It's IMPOSSIBLE to price ebooks too high

[leebase]

Originally Posted by abookreader

And that is the cusp of where we disagree. It certainly is possible for a publisher to price a product at more than the market feels the eBook is worth. Repeating over and over that it isn't possible doesn't make it true. Companies can price too high for market sentiment and still manage to survive.

Ok. So how does the publisher force YOU to pay more for an ebook than YOU feel it's worth? I've paid more than I WANTED to pay, but I paid because ultimately I wanted to read the book, read it now, and read it in electonic format. Other books, priced the same as the one I bought, I refused to buy because I did not value them enough.

I'm all ears to discover that folks are being coerced into paying more than they think the ebook is worth. Is there some ebook tax or governement ebook purchasing program I'm unaware of?

Originally Posted by abookreader

It happens all the time - especially in an environment such as Agency Publishing where the major market controllers attempt to impede competition by price co-operation between the major players.

I've not even debated "price fixing". I'll concede for the point of this discussion tha the Agency 5 can now "fix the price" of their ebooks. What they can't do is get anybody to PAY for those ebooks.

You want to read The Odysseus from Penguin Publishing ebooks? The price is "too high" -- and there are already used versions for sale at much lower price. So why not just buy the used book? Why not just check the book out from the library? Why not just read the non-Penguin version that's available for free from Project Gutenberg? Why not read another book instead? Why read a book at all when you can go to the movies, or watch tv?

You say there is no competition -- but I keep pointing out that there is PLENTY of competition.

Lee

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by abookreader

And that is the cusp of where we disagree. It certainly is possible for a publisher to price a product at more than the market feels the eBook is worth. Repeating over and over that it isn't possible doesn't make it true. Companies can price too high for market sentiment and still manage to survive.

It happens all the time - especially in an environment such as Agency Publishing where the major market controllers attempt to impede competition by price co-operation between the major players.

The reasons that the "market sentiment" can be ignored, for a time, often
relate to the fact that the publisher can make what is needed for his survival
on the books that have a higher value in the market sentiment. There is
also a period of adjustment, with new technology/products for both the
marketeer and the market sentiment. As ebooks mean more to the bottom
line, and the pressure of competition is felt, a great deal more attention will
be applied to ebook pricing. As it will then mean more to the publisher's
survival.

Luck;
Ken

[abookreader]

ah there we go. Thank you Ken.

"Can Make What is Needed for Survival"

vs

"Can Optimize Success"

That's the difference between the two points of contention.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by abookreader

That's the difference between the two points of contention.

No it isn't. For my contention remains oncontested. Obfuscated for sure, but not contradicted.

Publisher having pricing power does not eliminate the role competition plays in setting limits to what they can price.

Whether publishers are making the best choice with their pricing -- competely different conversation.

But the "world is coming to an end now that the Agency 5 can set their own pricing" is shown to be silly by the realities that publishers cannot price their product for more than their customers are willing to pay.

Lee

[abookreader]

Somebody should totally slap me for the continued banging of the head upon the wall but this statement

Whether publishers are making the best choice with their pricing -- competely different conversation.

If is is impossible for them to price eBooks too high in your opinion, in what other ways could they be making a pricing choice that is not "the best?"

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by sprouty

Are Ebook prices that bad like many are saying they are a relative bargain to the price of Hardbacks and a lot easier to store. The Author has to make some money somewhere or there would be no motivation for them to produce quality work

One of the reasons I started reading eBooks was because there were cheaper then the pBook. I don't buy hardcovers. So by pricing the eBook at $9.99, the publisher & author(s) get more money then if I wait until the MMPB is out and the price drops. With the agency model, I don't pay $12.99 or $14.99 for an eBook. So if I wait until the price maybe drops when the MMPB comes out, they lose money. The agency model is as stupid as it gets.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by abookreader

If is is impossible for them to price eBooks too high in your opinion, in what other ways could they be making a pricing choice that is not "the best?"

The point is that there is a control on pricing completely apart from whether the publishers set the pricing themselves or whether the retailer does. Moving pricing from the retailer to the publisher does nothing to change demand for any given price point.

Lee

[leebase]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

One of the reasons I started reading eBooks was because there were cheaper then the pBook. I don't buy hardcovers. So by pricing the eBook at $9.99, the publisher & author(s) get more money then if I wait until the MMPB is out and the price drops. With the agency model, I don't pay $12.99 or $14.99 for an eBook. So if I wait until the price maybe drops when the MMPB comes out, they lose money. The agency model is as stupid as it gets.

A great example of two things. No matter who does the pricing -- you exercise your own power to either buy or not buy. At "hard back book" pricing the publishers don't have you for a customer. But clearly, they have plenty of other customers willing to pay those prices. Ergo, the hard back book prices must not be "too high".

So there is a level of demand that supports the "high price". After that demand is satisfied -- the publishers in the past have come out with products they sold at a lower price point to scoop up those sales. With ebooks, there won't be a separate product, just a lowering of the price.

Lee

[hal2814]

Originally Posted by leebase

The point is that there is a control on pricing completely apart from whether the publishers set the pricing themselves or whether the retailer does. Moving pricing from the retailer to the publisher does nothing to change demand for any given price point.

Lee

That's the point you're making now, but it's not the point you make in your post's title: "It's IMPOSSIBLE to price ebooks too high" There's nothing impossible about pricing too high. It's merely unreasonable. But I guess it's easy to keep arguing when you continually change your stance.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by hal2814

That's the point you're making now, but it's not the point you make in your post's title: "It's IMPOSSIBLE to price ebooks too high" There's nothing impossible about pricing too high. It's merely unreasonable. But I guess it's easy to keep arguing when you continually change your stance.

Headlines grab attention - the content makes the point. My stance hasn't changed one iota.

There is an incorrect but intractable meme on this forum that the agency model allows publishers to price gouge since it eliminates price shopping for a particular ebook. eBooks, under agency pricing, have their prices set by the publisher and are the same in all the book stores.

However, there is VAST competition that folks aren't considering that keep a lid on what publishers can charge - and thus it really is impossible for the price to be set "too high" -- higher than the market will bear. The vast competition even includes the very book in paper form, not to mention the vast universe of free or low cost books (ebooks or paper), and every other form of entertainment.

Lee

[hal2814]

Originally Posted by leebase

Headlines grab attention - the content makes the point. My stance hasn't changed one iota.

So you don't consider a headline that completely misrepresents your content as a change in stance?

[leebase]

Originally Posted by hal2814

So you don't consider a headline that completely misrepresents your content as a change in stance?

It doesn't misrepresent my stance. Did anyone think that publishers were willing to set a price but get no sales?

Were YOU really confused? Is it your position "a publisher can set the price of an ebook to $1,000,000 therefore Lee is wrong"? If that's how simple your reasoning is, then it's beyond my skills to communicate with you.

Lee

[hal2814]

Originally Posted by leebase

It doesn't misrepresent my stance. Did anyone think that publishers were willing to set a price but get no sales?

Were YOU really confused? Is it your position "a publisher can set the price of an ebook to $1,000,000 therefore Lee is wrong"? If that's how simple your reasoning is, then it's beyond my skills to communicate with you.

Lee

The only thing that confused me was your post's complete inability to back up its title. You mention "IMPOSSIBLE" and I expecting some sort of reasoning as to why that's the case. "Impossible" has a clear definition. It doesn't mean unreasonable or unlikely. It means that it cannot under any circumstances happen. I'm not the one with a reasoning issue here.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by hal2814

The only thing that confused me was your post's complete inability to back up its title. You mention "IMPOSSIBLE" and I expecting some sort of reasoning as to why that's the case. "Impossible" has a clear definition. It doesn't mean unreasonable or unlikely. It means that it cannot under any circumstances happen. I'm not the one with a reasoning issue here.

It is IMPOSSIBLE - to set a price too high THAT CUSTOMERS WILL PAY. The "that customers will pay" was part of the post, can't have the entire thought in the headline

Lee

[abookreader]

But again - what is your definition of "What Customers will pay?"

Every single customer?

Enough of them for the Publisher to make a maximum profit?

Enough of them for the Publishers to make an acceptable profit?

Enough customers to provide 10% Revenue Growth over the prior fiscal year results and grab the CEO his Incentive Stock Bonus?


You are so caught up in being 100% correct that you are refusing to define your standards. You don't really mean "Impossible" that was just attention grabbing. So what do you really mean?