Penguin no longer participates in Overdrive Library Service

[speakingtohe]

You know what bothers me the most about this little stunt of Penguin's? It helps to reinforce the idea that ebooks are easily taken away if a large company arbitrarily changes its mind about something. That makes people nervous...

I don't see this as ebook specific.

Look at the big HP touchpad blowout. Sure they gave people who had purchased before rebates, although I understand that many did not get them.

But someone purchasing a $599 tablet in July to find it discontinued and possibly unsupported in November from a reputable company like HP. Gotta hurt even if you did get a rebate.

But you bring an interesting point to mind. How does library availability work with paper books.

I have never heard of a paper book being unavailable for the library to buy and lend if they wished to do so.

It seems that is not so with ebooks? Should make for an interesting legal case one of these days.

Helen

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by khalleron

I still wonder why no one has filed a lawsuit against agency pricing - that's the very definition of 'price fixing' and highly illegal.

You mean this: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=152531 ?

[aagstn]

Stories like this remind me of the hundreds of dollars a year I used to spend on ebooks compared to the tens of dollars a year I now spend and then only on independent publishers. Hasn't slowed my reading at all. If the big publishers don't want my money I have no problem with not giving it to them.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by khalleron

Penguin's actions don't make any sense on the surface - there must be something we're missing.

As the largest publisher, Penguin probably has good sales data. That's what we're missing.

When Kindle availability was added to the US Overdrive EPUB program on September 21, there probably was an impact on total corporate revenue. And it sounds like it was negative.

Book publishers today are where newspapers were about ten years ago -- still highly profitable, but with a disruptive technology taking off. Publishers must be looking at what the free internet news model did to newspapers, and are being cautious.

At least Penguin, unlike such publishers as Macmillan and Simon & Schuster, is giving the Overdrive model a try.

I wonder if a model where print was released first, eBooks for individual reader purchase came out a little later, and there was Overdrive availability a year or so after that would work. By allowing older books to stay with Overdrive, but holding off the latest titles, Penguin is doing a partial experiment along those lines right now.

[MV64]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I absolutely hate the entire publishing landscape right now. Somebody wake me up when this crap has been sorted and ebooks are no longer the devil.

Can't buy the ebook unless you have the correct address... can't borrow the ebook unless you have a certain eReader. It's no wonder people just give up and pirate.

It's happening not just in the e-book industry. Every company is cutting out the middle man, making it harder on the consumer. For instance, networks like Showtime are now creating alternatives to Netflix. So instead of having one service, you're going to (eventually) have to have a bunch in order to have a good cross-section of shows to watch. Similarly, my trying to do everything themselves, corporations are essentially trying to enslave people to their corporate model (see Apple and Google).

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by MV64

It's happening not just in the e-book industry. Every company is cutting out the middle man, making it harder on the consumer. For instance, networks like Showtime are now creating alternatives to Netflix. So instead of having one service, you're going to (eventually) have to have a bunch in order to have a good cross-section of shows to watch. Similarly, my trying to do everything themselves, corporations are essentially trying to enslave people to their corporate model (see Apple and Google).

Consumers deserve this. It's what they want. So I don't see a problem for them.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by MV64

It's happening not just in the e-book industry. Every company is cutting out the middle man, making it harder on the consumer. For instance, networks like Showtime are now creating alternatives to Netflix. So instead of having one service, you're going to (eventually) have to have a bunch in order to have a good cross-section of shows to watch.

More choices are usually better

Similarly, my trying to do everything themselves, corporations are essentially trying to enslave people to their corporate model (see Apple and Google).

Offering people products that they can purchase if they want is a weird definition of "enslave." Also, cable television has been doing this for 30 years or more. It's not new.

[anamardoll]

Arriving late to the discussion...

I've donated several hundred dollars to my library this year. I sent them a check awhile back, and hadn't heard from them (and they hadn't cashed it), so I wrote them to triple-check it wasn't lost under a desk somewhere. My contact said they'd been rushing around in the wake of the Penguin issue -- the books were gone from their catalog and then reinstated again without the Kindle versions, apparently.

And the library is trying to work out how to prevent Penguin from "turning off" books in the future that were legally purchased in the past. And I'm pretty sure that the Overdrive agreements will probably prevent that because I'm sure the books are just "licensed" until the publisher decides they aren't anymore. Great.

This is extremely frustrated to me, as a consumer. I paid for some Penguin books directly with my donations. And I agree this reinforces the idea that ebooks can be "turned off" and taken away at any time. Not a good image to uphold.

Oh, and in other news, I checked out The Help at my library earlier in the year and liked it enough I paid $10 for a copy of my own. Guess that's my last Penguin book for awhile. Good job building your brand.

[ATimson]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I wonder if a model where print was released first, eBooks for individual reader purchase came out a little later, and there was Overdrive availability a year or so after that would work. By allowing older books to stay with Overdrive, but holding off the latest titles, Penguin is doing a partial experiment along those lines right now.

Would publishers really be willing to cannibalize their ebook sales that way?

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Arriving late to the discussion...

I've donated several hundred dollars to my library this year. I sent them a check awhile back, and hadn't heard from them (and they hadn't cashed it), so I wrote them to triple-check it wasn't lost under a desk somewhere. My contact said they'd been rushing around in the wake of the Penguin issue -- the books were gone from their catalog and then reinstated again without the Kindle versions, apparently.

And the library is trying to work out how to prevent Penguin from "turning off" books in the future that were legally purchased in the past. And I'm pretty sure that the Overdrive agreements will probably prevent that because I'm sure the books are just "licensed" until the publisher decides they aren't anymore. Great.

This is extremely frustrated to me, as a consumer. I paid for some Penguin books directly with my donations. And I agree this reinforces the idea that ebooks can be "turned off" and taken away at any time. Not a good image to uphold.

Oh, and in other news, I checked out The Help at my library earlier in the year and liked it enough I paid $10 for a copy of my own. Guess that's my last Penguin book for awhile. Good job building your brand.

Exactly!

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

More choices are usually better

More choices are better, when they're competing. Problem is, they're not. You want to watch HBO, Showtime, like you can via cable, and you have to get each separately. They're offering similar services, but no crossing over.

Right now, I subscribe to both Hulu and Netflix streaming, and while there is some cross over (where both services offer the same content), a good chunk of it isn't. Netflix offers more movies, or TV shows that are on DVD, where as Hulu offers more newer release TV shows (currently airing). For instance, my girlfriend and I started watching 30 Rock on Netflix, but when we got to the current season, we had to watch it on Hulu. This more complementary than competitive.

When each network has their own service, it is even less competitive. Now that scheduling is a non issue, is there any reason why I couldn't watch HBO and Showtime? Before, I would have to choose what I wanted to watch, based on the schedule, and they competed directly. Now, it simply boils down to "Do I like it enough to want to watch it?", where as if the answer is yes, then instead of paying one bill I now have 2 or 3. What really sucks is with many of these subscription services, the networks limit how or where you can watch it. For instance, for HBO, you have to have an ISP that has a deal with HBO, so your money isn't enough. On a lot of shows on Hulu, they're limited by the content owners to limit how far back they can keep the shows (currently CW limits to the most recent 5 episodes, and NBC often limits their popular shows to being viewable for free on the huluwebpage, and not to the paying Hulu Plus subscribers, despite the plus subscribers still seeing all the same ads as the people watching for free)

So, I don't see this as better.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

More choices are better, when they're competing. Problem is, they're not. You want to watch HBO, Showtime, like you can via cable, and you have to get each separately. They're offering similar services, but no crossing over.

Right now, I subscribe to both Hulu and Netflix streaming, and while there is some cross over (where both services offer the same content), a good chunk of it isn't. Netflix offers more movies, or TV shows that are on DVD, where as Hulu offers more newer release TV shows (currently airing). For instance, my girlfriend and I started watching 30 Rock on Netflix, but when we got to the current season, we had to watch it on Hulu. This more complementary than competitive.

When each network has their own service, it is even less competitive. Now that scheduling is a non issue, is there any reason why I couldn't watch HBO and Showtime? Before, I would have to choose what I wanted to watch, based on the schedule, and they competed directly. Now, it simply boils down to "Do I like it enough to want to watch it?", where as if the answer is yes, then instead of paying one bill I now have 2 or 3. What really sucks is with many of these subscription services, the networks limit how or where you can watch it. For instance, for HBO, you have to have an ISP that has a deal with HBO, so your money isn't enough. On a lot of shows on Hulu, they're limited by the content owners to limit how far back they can keep the shows (currently CW limits to the most recent 5 episodes, and NBC often limits their popular shows to being viewable for free on the huluwebpage, and not to the paying Hulu Plus subscribers, despite the plus subscribers still seeing all the same ads as the people watching for free)

So, I don't see this as better.

Agreed.

[vaughnmr]

I guess I'm a little confused about the library lending thingy. On the "Publisher Weekly" website, comments about the Penguin withdrawal seemed to state that people were getting ebooks for free, and the authors weren't being paid for the libray lending. Most of these comments, of course, are from authors and publishers, so they may be a little biased (against Amazon? or ebook patrons? I couldn't tell). I thought the publishers were being compensated for the library loaning.

[ProfCrash]

They are. They might not like the terms but they are being compensated. And I am sorry, but if they are going to pull their ebooks, they should be pulling their paperbooks. Libraries lend books. Publishers and Authors get paid when the book is purchased and then again when the book has to be repurchased.

Essentially, they are whining and throwing a temper tantrum because they are afraid of ebooks and are not doing a good job of adjusting to a new reality.

[emellaich]

Originally Posted by ATimson

Would publishers really be willing to cannibalize their ebook sales that way?

It's not necessarily cannibalizing. Most sales occur when a book is first released. By releasing it to libraries a year later, you may be getting new readers who ay not have bought the book. Hopefully, some will be interested enough to buy the newer releases instead of waiting.

Another 'tatic' I wonder about involves series. I notice that my library has a hodgepodge of books from each series they carry. If I really want to read the entire series, I will be forced to make purchases to fill in the gaps.

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

They are. They might not like the terms but they are being compensated. And I am sorry, but if they are going to pull their ebooks, they should be pulling their paperbooks. Libraries lend books. Publishers and Authors get paid when the book is purchased and then again when the book has to be repurchased.

Essentially, they are whining and throwing a temper tantrum because they are afraid of ebooks and are not doing a good job of adjusting to a new reality.

I'm not sure it is the same as paper books. Ebooks are much easier to check out -- at home, or even while you travel. If library ebooks are available at the same time as new, then I can see more people jumping on the ebook waiting list instead of purchasing.