eBook sales are down 17%

[JSWolf]

Given that Amazon doesn't release numbers and neither does Apple and neither does B&N and neither does Kobo, the AAP can only guess. So these guess numbers could be total garbage.

And as far as AAP being experts. That's BS. Experts don't guess. AAP guesses.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by MattW

Yes, 1-2 a month on average, I'd say.



That's not really the issue here, though. If ebooks were taking the world by storm, we'd see the difference with the big 5 as well. Most of the book buying public does not read self-published books, as much as folks here want to tell themselves otherwise.

Except we know why big 5 ebook sales are lagging. They're using agency price controls to keep their ebook prices up near the price of print books. This is widely known and hs already been stated several times in this thread.

[MattW]

Originally Posted by darryl

No. They are not missing the point. It is like looking at the music industry but disregarding the very substantial market share of subscription streaming services. The fact that there is no agreed or perfect method to compare a read on KU with an actual sale does not justify disregarding it.

Fair enough. But in the music industry, sales of physical media are actually declining year by year. So there is no question that the digital market is having a real effect -- and while digital downloads are growing, you're right that in order to assess the market as a whole we have to take into account streaming services like Spotify.

But there are crucial differences, namely that (a) paper book sales are not trending downwards in a similar manner (in the UK, for example, print is up, see https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...-uk-book-sales) and (b) the structure of the publishing industry means that a lot of well-known authors are not on KU or other subscription services (whereas the artist who's not on Apple Music or Spotify is the rare exception).

The fact that print sales are increasing is in itself a very good indication that digital is not having a hugely detrimental effect on sales at the moment. You can make the argument (as it seems to me that you do below) that new sales channels have created a new market that wasn't there before, so that the market as a whole has actually increased. But that's fine, of course none of the Big 5 would want to compete with a $1.29 self-published indie if their sales are holding steady. Why would they?

Originally Posted by darryl

The point which you seem to have missed is that these figures do not take account of the majority of ebook sales, even if you take no account whatsoever of KU. I will assume for the sake of this discussion that you are correct in identifying the question addressed in this thread as "whether ebooks are losing steam in "taking over the market"". In this case, these figures establish that the answer is affirmative for the books covered by the report, which are essentially traditionally published books. Their value in resolving the question so far as the entire market is concerned is at best indirect, as the enormous number of ebooks not taken into account tend towards a negative answer.

Maybe if we go by sheer quantity of ebooks sold, the situation is a little different. Let's leave aside the not unimportant fact that print sales are doing very fine indeed, so we can't really say that they're "losing".

But what kind of metric is the one you're proposing? Isn't that comparing apples & oranges? Let's say that for the sake of the argument I grant you that the ebook market is slightly more than 50% indie & self-published (according to the Author Earnings website), that still leaves more than 40% for the Big 5 plus small/medium publishers.

And while the conventional wisdom here is that the Big 5 are all dinosaurs who don't know what they're doing, it seems to me that they have a point in the sense that as long as their market is strong (and it is), their need to lower prices is questionable at best.

I agree that the world of indie and self-publishing has enriched the book market. The fact that anyone can sell a book world-wide is a wonderful development.

I disagree on the effect that is actually having on the traditional (paper) book market. After an initial surge, ebook sales seem to have plateaud when it comes to traditional sales. Maybe we can sort of meet in the middle and agree that a new market has been created that is not served by the traditional publishing houses and is doing exceptionally well?

Matt

[issybird]

I wonder to what extent responses here reflect users who accumulated large libraries back in the days of cheaper prices and aggressive promotions? I'm a heavy OverDrive user, but I also find it easy to resist purchases at current BPH prices, in part because I have plenty to read already and in part because my expectations about ebook prices have yet to adjust to the new reality.

Similarly, Audible conditioned me to far cheaper audiobook prices with the OD Whispersync option and much lower Whispersync prices. The result is that most of my consumption has shifted to OverDrive and, increasingly, Hoopla.

I have no idea how long it takes for consumers to adjust to a sudden and sharp uptick in prices, but in a situation like this where there's a readily available free option and where consumers might be working off a large inventory, I suspect it's quite a long time.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Except we know why big 5 ebook sales are lagging. They're using agency price controls to keep their ebook prices up near the price of print books. This is widely known and hs already been stated several times in this thread.

No, it's not widely known, it's simply widely asserted to be the case. First we don't know if the big 5 ebook sales are lagging or not, they don't release sales figures. What we do know is that various people estimate that the sales figures are lagging. On the other hand, we also know that companies like Penguin reported record profits in 2016.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Bookworm_Girl

Yes, I agree. The OP asked why do we think ebook sales are declining? The article states

I am directly contributing to that decline in ebook sales because I no longer buy ebooks directly from the publishers, which I assume is what is the source of that metric. That's $605 in lost sales from me this year. Yet, I'm reading just as many or even more books than ever. And I'm still reading ebooks. I've just shifted to alternate distribution methods including library lending and a subscription service. I did not shift back to buying paper books.

Similar here. I also am contributing to that decline and am proud of it. I have not purchased a Big 5 ebook since the start of agency. I received no compensation from the price fixing settlement because my purchases from them simply ceased. I am in KU, and get many good books from there. I am also a member of a number of libraries and borrow the handful of ridiculously priced agency ebooks I want to read from them. In any month I will usually purchase quite a few Indies not in KU. I find I rarely read a tradpub book any more. Before agency all of this money would have gone mainly to the Big 5 (Big 6 at the time). Now virtually all of the money goes to Indies.

I have read only one print book since before agency, and that was borrowed from my local library.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by issybird

I wonder to what extent responses here reflect users who accumulated large libraries back in the days of cheaper prices and aggressive promotions? I'm a heavy OverDrive user, but I also find it easy to resist purchases at current BPH prices, in part because I have plenty to read already and in part because my expectations about ebook prices have yet to adjust to the new reality.

Similarly, Audible conditioned me to far cheaper audiobook prices with the OD Whispersync option and much lower Whispersync prices. The result is that most of my consumption has shifted to OverDrive and, increasingly, Hoopla.

I have no idea how long it takes for consumers to adjust to a sudden and sharp uptick in prices, but in a situation like this where there's a readily available free option and where consumers might be working off a large inventory, I suspect it's quite a long time.

I'm sure that expectation has something to do with it. That is one reason the publishers objected so strongly to Amazon's pricing schemes.

People who read have long been separated into a number of buying groups. In broad terms (because many people can be a mixture of groups), for years they use to be and still are to an extent.

- Free readers. They don't buy anything. All their reading material is via the library or books they borrow from other people.

- Used books. They frequent used book stores and never buy new books. Many trade in books, so their walk out price is extremely low.

- On Sale books. They wait for books to be reduced in price as book stores look to reduce inventory. They also frequent the low cost book stores.

- Walk in books. They buy books from the regular book stores at the regular price. Many buy paperback books for the most part, and only buy certain books in hard back (top sellers, favorite authors, etc.)

- Specialty books. These people are looking for specific books and are willing to pay what is necessary to get those books. Many will special order books. Some use book search companies to find rare or hard to find books.

So much of the divide we see at mobileread is nothing new. Many people tend to drift between categories depending on their interests and financial means. I've been in several different categories myself over the years. For a while, I was into collecting Civil War books, and still have a collection that cost thousands of dollars when I bought the books. I have no idea what they are worth now. Of course, most of those books are in PD now and I have electronic copies that were either free or cost a few dollars. I also have a few books that were purchased in London because they were not available in the US, so geo restrictions and getting past them is nothing new either.

[DiapDealer]

I'm happy there's so much choice. It's a great time to be a reader. There's something for everybody.

I'm less happy about large companies who feel the need to promote a false (or at the very least, largely unsubstantiated) narrative about the "decline" of ebooks simply because it suits their business agenda (never mind those who are happily lapping up the false narrative merely because it soothes their sensibilities). I don't think there's a single member here who would trash an article that extols the abundance of choice that book readers have today.

I wouldn't care if ebooks sales really were in serious decline (though nothing I've seen really supports that idea). Because at this point, ebooks aren't going anywhere either. But that doesn't mean I have to gobble up the blatant propaganda of companies who have a vested interest in the ebook/ereader market looking like it's in decline (or at least a vested interest in what such a decline supposedly means).

[darryl]

@DiapDealer. You are of course quite right. It is easy to lose sight of it, but it is a great time to be a reader. And, for that matter, a viewer, a listener or a gamer. We could do without the various fud including the declining ebook sales myth, but then we would miss the fun debunking it. Without Authors United, for instance, we could not have enjoyed Joe Konrath's fisking of the various letters and articles.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by darryl

@DiapDealer. You are of course quite right. It is easy to lose sight of it, but it is a great time to be a reader. And, for that matter, a viewer, a listener or a gamer. We could do without the various fud including the declining ebook sales myth, but then we would miss the fun debunking it. Without Authors United, for instance, we could not have enjoyed Joe Konrath's fisking of the various letters and articles.

Oh, I don't disagree. I was merely poining out that "everyone being happy for everyone else" isn't really relevant at all to believing (or respecting) an article author who hasn't done their homework (or is merely regurgitating propaganda).

I'm perfectly capable of being happy for all walks of readers AND believing this article is pure bull spit simultaneously.

Being happy that ebooks and pbooks will very likely be sharing healthy portions of the publishing market for a long, long time does not, in any way, obligate me to accept shoddy logic, or propagandist nonsense.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

No, it's not widely known, it's simply widely asserted to be the case. First we don't know if the big 5 ebook sales are lagging or not, they don't release sales figures. What we do know is that various people estimate that the sales figures are lagging. On the other hand, we also know that companies like Penguin reported record profits in 2016.

you are wrong on almost every point.

Yes they do release stats; perhaps you've heard of the AAP's month reports. The Big 5 also release quarterly reports which frequently include ebook revenue stats.And there's the Author Earnings Report.

Also, the original discussion point for this thread was the claim that ebook sales were down when in fact that stat was based solely on publisher ebook sales rather than the market, where the Author Earnings report says ebook sales have not decreased.

So you're not just wrong, you are embarrassingly wrong.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by MattW

The fact that print sales are increasing is in itself a very good indication that digital is not having a hugely detrimental effect on sales at the moment.

Print sales is one of those stats that the publishing industry cites to lie to itself about the impact of digital.
https://the-digital-reader.com/2017/...le-statistics/

Originally Posted by MattW

I disagree on the effect that is actually having on the traditional (paper) book market. After an initial surge, ebook sales seem to have plateaud when it comes to traditional sales. Maybe we can sort of meet in the middle and agree that a new market has been created that is not served by the traditional publishing houses and is doing exceptionally well?

Matt

That's only because you are choosing to ignore the available data.

[Cinisajoy]

Did that report use dollar amounts or book figures to arrive at 17%? I know I only buy BPH when they are $1.99.

Also if we are talking 2016 paper figures, it was an election year so there were a profusion/infusion/glut of political books that came out. That would easily make a 4% increase over 2015.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

you are wrong on almost every point.

Yes they do release stats; perhaps you've heard of the AAP's month reports. The Big 5 also release quarterly reports which frequently include ebook revenue stats.And there's the Author Earnings Report.

Also, the original discussion point for this thread was the claim that ebook sales were down when in fact that stat was based solely on publisher ebook sales rather than the market, where the Author Earnings report says ebook sales have not decreased.

So you're not just wrong, you are embarrassingly wrong.

I suspect you don't understand what is released. Companies publish financial statements. Those financial statements only talk about money, not units sold (unless the company wish to). A company's overall revenue (which in 2016 was at an all time high for Penguin, btw) doesn't actually match units sold. Actual units sold for a publisher, or even a given author is not something that is normally released. If you have a source for actual units sold that doesn't involve some guy making a guess, then by all means, show us. Author Earnings Report is a guy making guesses.

[MattW]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Print sales is one of those stats that the publishing industry cites to lie to itself about the impact of digital.
https://the-digital-reader.com/2017/...le-statistics/

[...]

That's only because you are choosing to ignore the available data.

The only "data" you provide is an article that is so polemic it borders on the ridiculous ("Lies, Damn Lies, and Book People Statistics" is the headline; how's that for unbiased reporting).

I love how some people think they somehow magically have the authority to just state something as a fact and that statement in itself is enough to end the discussion.

But what would I expect from someone who chose "the Great" as appropriate to describe himself?

[Is that too much? Am I at risk for being too uh, "direct" to an admin here?]

So, yes, I'll welcome a discussion about the substance but this "You're wrong because I say so, and I won't bother really engaging with the likes of you" innuendo doesn't give me a lot to work with.

Matt