argued that they believe the convenience of electronic is an added value.

Others have argued that the lack of "rights" to lend, sell, or donate is a serious detriment. And DRM is an additional detriment.

On other threads the topic of lower quality of eBooks is mentioned. There are errors in eBooks that do not exist in the paper editions.

We each value these attributed differently. But, my first statement is probably the most important: The public has less Perceived Value for electronic editions of media than physical.

This is certainly correct-but overlooks the viewpoint discrepancy between value & costs. I don't think people should pay more for a book than what they see its value as being-but if that prevents them from buying best-sellers when first available then, generally, I think it's a problem with the buyer, not with the seller.

As a general statement I do have trouble with the above as it's certainly possible for a publisher to set the price higher than needed to recoup their costs-but I don't see that happening at either the new $5.99 price nor Amazon's $9.99 price.

Like most people, I'd rather get good, new books without paying for them. that would give me the most short-term enjoyment, but I also realize that it decreases my long-term enjoyment because not allowing publishers (and authors) to recoup their expenses will basically drive them out of business-and then we won't *have* any new books.

[mcl]

Originally Posted by kjk

Those arguments only make sense if physical books are always available first. So you don't agree with Jeff Bezos, who sees an eBook only future?

No, I don't. There will always be a market for physical books. Though I do believe that market will shrink significantly.


However, you're making the mistake of assuming that the production chain from author to consumer will be identical to today's chain. I am not making such an assumption.

[mcl]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

As a general statement I do have trouble with the above as it's certainly possible for a publisher to set the price higher than needed to recoup their costs-but I don't see that happening at either the new $5.99 price nor Amazon's $9.99 price.

Show me one instance where Macmillan has a list price of $5.99 for an ebook.

Show me where in their terms with Amazon that a timetable is specified -- not implied -- for price reduction.

You cannot, because they do not exist.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by mcl

No, I don't. There will always be a market for physical books. Though I do believe that market will shrink significantly.


However, you're making the mistake of assuming that the production chain from author to consumer will be identical to today's chain. I am not making such an assumption.

You are making the assumption that costs are being borne by printed books, so eBooks are a "freebie". Maybe the industry is just getting ready for the future where that isn't a given-Bezos, for one, is pushing for that now.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by mcl

i said there were opportunity costs to writing, and that I wouldn't go into them. You simply chose to ignore that.

No, you said you would ignore those costs as if they were trivial-I was simply pointing out that those costs aren't trivial & that they, too, need to be repaid. (Waste of time being subtle, apparently.)

Originally Posted by mcl

You're assuming that ebooks should cover the costs of producing paper books. I am staunchly opposed to that. They could cover their own costs, nothing more.

Which is *exactly* what I'm saying. Except that I do believe that, in order to stay in business (and therefore produce new books for my future enjoyment), a publisher is entitled to recoup the costs of a book that fails to recoup its own costs by spreading them across the costs of other books.

BTW, I still think you're confusing 'producing' with 'printing'. The cost of producing a book doesn't vary much whether it's a pbook or an ebook.

Originally Posted by mcl

Your argument is flawed, since it would only be valid if the editing, etc. did not occur except in cases where ebooks were produced. Since they occur anyway, you cannot blame ebooks for the fact that many books never recoup their publishing costs. Ebooks are not a scapegoat to be used by the publishing industry to cover those costs, and their prices should not reflect that. If the industry wants to view profits from ebooks as offsetting print costs, that's fine. But to price them such that those costs are reflected in the ebooks' prices is fundamentally wrong in my opinion, and I refuse to support such a pricing model.

I've never claimed that ebook sales should offset 'printing' costs-except in the general argument mentioned above, about spreading costs over multiple books. Apparently you believe each book should stand alone? What should a publisher do when a book fails to recoup its costs then? If, as you seem to propose, book prices should be set to recoup their own costs only, then the publisher will have minimal, if any, profits to cover those losses-and will quickly go out of business. Not my desired goal.

Originally Posted by mcl

The publishers delay ebook releases to prop up physical book sales, not to recoup costs of publishing.

I do not have a position on the release time of ebooks. I'd be happy to wait. But I am deeply opposed to pricing ebooks such that they are intended to prop up the print market, in the same way I'd be opposed to MP3s priced to prop up the CD market.

Punitive pricing of new media in order to prop up old media markets is a shortsighted and, frankly, stupid practice by myopic, Luddite publishers of media who would rather fight tooth and nail to preserve their existing business models rather than adapt to the new media and increase their profits.

Your arguments make sense-for those publishers who refuse to allow ebooks at all. For the others, I only see two approaches that make sense. Either ebook pricing follows pbook pricing (i.e. new releases by best-selling authors are priced fairly high) or media releases follow pricing, i.e. ebook releases will come after (and be priced below) the paperback releases. You appear to be OK with this but, as I mentioned before, you can check other threads to see how most people feel about this. It is a viable alternative to using ebook sales to recoup publishing costs though.

Originally Posted by mcl

As a case study, look at wax cylinder recordings in the 1800s. Or the sheet music market. or piano rolls. Or cassette tapes. VHS tapes. CD-Rs. DVD-Rs. DVDs. CDs. Records (from 78s to 33 1/3 to 45s). To current streaming media and digital media.

In every case, the media publishers fought desperately to cling to their old business models. In every case, they eventually capitulated. In every case, their cries of "the new media is destroying our market!" were not only wrong, but they wound up profiting more from the new media than they ever did from the old media.

The RIAA has made this mistake. Repeatedly. The MPAA likewise. And now the publishing industry, rather than learning from history, is repeating it in spades.

In every case the 'old media' publishers weren't fighting the issue on price-they were fighting it on availability. And you're right-some publishers are fighting ebooks on availability, and they'll capitulate just as the other industries have-but the current argument is, as far as I can tell, about the price of ebooks.

There is an interesting analogy to your case studies though-I'm seeing many more anthologies split up, as ebooks, and the stories being sold individually-just as albums have been split up with the songs being sold individually. I'm not sure how that affects the argument though. How much should a short story cost vs a novel? Should there be a difference between a short novel (say 30K words) and a long novel (100K words)?

In short, when arguing about how much a 'book' should cost, we need to look at what it costs to produce. Not just to print, but to *produce* that book. Including the costs of books that were also produced, but didn't sell enough to cover the cost of producing them.

[MyDigitalParadis]

I personally am a big Fan of Baen Books. They have pursued the Ebook model for a good many years and have stated unequivically that it has bosted their print sales. Their free library introduces people to many of their story lines and their prices have always been reasonable. Yes they charge 15$ for certain titles but they are almost always books that aren't even available in print yet. I have looked at other publishers efforts and the fact that they want the same price for an E-book that they get for a Hardcover is wrong. Do I expect a large difference? Not really but removing the printing, warehousing, and physical distribution costs from a title should remove the equivelant cost from the book. The majority of the pricing should come from the writers royalty as well as the publishers non-printing and distribution costs. Yes websites cost too but they would have them to sell their print books and as someone that works on the web for a living they are not that expensive compared to physical handling and stores.

Baen Books and Webscriptions have always sold their e-books at a considerable discount compared to their print books and shows a good profit margin from it. I see no reason that it shouldn't be the same from others. I have yet to by a book from one of the other publishers or retailers that want to sell them at the same price as print books. Digital versions are always cheaper to produce and the savings should be spread around not just pocketed by the big corporations. They worry about piracy. Good point but irrelevant in the grand scheme. Copy protect a file and you really only inconvinience the honest customers, not the pirates. What can be locked is usually easily unlocked and once one person unlocks it the means spreads faster than the e-books can be sold.

Look at MP3's. They are sold at say 1$ each. to buy each song from a whole album costs more than the CD. But! You only buy the songs you want. 2-3$ intead of 14$ I'll buy the individual files and come out ahead and the performer gets his $$$ for the songs that I want not for ones I don't. Books are a bit different I realize but the parallels are there. Higher prices for a new release book that people really want? Supply and demand. If not just wait for it to come down the same as waiting for the paperback.

To me it is a balance. 28$ for a hardcover/ 15$ for an E-book or wait for the next run when paperback pricing will drive down the E-book to something more appropriate. Same timeline different method.

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

That's your opinion, mine is different. DRM restricts things that should be fair use and first sale rights, like lending to family, which hardback books allow. Therefore, to me, a DRM'd eBook has less value because it artificially restricts my rights.

No its not my opinion Its a FACT

I clearly stated that to ME and OTHERS(as evidenced by various posts on these forums) that ebooks have greater value than physical copies.

I didnt say YOU found them more valuable I said ME and others, I didnt say to everyone.

Your response that 'not with DRM they arent' was clearly wrong as I specifically said to ME and OTHERS not you or everyone.

Try to take a second to actually read what someone says before you reply, Your opinion is different fine I have acknowledged that but dont completely ignore my opinion or tell me Im wrong in knowing that I value ebooks higher than physical books.

[P.X. Fort]

Well I was very wrong about what we all agree on. Or as Calvin-C put it in its simplest terms Believe and Understand which in itself is a belief.

But wouldn't it be true to say that an ebook costs less to produce than a printed one? Do you agree or not.

I think this is the quintessential question should a new realease book cost the same in printed and electronic forms?

You can keep all of the costs intact but those associated with the manufacture of the printed version.

[mcl]

Originally Posted by kjk

You are making the assumption that costs are being borne by printed books, so eBooks are a "freebie". Maybe the industry is just getting ready for the future where that isn't a given-Bezos, for one, is pushing for that now.

No, I'm making the assumption that the additional costs for an ebook version of an existing, current physical book are minimal.

The difference here is that my assumption is correct.

In the future, who knows? But in that future, I can promise you that today's cost structures won't exist, so the entire argument is invalid at that point.

But we weren't discussing some nebulous future. We were discussing the present.

[Bremen Cole]

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by Bremen Cole

Maybe we should re-organise the forums

one forum each for:

DRM arguments
Ebook pricing
Are Apple evil?
Are Amazon evil?
Are Pirates bad?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by stustaff

Your response that 'not with DRM they arent' was clearly wrong as I specifically said to ME and OTHERS not you or everyone.

We're each stating our own opinion, I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

Try to take a second to actually read what someone says before you reply, Your opinion is different fine I have acknowledged that but dont completely ignore my opinion or tell me Im wrong in knowing that I value ebooks higher than physical books.

Uh, before you start getting upset, where did I say your opinion was wrong?

As I said before, you have an opinion and I have an opinion. Those opinions are different... where does this hostility come from?

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

We're each stating our own opinion, I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that.



Uh, before you start getting upset, where did I say your opinion was wrong?

As I said before, you have an opinion and I have an opinion. Those opinions are different... where does this hostility come from?

Firstly apologies for the hostility, it was not meant in a hostile manner more a defensive one!

I said 'that to me Ebooks were better value'

your very abrupt response was 'not with DRM they arent'

It didnt come across as you sharing your opinion but dismissing mine as wrong!

if that was not your intention my apologies.