Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
Here's an interesting take:
http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2014...amazon-battle/
Apparently, what Amazon is doing is they only order Hachette books after taking a consumer sales order. So, instead of buying a bunch of their books to cover weeks or months of estimated sales, they are only buying what is actually selling.
Hardly illegal.
Just not doing them any favors whatsoever.
And then there's this: |
Quote:
Quote:
What do I think should happen? Well first off, publishers have to realize that getting $3 for every $1 that an author makes on ebooks just isn’t fair. Ironically, they are feeling the same pressure from Amazon that they apply to authors—requesting a higher share because they hold a strategic advantage. I’m sure both Amazon and authors look at the publisher’s 52.5% and can’t help but think more should come their way, but unlike Amazon authors are powerless. The big-five publishers are remarkably uniform in paying 25% of net on ebooks, so the author has to either accept that rate or go the route of self-publishing. If I could set the terms, I would suggest 30% to Amazon, 35% to the publishers, and 35% to the author.
|
I'm confused by the quote. Are they saying that publishers are making 30% profit for every $1 an author makes? Could be true for ebooks but is it true for pbooks? (And yes I know it explicitly states ebooks in the quote, just trying to see the overall picture)
My understanding, which could be wrong, is that traditionally the B&M stores made 50% of the cover price if selling at that price?
I am not saying that authors were ever fairly paid except for the most popular and prolific, because I do not think that, but I am not sure I can see publishers as any more avaricious than other large businesses or providers of professional services etc.
Helen