[ottdmk]

Originally Posted by XrXca

But for the most part eBooks ARE cheaper than paper books (a quick check on 4 of the current best sellers put the hardcovers in the 30-40 range and the ebooks from 15 to 22, so that is a good thing, and to be honest has resulted in me buying some of the eBooks instead of borrowing from the library.

I've also found that ebook editions are usually better priced for the consumer then hardcovers. I think it has to do with the economics of the Agency system. The publishers can charge less for the ebook but as they're getting 70% instead of the 50% they normally get from wholesaling to retailers it all works out for them.

Originally Posted by XrXca

My complaint is with older books, especially when I'm trying to get an older book that is STILL in current production with a recent printing (not a reprint, but a new issue based on the printing line on the copyright page)
Same publishing house as the original so while there has been some work to create the new printing it shouldn't be at the same level of cost as the original.
Now I'd expect the eBook to be reasonable, but much to my annoyance, the eBook is exactly the same price as the paperback (8.99)

Shouldn't there be the same kind of price reduction that is found in most new books, even if it was 8.99 paperback, 6.99 eBook I'd be slightly happier, but the same price ticks me off.

I hear ya. Fortunately, some publishers seem to be starting to get it. I'm a fan of Terry Brooks, who's published by Random House. Right now, his most recent paperback in the Shannara series is $7.99 on Kobo.com. At Chapters, it's $9.99 for the paperback, $9.49 if you're a member.

(Side rant: Ye gods, do I hate memberships like Chapters. Save 10% off all your books! Cool! But you're paying $20 per year for the privilege. So before you save any money at all you have to spend $200 inside of a year! Oh, and more fun... buy the book online and it's only up to 5% off. Sheesh.)

So anyways, you're saving about 20% off the paperback cost. Which is respectable. Sure, Chapters' "Buy 3 get a 4th free" sale (which is essentially 25% off) beats it, but it's still quite reasonable. Those sales only happen a few times a year after all.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Usually, yes. But *not* necessarily "a book they would have bought new, from a vendor who feeds into the royalty stream."

Remaindered hardcovers aren't better sales for the publisher than ebooks. Used paperbacks certainly aren't. Books borrowed from friends don't pay the author or publisher at all.

An ebook purchase is almost always a lost pbook *acquisition,* but not at all a lost pbook *sale,* from the publisher's perspective.

Your point is well taken, sir.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

This is because publishers have long been oblivious to the millions of voracious readers who rarely bought first-run pbooks, and almost never bought hardcovers, who *are* buying ebooks as fast as they're being released in genres they like. Amanda Hocking didn't lose a million pbook sales.

Amanda Hocking is a great example of success in the self-publishing game. However, she's a poor example here. Up until January of this year she didn't have any pbooks. It was her success in ebooks that got her the publishing deal with St. Martin's in the first place.

It will be interesting to see St. Martin's strategy going forward with her. I believe the first new novel under her deal got released in August.

Also, the "buy used/remaindered only" market is difficult to judge. For example, I doubt that you can justify your "millions" figure with actual statistics. Hence it is difficult to tell if the influx of that market would offset the loss of profit margin caused by a price cut.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

What "loss leader?" If they sell a few dozen copies, they've made their costs for the conversion; after that, it's all gravy. There's no loss; just less profit than they'd like.

There's a reason why I "almost a loss-leader type of thing". I was describing the reduced-cost book as a similar, not identical strategy. I apologize if I was unclear. However, your dismissal of the fact that they would make a little less money is where things fall down. Publishers are for-profit companies. Their entire raison-d'etre is to make money. A slimmer profit margin is, to them, almost as bad as a loss and is to be strenuously avoided.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Large publishers are discovering that whether or not they're willing to cater to the $6-and-under ebook market, indie publishers and authors are, and those sales are skyrocketing. And authors are wondering what a publisher has to offer, if they make $2 per book sold for a $3 self-pub or an $18 traditionally-published volume.

There are answers: editing, marketing, access to stores, awards recognition. But as far as day-to-day income goes, all that can be skipped--self-pub authors have a better chance of making a living at their craft than traditionally-published ones... and a much, much better chance than wannabe trad-published authors who don't yet have a contract.

In short: Publishers are now facing competition that didn't exist 15 years ago. That competition is largely comprised of *the people who create what they sell,* and they'll have to scrabble to find business models that work, when they no longer have the gatekeeper advantage.

Here's another place where we can agree. There is more competition. It may indeed force change. However, it's not there yet and it remains to be seen how things will happen.