Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemurion
I also don't think that ebook only versions to "test the waters" would lead to prices that are that much lower. In fact I think the reverse. Even if I accepted the idea that ebook sales are a "gimme" with no added cost to that of a paper edition and thus do not have to cover their share of the sunk costs from before the two editions fork, that would only apply if there was a paper edition. Without firm plans for a paper edition, the ebook would have to bear all those costs such as the author's advance, the cost of cover art, editing and everything else involved in acquisition.
|
If there is a way to get a representative sample of 'paper' buyers to read the things on e-readers, I don't see why you couldn't use ebook 'sales' (or ratings) as an indicating for whether or not to do a paper run. After seeing how indicative ebook sales/ratings are for paper sales, they can then decide whether or not to invest additional money in the book or not.. It's not really rational to become more risk-acceptant if expected value is lower than the expected cost. (Yes, they will have a different EV calculated when they decide to do so anyway, but that's only because they don't trust the statistics/sample then.)
Of course, this all requires flexible thinking, and
some risk-taking, which may be unrealistic for those status quo thinkers, but that's what being a company in a free-market society is all about.
Still, I don't really see what they have to lose. If they're losing money on most
of the titles anyway, the possibility of losing some money on a small-ish pilot project shouldn't matter too much.
Explore/exploit. Landscapes shift. ;-)