Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
I'm biased. I want to see my friends survive and prosper. I have some idea of the skill required to do what they do. When I see posts that suggest their actions have no value, and should be omitted in the service of providing cheaper ebooks, I'm not sympathetic. My reaction tends to be "What do you do for a living? How would you feel about suggestions you should be paid less, or perhaps dispensed with entirely, in service of your employer being able to provide goods/services cheaper?" Of course, they're different. Such concerns shouldn't apply to them...
In too many cases, I don't see concerned consumers. I see people who want something for nothing or very little, and are unconcerned with what might be necessary to bring that about.
|
And from the other side it looks different. People *are* getting payed less and perhaps dispensed with entirely. And what does the publishing industry do? They increase the prices, and they don't allow discounts on ebooks.
When asked about the prices, they say that the costs are too big. And why? Well, not because of the printing, and not because of the royalties, but because there are so many people working in between. Before I came to this forum I assumed that writers were the kind of people that knew how to spell without the need of spell-check, but I guess I was wrong. And as much as some can't be bothered to use the spell-check tool, they also can't be bothered to check what kind of books a publisher prints.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
One definition of "greed" is "inappropriate expectations". I see lots of comments about producer greed. Oddly, I don't see any about consumer greed, but it's very real, and a driving factor in economic decisions.
|
The publishers decided that the way to go was to avoid selling directly to the readers. Why? Because it was cheaper for them. Then they decided that while they don't actually want to have any direct contact with the readers they still want to control how much the people are paying for their books. I call this greed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
Personally, I think that what the folks I know do adds value I'm willing to pay for.
|
And you want everybody pay as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
Depends upon the viewpoint. The person involved might set a value on their time in dollars per hour, track hours spent, and assign that as a cost.
|
With that kind of thinking in mind, how much does it cost you to read a book?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
Correct. But from Bean's POV, it's cheap marketing.
|
And it gives results, which makes it efficient. But hey, it is the other publisher's right to choose a less efficient way to do business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
Good luck. Smaller advances are problematic. Advances are paid based on anticipated sales. Publishers compete for good content. It will be hard to get away with paying smaller advances, especially if you are talking about authors with proven best seller status.
|
Seeing as what you quoted was the reply to you asking what happens when there is no hardcover, I would have to say that since the royalties are smaller for paperbacks than for hardcovers, it makes sense that the advance will be smaller as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
There have been suggestions of ad support in ebooks, too, and someone might try it. But the basic issue is that the supply of ad dollars is finite. Advertisers are increasingly focused on results. The question will be "Did the ad sell the product?" Ads that don't produce don't get continued. How many ads in ebooks do you think might actually sell products? What pitch would you make to a media buyer at an ad agency to get the placement?
|
The pitch? Do this for 100 books. Announce that there are 100 books available for $2 courtesy of ..., and then be happy as the buyer will see the name of your company on every page of the book. The more a book gets lent, the more people will see the add.