|
Trenian: Though that may be true, the idea of my current sales "experiment" is to find the price point at which the majority of people consider it a fair value for the book, and therefore do not have a problem paying for it.
The trick for the producer is to figure out which model gives you more people who think the model is fair than those who think it unfair. When you strike that balance, you make more than you lose, and you have a profitable venture. This is the way mankind has traded for goods and services, all the way back to when goods and services were first conceived. It lasts, because it works for both sides, and I refuse to believe even the internet will change that.
When people feel they are being treated fairly, they are more inclined to give something for the thing of value they get. Any child will demonstrate that. In fact, many primates observed in the wild have demonstrated an understanding of that. Any adult who will not abide by that is simply being selfish (and criminal), and they will not be supported by those who feel that the product is fairly offered. Sure, there will be thievery, but the only result of that will be removing the goods from a market that has more losses than are acceptable. If that means, someday, I'll have to publish in some other format than e-books to survive, that's probably what I'll do. Which is why it behooves people who are interested in good, fair e-book products to shun those who pirate e-books and risk taking that market permanently away from the rest of us.
As far as offering something else... that would not be necessary under the subsidization/patron model. Under the advertising model, you would be doing exactly that: Selling the expectation that X percent of people, out of the number who sees a commercial tied to your product, will go out and buy the advertised product.
|