Article: Is Someone Fixing Ebook prices?

[lilac_jive]

Originally Posted by toddos

Actually, the reason hardcover books are priced higher is (or was, in the past) related to materials cost -- hardcover print runs are smaller, which means that you don't get as much economy of scale nor can you amortize your other fixed cross over as many sales. That's why paperbacks are also called "mass market" books -- when a book makes it to paperback, the print run is much larger and thus the cost per book is smaller.

Ebooks are like infinite mass market -- there's 0 production cost, and you can instantly create billions of them. Thus they should never be priced higher than the average paperback and not the hardcover, despite releasing at the same time as the hardcover.

Yes, but there is a lot less margin with mass markets. If they are pulled off the shelf, they are destroyed. Even with the hardcovers they can sell the excess to remainder companies to reduce cost. So the publisher's mentality is OMG we can't lose our biggest moneymaker!!! without thinking that for a small amount less off the price they may get a lot more downloads. They still want that high margin, which due to poor management (IMO) they need to cover many costs with. I can't remember the exact stats, but something like 10% of the titles in a given year cover pretty much all the advances and such for the rest of the books. Most books published lose money.

I am in no way arguing for the publishers, by the way. Just pointing it out. Harlequin (or Mills & Boon) has a thriving company that pretty much exclusively publishes mass markets (and cheap ebooks), not to mention they have phenomenal customer service. I think the biggest problem for the big publishers is the giant advances they pay out. As much as it may upset authors, they really should lower advances drastically and instead offer higher percentages from actual sales.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

The $20+ difference between the cost of a hardback and the cost of a paperback has almost *nothing* to do with the difference in materials, which is maybe $1. It has everything to do with the fact that people will pay more for hardbacks. Yet people don't seem to be complaining about this, despite the fact that the $15-20 difference in price between the hardback and paperback price is much larger than the price difference between ebooks and paperbacks.

What makes me willing to pay the extra price for the hardcover is mostly the newness of the book. I don't want to wait a year for the paperback copy; I want to read the book right away, and I'm willing to pay for that.

I think it would make sense to price a new e-book at a price close to that of the hardcover book that comes out at the same time--say maybe 10 percent less. But then drop the price when the paperback is available, again setting the e-book price a little lower.

[toddos]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I think it would make sense to price a new e-book at a price close to that of the hardcover book that comes out at the same time--say maybe 10 percent less. But then drop the price when the paperback is available, again setting the e-book price a little lower.

But why? The ebook isn't supply-limited. There aren't only 20,000 of them out there and if you don't get one you're stuck until the next printing or the mass market version.

Taken a different way, would you rather sell 20,000 books at $20 or 100,000 at $10? This of course assumes that the book will sell at all. If the book's no good, no price is worth it.

[catsittingstill]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Book prices aren't now and have never been (at least since the printing press) about the cost of materials.

(snip...)
Prices are set *by the market.* Which means that they are set by what people are willing to pay.

Err... well, they *were* set by the market anyway. You know, back before Agency 5 price-fixing, when e-books were cheaper?

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

They are not set according to some fixed scheme where publishers are only allowed to make a fixed profit on a book, meaning that if the costs go down, they are obligated (morally or otherwise) to drop prices so that still only make the same fixed profit. It sounds ridiculous just typing that.

Absolutely. They have no obligation not to gouge me. And by the same token, I have no obligation not to notice, or not to mind, or not to mention it, when I'm being gouged. Matching mutual lack of obligation; isn't it nice?

I don't mind the publishing companies making a profit. I do, emphatically, mind when they try to make more profit off me than they do off my brother who buys paper.

And once they've tried to gouge me on the e-book, I'm not particularly interested in the paper book either. Why would I buy *anything* off someone who tried to gouge me?

So I go over to Baen, which manages to make a profit selling e-books in multiple formats, without DRM, for two dollars cheaper than a paperback, from the hour the hardback comes out. Because, you know, that's who the Agency 5 is competing with.

Or I go over to manybooks.net, or mobileread's own book collection, and get public domain books available in multiple formats, without DRM, for absolutely free. Because, you know, that's also who the Agency 5 is competing with.

So far I have googled to find the lowest legitimate prices, and those google searches always turn up a couple of torrent sites on the first page, which I haven't gone to, because I want authors to get paid for their work. But not everybody is as meticulous about that as I am, and you know--that's also who the Agency 5 is competing with.

Boy, you'd think those Agency 5 folks would scrape together a brain and realize they don't want people feeling price gouged, because the competition is numerous and stiff.

And people might get out of the habit of looking at Agency 5 books at all.

[Steven Lake]

Originally Posted by toddos

Misuse of the phrase "begging the question" is a personal pet peeve of mine. I find it so annoying that once an author uses it I can't take anything they say seriously. At least this author used it in his very first sentence, saving me from reading a page worth of idiotic drivel from a moron. Or at least that's how I consider him now that he misused the phrase.

Well, not to sound to sound antagonistic or obtuse, but in what way would you consider the phrase "begging the question" to be properly used? It's simply my asking out of curiosity and not for any other reason.

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by Steven Lake

Well, not to sound to sound antagonistic or obtuse, but in what way would you consider the phrase "begging the question" to be properly used? It's simply my asking out of curiosity and not for any other reason.

I'll take you at your word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question


But after rereading the that part of the article, I think the author meant the phrase literally. It probably would have been better to word it as "leading us to ask the question" or something.

[toddos]

Originally Posted by Steven Lake

Well, not to sound to sound antagonistic or obtuse, but in what way would you consider the phrase "begging the question" to be properly used? It's simply my asking out of curiosity and not for any other reason.

As CleverClothe pointed out, "begging the question" is the term for the logical fallacy of assuming that the proposition is true in your premise, or a form of circular logic. It uses an older definition of "to beg" which means "to leave unanswered" or "to avoid" which many people are not familiar with. It's probably not the best logical fallacy name choice, but it's what we've got and using it incorrectly dillutes its meaning.

[Steven Lake]

Alright, fair enough for me.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by Steven Lake

Well, not to sound to sound antagonistic or obtuse, but in what way would you consider the phrase "begging the question" to be properly used? It's simply my asking out of curiosity and not for any other reason.

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

But after rereading the that part of the article, I think the author meant the phrase literally. It probably would have been better to word it as "leading us to ask the question" or something.

Glad you asked the question, because I was wondering the same thing! Yes, it's a logical fallacy, but around here we use the phrase literally. "Begging the question" means "leading us to ask the question" unless you're specifically talking about arguments or logic. Must be a regional thing?

[toddos]

Originally Posted by queentess

Glad you asked the question, because I was wondering the same thing! Yes, it's a logical fallacy, but around here we use the phrase literally. "Begging the question" means "leading us to ask the question" unless you're specifically talking about arguments or logic. Must be a regional thing?

I don't think it's a regional thing, more of a "want to appear educated" thing. "Begging the question" is a phrase that people use when they want to appear smart, but then they use it wrong and blow their cover.

The sad thing is that more and more the phrase is losing its real meaning. It's not just regular folks misusing it around the water cooler, but newscasters, journalists, reporters, and other people who should know better (or should at least know not to use phrases that they don't understand) misuse it all the time. That's why it's changed its meaning in the vernacular. It's also why it's a pet peeve of mine, and not necessarily an incorrect use of language (like "could care less", which implies that you do care, when you meant to say "couldn't care less" because you don't care). I have no illusions about fixing how people talk, but it still bugs me and I will instantly judge the user if they use it wrong.

[AGB]

Originally Posted by toddos

I don't think it's a regional thing, more of a "want to appear educated" thing. "Begging the question" is a phrase that people use when they want to appear smart, but then they use it wrong and blow their cover.

The sad thing is that more and more the phrase is losing its real meaning. It's not just regular folks misusing it around the water cooler, but newscasters, journalists, reporters, and other people who should know better (or should at least know not to use phrases that they don't understand) misuse it all the time. That's why it's changed its meaning in the vernacular. It's also why it's a pet peeve of mine, and not necessarily an incorrect use of language (like "could care less", which implies that you do care, when you meant to say "couldn't care less" because you don't care). I have no illusions about fixing how people talk, but it still bugs me and I will instantly judge the user if they use it wrong.

Toddos, I just made a thread inspired by you

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho....php?p=1262576

[Lastblade]

This post begs the question, why did I click "Post Quick Reply" button?