Quote:
Originally Posted by DD1509
Maybe that is the ideal answer. Buy from the author directly, electronically!
|
Sure, if the authors can forsake the idea of advances, hire excellent editors (and actually take their advice), do their own marketing, pay for their own accounting, get the books reviewed, afford their own book tours, get on radio or TV or in front of blogs, push the retailers to get the book promoted via the retailers.
Not many authors are willing and able to really do this. Even James Patterson, who is clearly capable of running his own show, still chooses to work with an actual publisher. Go figure.
And this assumes the public is able to wade through the massive slush pile of self- and unpublished works to find anything worth reading.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DD1509
(Publishers) want more than their fair share with electronic publishing. Look at the dramatic reduction in the cost structure with electronic publishing....
|
Yes, let's.
The cost savings of ebooks is actually a lot smaller than most people think -- it's closer to 15%, especially for the big publishers that can leverage the economies of scale. Distributing the books is cheaper, but it's not free; bandwidth, databases, more IT staff, security, credit card fees, 3g costs all add up, and retailers lose shipping and handling fees (formerly a revenue source). Meanwhile, consumers are demanding price cuts of 60% or more.
Most published titles don't break even. And even though ebooks only make up around 5% of the market, it's clear that at least some of the high-margin hardcover sales are cannibalized by ebooks that are 1/3 the list price.
It's unclear whether slashing the price will result in a commensurate increase in sales. For example, if the new book price is set at $10, it's possible ebook readers will spend the same amount on ebooks as they did on paper books. But it's also plausible they will purchase the same
number of books and spend the difference on other forms of entertainment, or just keep the savings.
Last but not least, there is absolutely no reason why there needs to be a direct link between the public's perception of the cost of a good (accurate or otherwise), and its final price. The price is merely what the market will bear, and it's way too early in the game to categorically state that $10 is the
only price for a new book that can possibly work.
This is not to say that publisher control over pricing is necessarily a good thing; only that it is unclear if $10 is a sustainable or optimal price.