[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Timboli

Well, ultimately it could depend on how many books you sold, but are you saying that's all the author gets? What about the publisher?

It's not uncommon that yes, that's the author's share. And the publisher needs the book to "earn out" before they get to pocket any so-called profits.

There are so many factors involved when developing and providing a book, and quite a difference between authors and publishers.

I am quite happy to listen to a well supported argument in support of why things are priced the way they are and even if they should cost more. But what I refuse to believe, is ebooks aren't significantly cheaper to provide than physical books.

May I ask, what is it that you think constitutes the real "cost" of book production? If your thought process is that it's all the paper and ink, then I can see why you would believe this. But if you look at the bigger picture of "costs," then perhaps it would be less confounding.

The real "costs" of producing a book of quality aren't limited to just the printing. And every publisher has to balance those costs, too--for example, surely, fans of poetry aren't deluded enough to think that the books that they buy and love, in the bookstore, are profitable for publishers, do they? What about kids' books, kids' picture books? Does everyone here think that they're kicking ass and taking names, in the profitability department?

The real costs of producing a book are incurred long before the book hits the printing press. Whether it's being output in digital or paper, the acquisition and purchase of the rights, if the author is represented and being trade pubbed, the editing, layout and design, cover design, etc., are all incurred whether a book is being printed or not. (Yes, layout even for eBooks!).

And more importantly, those few books that do knock it out of the park, that do sell well, are supporting their other brethren books, those that don't knock it out of the park. The Dr. Suesses of the kids' book world support the hundreds and thousands of kids' books that don't earn out. (Most--vastly, most. Even a successful kids' book sells a whopping 500 copies in its published lifetime.) The Dan Browns of the world pay for poetry and "literature."

Without the profits from Book A being used to support other works--and yes, that includes eBook sales--you'd have a vastly different world of published books.

If publishers--and this includes indies, trade-publishers, etc.--were somehow magically required to make pricing "fair" so that, for example, they could only earn costs plus $0.50/book, all those other books--poetry, chapbooks, literary fiction, kids' books, art books, coffee-table books--all those hundreds of thousands of specialty books, etc.--would never be published, period.

Those art books, coffee-table books and omg, kids' books, are horribly expensive to produce. A kids' book will typically run $3500 in layout, before the illustrations are paid for. Add in another $2500-$5000 in illos (illustrations), to be conservative. That doesn't include editing or cover design. Now, assume that it's a successful kids' book, and it sells a whopping 500 copies, in its publishing lifetime. if you've got $8500 into it, (with no overhead, personnel costs and the like), you have to sell each book at $17.00, just to recover costs. Forget profit!

That doesn't include, again, any editing, any marketing, printing costs, etc. Add in between $5-$7.50 copy for printing costs (color, 32 pages), plus whatever the hardcover will cost to produce--let's say another dollar--and now you need to sell the book for between $23.00 and $26.00--just to break even. Forget producing the eBooks and anything like that. Do we think that most folks want to pay $30 for a kids' book? No? Well..then, how's that book being published?

It's being published because the money that's produced when you buy the eBook copy of another successful book goes to pay for it.

Does paper printing cost MORE? Yes, of course it does. But the real costs involved in creating a book, the bigger drivers, are the intangibles, not the DT costs.

It's not like there aren't many authors and publishers out there, already doing the fair thing.

Well, if they're Indies, and they're only paying for the costs associated with their own book(s), sure, they can afford to be "fair." Is that the publishing world that you want? Only producing the books that will ALWAYS pay for themselves and make a profit? Darwinian publishing?

Because that's what "fair" pricing would mean, the way you describe it. Publishers are already on the hairy edge, profit-wise. They ahve always used the profits from more-successful books to produce those books that they consider "worthy" or worthwhile, books that are brilliant but that probably won't sell the way that Dan Brown will. That has ever been the Tao of publishing, really--using the bigger-selling books to publish those that won't sell that way, and yes, of course, eBook profits, in terms of sales price versus production costs, are part of that.

If your perception of the value of a book is tied to how it's produced--whether it's printed on paper or produced in bytes, then I guess I can see your argument. To me, the value is the value of the read. Would I expect my next John Sandford to be $15 in paper, but $1.50 in digital, because it's not printed on paper? No, I wouldn't. I want the book to be available to me, for digital reading, and I don't expect his publisher to throw themselves on their swords, to reduce their profits, just so that I can read it on my Kindle or Droid. Nor do I want them to only produce those books that hit the front table at B&N. I want them to have the ability to discover and produce new authors, to produce and publish those "small" books that will never sell like Sandford or Brown, et al. Without the profits--from all types of production--they won't be able to do that.

Offered FWIW. Just my $.02.

Hitch