Apple + Agency Pubs Colluded on Price?

[Synergi]

I don't buy of the Agency books anymore. I've found a lot of indie publishers I wouldn't have looked at before and have been quite enjoying myself.

I think they were missing the point that Ebooks were bring many people back to reading and book buying, as well as bringing in new people who weren't reading their books before for whatever reason. The comments about devaluing books is a dumb one.. I rather sell 50 books at 5 bucks then 20 at 10..

And yes Steve knew about the Agency model..and the publishers all set around talking about how the low prices devalued books. There was a video on them discussing it last year that was posted somewhere.

But hey, its America.. if your a corporation, you can get away with anything.

[joenunya]

Originally Posted by TimW

"Consumer rights and antitrust law firm Finkelstein Thompson has filed a class action complaint in a U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, against Apple and the “big six” book publishers alleging a conspiracy to fix eBook prices. This is the second class action complaint to hit these companies this month."

Edit: Random House is included in this lawsuit, unlike the lawsuit in CA.

hmmm, will the Agency 6, Agency 5 in the case of California, attorneys collude together in defending their individual clients? Note--this is a joke of a sort. Though it will be interesting is any of the entities beg off being sued individually. I even wonder if Jobs agreed to pay all legal fees before acting as the catalyst in this debacle.

Also of interest to me is the commission rate paid by the publishers is exactly equal to the iTunes store fees for iOS apps. Why not 25% or 35%? I wonder if the reason Jobs was said to look perturbed after a meeting with publishers right before the iPad announcement and new Agency pricing was announced was Jobs wanted a 35% cut so he could hike up the iOS fees. I just see this all as a very contrived plan by the major players with Jobs looking to find a way to exclude competition from the iTunes store withing doing it overtly.

Far as I'm concerned they can all go pound sand. I'm happy with the stack of books I'll not finish before I die. Plus, to be honest I don't see many current authors I want to pay money to read anyway. I buy far more back catalog titles than new releases. Not sure it revolves around Agency pricing or not but I can say that model sure does not help make me want to buy newer books. I am even less likely to try a new author even with good reviews because I have been disappointed far more than pleased based on what seem to be reasonable reviews both pro and con.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Synergi

I rather sell 50 books at 5 bucks then 20 at 10..

If the cost of producing an e-book is $4, you're better off selling 20 at $10.

(And there's no evidence that I've seen showing any precipitous drop in the number of e-books sold when the price went from $10 to $14).

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

(And there's no evidence that I've seen showing any precipitous drop in the number of e-books sold when the price went from $10 to $14).

Because the numbers would have gone up fast if they remained at $10 as more people turn to ebooks.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Because the numbers would have gone up fast if they remained at $10 as more people turn to ebooks.

Well, we don't really know that for sure. Unless you are saying the *rate* of adoption/sales has decreased since the Agency pricing took effect?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by kjk

Well, we don't really know that for sure. Unless you are saying the *rate* of adoption/sales has decreased since the Agency pricing took effect?

What we do know is that indie ebooks sales have gone up faster. Isn't that proof enough?

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

If the cost of producing an e-book is $4, you're better off selling 20 at $10.

(And there's no evidence that I've seen showing any precipitous drop in the number of e-books sold when the price went from $10 to $14).

Only if money is the only validation you look for as an author.

And only if you don't want plenty of readers who then recommend your book to other people and give you free publicity.

And only if you forget that eBooks sales are forever and that the growing fan base and sales rank will help sales over time.

And only if your $4 eBook is your ONLY eBook and you don't have lots of other books for your expanding fan base to purchase.

And only... oh, heck, just go read Joe Konrath's blog already.

[elcreative]

Definitely, most authors are wealthy philanthropists to whom money is an everlastingly dirty word that infringes on their artistic integrity...

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Definitely, most authors are wealthy philanthropists to whom money is an everlastingly dirty word that infringes on their artistic integrity...

*sigh*

That's not what I meant.

Look. I'm writing a book, so I'm a wanna-be indie author. Like the poster that said that zie would rather sell 50 books than 20, I too would rather sell 50 books than 20 because... wait for it...

I don't expect to be able to quit my day job on my book.

Seriously. I'm doing this because I want to write a book and I hope that someone might enjoy reading it. Having 50 readers would be WAY more validating to me than 20 readers because the extra tiny bit of profit in this math problem we've set up ($50 profit versus $120 profit) is NOT going to make a difference to me. Either way, I'm not going to be made rich on my writing.

Then, the REST of my post -- which you conveniently ignored because it would have ruined the snark -- was that even if you ARE in it for the money, a broad reader base over time and with a large selection for them to buy may make MORE money than a smaller reader base.

But, you know, I kind of get the impression that you just wanted to snark. So you have me there -- I expect all artists to starve and be happy about it.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

If the cost of producing an e-book is $4, you're better off selling 20 at $10.

The "cost of producing a book" depends on the number sold, for ebooks. Print books have a base production cost per book (which is still somewhat flexible, but at least calculable for a given print run); ebooks don't.

(And there's no evidence that I've seen showing any precipitous drop in the number of e-books sold when the price went from $10 to $14).

The market has been steadily increasing for years, and skyrocketed in the last couple of years. The issue isn't whether sales "dropped," but whether they failed to increase as fast as they would have at the lower price-point.

Certainly the sales of $1-$4 ebooks has climbed dramatically since Agency Pricing went into effect. One issue that needs consideration is how many $3 books were sold to someone who would've bought a $10 bestseller but decided that, at $14, they'd rather buy one or more indie books at the lower price.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Certainly the sales of $1-$4 ebooks has climbed dramatically since Agency Pricing went into effect. One issue that needs consideration is how many $3 books were sold to someone who would've bought a $10 bestseller but decided that, at $14, they'd rather buy one or more indie books at the lower price.

Plus the people who would have bought the $10 book with a 20% coupon, but can't because NO COUPONS ON AGENCY BOOKS.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

*sigh*

That's not what I meant.

Look. I'm writing a book, so I'm a wanna-be indie author. Like the poster that said that zie would rather sell 50 books than 20, I too would rather sell 50 books than 20 because... wait for it...

I don't expect to be able to quit my day job on my book.

Seriously. I'm doing this because I want to write a book and I hope that someone might enjoy reading it. Having 50 readers would be WAY more validating to me than 20 readers because the extra tiny bit of profit in this math problem we've set up ($50 profit versus $120 profit) is NOT going to make a difference to me. Either way, I'm not going to be made rich on my writing.

Then, the REST of my post -- which you conveniently ignored because it would have ruined the snark -- was that even if you ARE in it for the money, a broad reader base over time and with a large selection for them to buy may make MORE money than a smaller reader base.

But, you know, I kind of get the impression that you just wanted to snark. So you have me there -- I expect all artists to starve and be happy about it.

I was having a dig because it was partly invited and it was fun but I was also extremely serious... through SF conventions (attending, organising and running), local book groups and managing as well as working for bookshops, I have spent a great deal of time chatting with a large number of authors (a good three figures worth at least), probably more than most and they all have something in common... either very thankful to finally be able to have an income from writing so they can write full time or wishing they had enough income from writing to be able to do it full time.

If you want to write a book then fine, sell it for a loss or give it away to get people to read it but if you want to be a full time writer then you must earn enough from your books to be able to look after yourself (and family if relevant) and that means getting a decent return from the time invested in writing a book. Giving them away isn't getting a return, it's advertising and thus an expense... and as advertising, it is not necessarily the most cost effective... I and many others do look at free titles but they always tend to stay on the TBR pile if wanted, paid-for titles become available thus failing in the reason they're being given away... and giving a false idea of popularity for that free title.

The arguments for freebies, super-cheap titles and other come-ons generally come from those who are not full-time writers but few full-time writers use these methods unless they are very successful and can afford to scatter some goodwill back to their readers...

So equally "sigh"

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Certainly the sales of $1-$4 ebooks has climbed dramatically since Agency Pricing went into effect. One issue that needs consideration is how many $3 books were sold to someone who would've bought a $10 bestseller but decided that, at $14, they'd rather buy one or more indie books at the lower price.

Or who waited until the Agency lowered the price to $0.99 - $2.99. Recently the various Agency publishers lowered hundreds of prices to as low as $0.99 for a limited time. That set a precedent and we are now trained to wait for special sales/promos. Don't like the current price? Wait for the next sale. If the previous promotion was successful (profitable?), then there will be another one.

The agency 6 has all kinds of sales data and maybe, just maybe, they will find the pricing sweet spot very soon.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by elcreative

The arguments for freebies, super-cheap titles and other come-ons generally come from those who are not full-time writers but few full-time writers use these methods unless they are very successful and can afford to scatter some goodwill back to their readers...

Like Konrath?

The arguments for cheap *ebooks* are drastically different from the arguments for cheap paper books.

Paper books cost to print, cost to deliver, cost to track inventory. They take up space while you've got them and take postage to send them away. The price *can't* ever drop to garage-sale levels; no matter how much publishers yell that production costs are really all about advances, editing, and overhead, the fact is, they cost considerably more than three-for-a-dollar to print, especially anything bigger than 150-page mmpbs.

Ebooks, however, *don't* cost to print. Don't cost to deliver. Inventory is simple and also cheap. At three-for-a-dollar, that's at least 25 cents profit. (Not that you can sell ebooks that cheap at any store, because *they* have overhead costs and don't want to deal with five-cent-per-sale incomes.)

The best method for pbooks is: price as high as the market will bear, because the fewer units you have to make, the lower your expenses. If you can make your annual income selling one book for $50,000, go for it. Every book created is an *expense;* it costs materials, accounting time, and physical resources from several people not included in the money-chain. The costs of making the book have to be balanced against the benefits that it brings.

The best method for ebooks is: price as low as you can to balance the maximum number of sales with profit-per-sale. If John Locke's sales would've been cut in half with his books at $2.99 each, he still would've been better off that way. (If, however, he'd've only had 1/5 the sales he got at a dollar, he made the better choice.)

Every ebook created is *not* an expense. There's *no* reason not to have a million of them... if you can find a million customers.

We don't know what the "sweet spot" is for ebooks, not by genre or subcategory, not by individual book. But it's damn well not $12.99, as shown by the incredible surge in sales when the price drops, and the number of $3-a-book authors who are paying their rent from Kindle sales.

Yes, it's a tiny number. Making a living from arts & crafts has *always* been precarious. The real question: Are *more* bestselling $12.99-a-book authors making a living at their craft, than $3-a-book indie authors?

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Yes, it's a tiny number. Making a living from arts & crafts has *always* been precarious. The real question: Are *more* bestselling $12.99-a-book authors making a living at their craft, than $3-a-book indie authors?

Authors hoping to support themselves by writing full-time live day-to-day in perpetual fear.

Regarding who makes a living: Are there more best-selling Agency authors in the Kindle million club or indie authors?

Mark Corker of Smashwords has said there are less than 50 authors (out of 14,000) that make more than $50,000/yr.