"Traditional Publishing is no longer Fair or Sustainable"

[TCSimpson]

That's the quote from the UK's society of authors. Wait until you see the income of some of these award winners.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...ety-of-authors

[Barcey]

Very interesting, thanks for posting.

[rollei]

"Publisher profits are holding up and, broadly, so are total book sales if you include ebooks but authors are receiving less per book and less overall due mainly to the fact that they are only paid a small percentage of publishers' net receipts on ebooks and because large advances have gone except for a handful of celebrity authors."

"I spent 15 years trying to get a deal before self-publishing. When I finally got a deal it was a disappointment so I returned to self-publishing, which rescued my writing career. Lots of writers are seeing other writers having success via self-publishing and deciding to try it themselves. I would encourage any mid-list author to try it. A lot of writers who've got back the rights to their novels are now self-publishing them and having a lot of fun in the process"

Self published books are cheaper than those by publishers.

In any case, the profit margin for e-book is very high, e-books should be a lot cheaper than a paper book.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by rollei

In any case, the profit margin for e-book is very high, e-books should be a lot cheaper than a paper book.

How much cheaper is a lot? 25%, 50% more? I ask because some folks seem to think they should all cost only a buck or two which is unrealistic. It's true that eBooks don't have printing, binding, shipping or warehousing remaindering/throw aways involved, but the cost of books have never been wholly based on what it costs to make one. I agree they should be cheaper, but when printing/binding thousands of copies we aren't talking a huge part of the cost compared to the cover price and there is still editing, marketing etc. with ebooks just like there is with pbooks.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

It's true that eBooks don't have printing, binding, shipping or warehousing remaindering/throw aways involved, but the cost of books have never been wholly based on what it costs to make one.

Paperbook price - above costs = ebook price.

Pricing for eBooks should be based on the least expensive paperbook currently being sold (hardback, MMPB, trades, etc).

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Paperbook price - above costs = ebook price.

Pricing for eBooks should be based on the least expensive paperbook currently being sold (hardback, MMPB, trades, etc).

Which in a lot of cases is what we have right now.

The problem, for a lot of consumers I think, comes in when retailers (Amazon, Costco, Target, Wal-Mart, etc.) discount the paper book, especially hardcovers, so that the street price sometimes ends up being at or close to the ebook price so now that $25 hardcover is $14 while the ebook is $12.99-$14.99. Current systems give them much more room to discount on the paper side.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Which in a lot of cases is what we have right now.

The problem, for a lot of consumers I think, comes in when retailers (Amazon, Costco, Target, Wal-Mart, etc.) discount the paper book, especially hardcovers, so that the street price sometimes ends up being at or close to the ebook price so now that $25 hardcover is $14 while the ebook is $12.99-$14.99. Current systems give them much more room to discount on the paper side.

When that happens, ebook pricing should also drop by the same proportion. I'm not a fan of publishers who allow discounting of paperbooks, but not ebooks. If the hardback gets a 40% discount, then the ebook should get a 40% discount. Of course, this would only apply for stores that sell both types or if the publisher is the one who initiates the price drop.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

When that happens, ebook pricing should also drop by the same proportion. I'm not a fan of publishers who allow discounting of paperbooks, but not ebooks. If the hardback gets a 40% discount, then the ebook should get a 40% discount. Of course, this would only apply for stores that sell both types or if the publisher is the one who initiates the price drop.

Well, the hardbacks are probably way overpriced to start with. The paper books are also a nuisance if they don't sell, taking up shelf and warehouse space and needing to be trucked around again, unlike ebooks. So, it often makes sense to drop the prices on the paper copies, just to get them off the hands of the distributors. Digital books don't have that same pressure for reducing prices.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by rkomar

Well, the hardbacks are probably way overpriced to start with. The paper books are also a nuisance if they don't sell, taking up shelf and warehouse space and needing to be trucked around again, unlike ebooks. So, it often makes sense to drop the prices on the paper copies, just to get them off the hands of the distributors. Digital books don't have that same pressure for reducing prices.

And isn't this already factored into the initial pricing of paperbooks? This isn't a valid reason to keep the price of the ebook artificially inflated.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

And isn't this already factored into the initial pricing of paperbooks? This isn't a valid reason to keep the price of the ebook artificially inflated.

If marketers have learned one thing these days, it's how to price things according to what people will pay for them. Ebooks are cheaper to produce, but consumers aren't willing to haggle the price down because of that. They'll pay more because of the convenience for them. Gone are the days of "cost plus 10%", or whatever.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by rkomar

If marketers have learned one thing these days, it's how to price things according to what people will pay for them. Ebooks are cheaper to produce, but consumers aren't willing to haggle the price down because of that. They'll pay more because of the convenience for them. Gone are the days of "cost plus 10%", or whatever.

"They'll pay more because of the convenience for them."

Not me. This is where I jump ship. If I feel a product is priced too high, I won't buy it.

Luckily for me, I don't have any must haves in the field of entertainment. There's always a cheaper alternative for items priced too high; always!

[pwalker8]

Rather obviously, people will pay according to the value they place on it. Some think everything (except their personal labor) should be free. Others consider books a commodity and see no difference between authors. Others are willing to pay extra for first crack at their favorite author's new book.

How authors got paid has changed quite a bit over the years. At one time is mostly in magazines, by the word and actual book sales were extremely small. Once paperback books came about, only the top line authors were published in hardback, everyone else was strictly paperback. Over time, as more and more hardback books were sold, the model changed and authors got their money from first hard back, then paper back, then re-prints and sometimes movie rights. Now, the model is changing again. I've said elsewhere what I think we will end up seeing.

[fjtorres]

At this point the (emerging) debate (in the UK and elsewhere) isn't about book prices but about treatment of tradpub authors. Consumers have advocates and allies but in many cases the people who should be watching out for authors' interests have been acting to their detriment.

The entire publishing industry has been obsessed with reader spend for five years now and has done nothing as money flows everywhere *except* to the authors, often on purpose. (When RH had their big windfall a couple years back and dished out bonuses to everybody from the CEO to the janitorial crew, the author didn't even get a mention. Reading the self-congratulatory letter it appears as if the books that generated the windfall came from the CEO and not an author.)

People are finally noticing the tiny (and declining) advances, the obscure and delayed reporting, the onerous clauses and increased demands... And above all, the low royalties.

There is nothing new in the SOCIETY OF AUTHORS statements nor in the report that triggered it; it is all well-trod ground for anybody who has been paying attention to the emergence of indie publishing. Instead of pondering whether a book is well priced, how about pondering why a publisher needs a lifetime of copyright control of an authors work, or why as much as two thirds of a book's price goes to people who neither wrote it nor sell it.

People who say they don't mind high prices because they want to encourage the author to keep writing ought to take a closer look at where their money goes because 87% of their money goes anywhere except the author and in many cases paypal-ing the author a dollar or a pound would do more for them than buying their book.

I'm reminded of the scene in Dark Knight Rises:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3CLc0IGstk

There truly is a storm coming.

[Barcey]

Yes, the big publishers are not the protectors of literature, they are like any big corporation that need to show quarter over quarter profit increase. They are not interested in producing great literature because that makes far less money then Dan Brown books. (Not saying this is bad, just saying they are not an author development charity)

The reality is that the big publishers need Amazon right now during the period of disruption. Not because of their distribution power but because they are the big bad boogie man that is 'going to destroy literature' and a big distraction while the big publishers empty the cupboards.

If you want to protect literature you are better off saving your money and then investing it strongly in new small publishing houses that will specialize in it, or a bright new indie.

[Sydney's Mom]

Very interesting article and discussion. People say the cost cutting is threatening our literary tradition. Only if our literary tradition is making publishers rich. The publisher that printed that awful 50 Shades gave everyone in the company a $5000 bonus one year. The publisher shouldn't be making that much money on a book. It is the author's work.