Irate kindlers 1star carpet bomb Michael Connelly's new book

[queentess]

Originally Posted by Solicitous

I agree with many of the comments on Amazon, but unfortunately the rating is meant to be with the actual book itself and not a place to protest disgust in pricing. But given this has been happening recently surely the publishers will start paying attention soon.

I disagree, I rather think price has a bearing on whether or not I'm getting a good value. As you say, hopefully the publishers will start noticing. If this is what it takes to get their attention, I'm all for it.

[DiapDealer]

I hate one-star book reviews based on price alone. Even if you consider the interpreted "value" of your purchase to be valid criteria in a book review... it's certainly not the only criteria. Where's the rest of the review? I'd have absolutely no problem with a valid one-star review based on a reader's enjoyment of the book compared to the price they payed for it: "The book was great! I loved the characters but the price was ridiculous." Or; "I hated the story, the characters, and the price." But nobody's doing that, the one-star reviewers are cherry-picking the easy beef. Give a complete review and there will be no issue. Surely that's not too much to ask?

You can't accurately determine "value" when you haven't examined all the criteria yet.

I know why they're doing it. And I agree with the intent... I just don't think a book review is the proper place for it. And even though I'm a regular Amazon customer, I hate Amazon for tacitly encouraging the one-star review while holding up their hands to the publishers and saying "Wasn't us. Talk to those guys!"

So to recap:
1) I hate the book review system being turned into an angry peasant mob with pitchforks and torches
2) I hate Amazon for giving the misguided campaign their silent blessing
3) I hate publishers for forcing an ebook seller into a position where they would allow users to bastardize the book review system for their own political leverage.

Shame on everybody.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by Piper_

If they don't let them make at least close to the equivalent of what they make on the hardcover during that new release window, I'm afraid publishers will either stop putting out the ebook version until the window is passed, or they'll raise prices of mid and back list books, to make up for the difference.

Why do you believe (aside from certain publishers saying so) that an ebook costs a publisher more to produce than a hardcover of the same book?

Let's look at it realistically. First, take out everything that is shared between the two formats, like knocking identical terms out of the sides of an equation. Proofreading, editing, formatting, and so on are all applicable to both, so they can go. So let's look at the lists, with expenses in red and credits in black:

PBOOK:

physically printing and binding the book
shipping book from printer to warehouse
storing book in warehouse
taxes on unsold books (assessed annually)
shipping book from warehouse to distributor
discount from publisher to distributor and distributor to retailer - minimum 50%
shipping unsold book from distributor to warehouse
price paid by remainder store, paper recycler, etc.

EBOOK:

commission paid to Amazon - 30%

Notice a bit of a difference here? Even if we leave out everything except how much the publisher gets per book -- that is, if we assume the publisher guesses the sales precisely, so there are no returns (which are often half of a print run) and no books sitting in the warehouse eating space and paying taxes, we're looking at 50% (publisher's cut of a pbook) versus 70% (publisher's cut of an ebook). Factor returns in there and you're effectively doubling your cost of goods sold, minus the pennies on the dollar that the recycler or remainderer will pay. Slate had an article a while back showing that after all is said and done, including the author's royalty, a publisher may bring in about a dollar of actual profit from a printed hardcover.

One of the flaws of some people's thinking is the assumption that "big companies are always right" and that such companies make the most profitable and successful decisions possible. For them I have two words: Cadillac Cimmaron.* Companies are run by people, and by the people those people hire as their fellow decision-makers and eventual successors, and people can do some remarkably stupid things. I suspect that not long in the future, we'll look back and the current era of ebook sales and pricing rather like we do the Detroit implosion: asking "what were they thinking?" Companies do not always make optimal decisions (remember when Texas Instruments sold a superb computer ... and killed it by suing anyone who sold software for it?) any more than individuals do. I think the decision to leave the potential profits from ebooks on the table in order to protect the market for hardcover pbooks is one of those decisions.

Basically, the publishers are looking at profit per unit sold, like they did with that unfortunate Chevy Cadillac, rather than at their total profit from the market, and making decisions that are bad for them in the long term. And this isn't just hurting them, because those decisions are also bad for their customers in the short term.

*Note for the automotively uninitiated: the Cadillac Cimmaron was a Chevy econobox with a Cadillac nameplate slapped on it. It had neither the power and luxury of a Cadillac nor the cheapness of a Chevy. It damn near killed the brand, and its introduction is widely regarded as one of the worst automobile company decisions ever.

[Catlady]

Frankly, I think the one-star reviews because of pricing are a great example of consumers trying to exert pressure in the marketplace. How else are we supposed to express outrage? Just refusing to buy isn't enough--there could be a lot of reasons for that.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Frankly, I think the one-star reviews because of pricing are a great example of consumers trying to exert pressure in the marketplace. How else are we supposed to express outrage? Just refusing to buy isn't enough--there could be a lot of reasons for that.

Not buying an over-priced ebook is great, but if masses of people don't buy it, the publisher will read that as "there is no demand for ebooks" or, even worse, "there is no demand for this author". It's not enough to not buy the book, there has to be a clearly communicated reason for doing so.

[Asawi]

Interesting price develpment. The Kindle edition is now marked 15.99 when I look it up...

[DiapDealer]

Frankly, I think the one-star reviews because of pricing are a great example of consumers trying to exert pressure in the marketplace. How else are we supposed to express outrage?

By carpet-bombing the publisher with emails from angry readers, for one. Where it might actually do some good... where the rage actually belongs. You don't think publishers are actually reading Amazon book reviews do you? The one-star campaign accomplishes nothing except annoying potential readers who are trying to get an idea about the quality and the content of a book.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by queentess

I disagree, I rather think price has a bearing on whether or not I'm getting a good value. As you say, hopefully the publishers will start noticing. If this is what it takes to get their attention, I'm all for it.

Agree. This is a valid route to go. A better one is to just boycott the books and send emails to both publisher and author explaining why.

[Lemurion]

The publishers understand the eBook should be cheaper than the hardcover - that's why the list price is thirteen dollars lower. I think $14.99 is more than that book is worth - but if publishers made a general rule of setting eBook list prices at just over half what they do for the current paper edition I think very few readers would have a problem.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

By carpet-bombing the publisher with emails from angry readers, for one. Where it might actually do some good... where the rage actually belongs. You don't think publishers are actually reading Amazon book reviews do you? The one-star campaign accomplishes nothing except annoying potential readers who are trying to get an idea about the quality and the content of a book.

Why would you think the publishers are not paying attention? And even if they aren't, the authors certainly are--you think an author isn't going to notice and bring it to the publisher's attention?

Ideally, it would be nice to bombard the publishers with mail as well, but the beauty of the one-star reviews is that it's easy to post them, it's public pressure, which is more effective than private expressions of annoyance, and it influences other customers to do the same thing.

And the trade-off is that some potential readers have to search a little harder for a review dealing with the content--so what?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

A better one is to just boycott the books and send emails to both publisher and author explaining why.

That's a MUCH better route. And one I could support whole-heartedly.

[DiapDealer]

Ideally, it would be nice to bombard the publishers with mail as well, but the beauty of the one-star reviews is that it's easy to post them, it's public pressure, which is more effective than private expressions of annoyance, and it influences other customers to do the same thing.

You've hit the nail on the head with my bolding of your text. Thank you for saying it for me. I'll bow out of the conversation, now, with one final thought: "The right thing to do is very rarely the easiest thing. The right thing usually requires more effort."

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Why would you think the publishers are not paying attention? And even if they aren't, the authors certainly are--you think an author isn't going to notice and bring it to the publisher's attention?

Ideally, it would be nice to bombard the publishers with mail as well, but the beauty of the one-star reviews is that it's easy to post them, it's public pressure, which is more effective than private expressions of annoyance, and it influences other customers to do the same thing.

And the trade-off is that some potential readers have to search a little harder for a review dealing with the content--so what?

As others have noted, ratings are permanent. This means that even if an e-book's price goes from $16 to 99 cents, the one-star review stays. So that punishes an author permanently for a problem that a) wasn't their decision, and b) wasn't permanent.

Secondly, because the reviews are overall reviews, rather than segmented into different aspects of the book, a reader looking at the reviews comes to the conclusion, "Hey, this book must suck", rather than "This book must be priced too high". So aside from being unfair, it's inaccurate to post a one-star review on a book when you're only analyzing one aspect of the product.

Reviewers should at least be required to divide their reviews into price and content. That would give an accurate reflection of the work.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You've hit the nail on the head with my bolding of your text. Thank you for saying it for me. I'll bow out of the conversation, now, with one final thought: "The right thing to do is very rarely the easiest thing. The right thing usually requires more effort."

Yep, and people always find an excuse as to why they won't send the emails or boycott the product.

Publisher 1, Consumer 0

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

As others have noted, ratings are permanent. This means that even if an e-book's price goes from $16 to 99 cents, the one-star review stays. So that punishes an author permanently for a problem that a) wasn't their decision, and b) wasn't permanent.

So what? Let the author take it up with the publisher then. Typos and bad formatting might not be the author's fault either, and might be corrected after a review is posted, but reviews complain about those, too.

Secondly, because the reviews are overall reviews, rather than segmented into different aspects of the book, a reader looking at the reviews comes to the conclusion, "Hey, this book must suck", rather than "This book must be priced too high". So aside from being unfair, it's inaccurate to post a one-star review on a book when you're only analyzing one aspect of the product.

Again, so what? I could argue that this is a good thing, as if people don't buy, that's more pressure on the publisher to adjust pricing.

Reviewers should at least be required to divide their reviews into price and content. That would give an accurate reflection of the work.

I really am not concerned that a bunch of one-star reviews are going to hurt the author's tender feelings. In any case, the reviews state why they are one-star--price, not content.