Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
I don't think that fiction readers subsidize nonfiction readers. Lots of nonfiction sells well, especially in paper editions. Hachette (almost all fiction) didn't buy Perseus (heavily nonfiction) in order to lose money.
It may be that, on average, bestsellers subsidize midlist. But publishers do not know which titles are going to be the hits and which are going to be midlist. True, some famous names (James Patterson, Hillary Clinton) are surefire bestseller authors. But those authors demand such a high advance that the publisher may lose money on their bestseller. And if a publisher only publishes books by proven bestselling authors, it will eventually die. They do need to takes chances to survive.
Now, I would say that there are some subsidy situations. People who want to own books subsidize people who want to read and return (or resell). Also, people who want to read books shortly after publication subsidize those content to wait a few years. People who buy the hardback, or eBook, the week it comes out are subsidizing the man or woman borrowing a worn paperback in an African village reading room. Is this so horrible?
You might say that you are willing to pay $9.99, during the first month after an eBook release, to subsidize the reading room, but not $14.99. Fine. This will be reflected in Hachette sales data and they will price in the way their numbers people find maximizes revenue. But I can't buy the idea that Hachette is run by idiots who don't know what price to charge.
|
Sorry Steve. I was a bit lazy in describing the posters apparent category as non-fiction. Much non-fiction is no doubt very profitable. I think the actual category the poster seems to prefer is obscure non-fiction which few others want to read and which has few prospects of even breaking even. In fact, I don't agree with the subsidy argument. It seems to arise from an assertion by some that publishers use profits from profitable segments of their business for the good of all to publish books they consider worthwhile which are unlikely to be profitable. To the extent that this is done, and I would expect that to be a very small extent indeed, it amounts to little more than a public relations effort and provides a pretixt to support higher prices. Another "motherhood" type justification like developing the local industry. The plain fact is that profits are made which require business decisions as to how to distribute or utilise them. Subsidy or not is really probably a red herring in this context. The real questions are whether publishers do behave in such an altruistic fashion, and if so, if it is worthwhile or whether the money would be better applied to other areas, in particular reducing prices generally.
Your comments about a Publisher only selling books by proven authors of bestsellers and the need to take chances to survive are fairly accurate in describing the existing situation and print books, but imho not ebooks and the brave new world we are entering.
I think we should simply agree to disagree on the subsidy situations you describe. It is irrelevant in any event, though if I am wrong then the subsidy unwillingly provided is a general one to all who take advantage of it. In fact, the hypothetical worn paperback in an African Reading Room, emotional as it is, is a most unlikely outcome. Particularly with an EBook.
And as for the idea that Hachette is being run by idiots who don't know what price to charge, imho nothing could be further from the truth. Hachette, and the other BPH are run by hardheaded businessman who want to preserve a comfortable and profitable business model which has existed for a long time. They know very well how to price, but wish to do so in accordance with their own objectives, one of which seems to be suppressing so far as possible ebook sales. On the other hand, Amazon is focussed mainly on EBooks, and I doubt they would cry any tears at the collapse of the Print Book market, other, of course, than print on demand. This explains the behaviour of Hachette and the BPH. Those steering their course are certainly not stupid.