Publishers still missing the point on e-book prices

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Blue Tyson

No, but it does mean they are much more likely to be.

Typical, learn nothing from your insulting and condescending attitude being criticised, just go on to compound it...

[Blue Tyson]

If you don't like actual reality or understand probability, then too bad.

You don't believe that teenagers are more likely to do crazy things in cars, either, probably.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Blue Tyson

Well, you are pretty slow if you don't realize that people that age on probability are far less likely to be Internet experts. That's not age discrimination, it is a fact.

Fred Pohl has a blog, too. Not an Internet expert. And the Google Book settlement has nothing to do with whether you know anything about the Internet or not.

I think you should READ and not ASSUME, based on probability and stereotype. You'll go further in life that way.

Being an Internet "expert" ( whatever that means) isn't germane to this discussion. What matters are interests of authors, publishers, and readers.

[Blue Tyson]

I have. Nothing Le Guin has ever written gives any evidence of such. On probability I will have read more by Le Guin than you, too. ;-)

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by TechnoCat

TV Networks do. XM Radio does. Dish Network does. Netflix does.

I wasn't referring to TV networks or radio. While XM has earned a profit this year it is saddled with $3 billion debt. All bonds junk status. Wall St doesn't care for the stock or its outlook.

Dish Network also profitable (though declining) but purchased Blockbuster (a money losing company) while it has $7 Billion in long term debt.

Netflix lost money during second quarter in its streaming service. Only earned profit due to one-time tax benefit last quarter and company expects to be unprofitable all of 2012.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by tompe

No. The people that read books do not think that one book is interchangeable with another book. They want to read a specific book. So they do not see it as just entertainment that can be replaced with another entertainment.

I disagree with this. I am an avid reader. I agree that reading cannot be exchanged for TV or movies, each gives its own experience. In my case, TV gives no experience; I never watch it. I do watch, occasionally, movies as well as go to the movie theater. But in both instances, they are as much a social event as an entertainment event; that is, I do not watch the movie solo, it is nearly always with at least one other person. Reading a book, however, is a solo endeavor.

But I have found that one fiction book can easily be substituted for another. I have found no problem in replacing, for example, epic fantasy by Terry Goodkind with epic fantasy by Richard Tuttle.

It is not that books can be substituted on an identical basis -- no two authors write the same just as no two books have identical content -- but they can be substituted on an entertainment basis, that is, Book B can easily be as entertaining as Book A.

Unless price is never a consideration when buying a book, we make these substitution judgments all the time. We decide that rather than spend $14.99 on XYZ's newest mystery, we spend $7.99 on ABC's newest mystery and wait for the day when XYZ's drops to $7.99. If it never drops and we find ABC's books equally entertaining, we are likely to never buy XYZ's book and are likely to buy ABC's other books.

Substitution is less likely with nonfiction than with fiction, but with fiction, it happens all the time, consciously or unconsciously.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by tompe

I will prefer a more expensive book since if it is cheap you can suspect that the book is not so good since they have to compete using price.

You are missing out on a world of excellent reading by making low price a disqualifier.

The availability of a free ebook and the knowledge that other books by the author were low priced, led me to try, for example, Shayne Parkinson, Vicki Tyley, Richard Tuttle, and L.J. Sellers. Each is an outstanding author in their genre and reading the free ebook led me to buy their other ebooks (in Tuttle's case that amounted to 28 ebooks).

One example: Parkinson's free Sentence of Marriage was outstanding and I recommended it to my wife and to several friends. My wife read the book and recommended it to her friends. Everyione of us read all of Parkinson's available ebooks -- all as a result of Sentence of Marriage being free.

If I had your approach, I never would have read any of these authors and would have missed out on some of the best writing available. That none of the BPHs published their books is meaningless. There are lots of reasons why a book doesn't get picked up by a publisher, none of which have anything to do with literary merit.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by rhadin

It is not that books can be substituted on an identical basis -- no two authors write the same just as no two books have identical content -- but they can be substituted on an entertainment basis, that is, Book B can easily be as entertaining as Book A.

That was what I wrote. But what I said also was that most people do not read a book just for entertainment reasons. A book is read in a social context and that give other reason than entertainment reasons. Reasons like that a friend have recommended the book or that the book is talked about or that the book is nominated for an award and so on.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by rhadin

You are missing out on a world of excellent reading by making low price a disqualifier.

What I meant was that all other things equal I would choose the more expensive book. Of course if for example a friend I trust had recommended a book I would choose that book and not care about the price.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Defending copyright is a great thing , according to Ms. Ursula K. Leguin.



LINK

Now of course, she is one of the greatest SF authors of all time and quite au courant with all things Internet, but what does she know?

Dead writers don't live in poverty...

"Fact: Copyright is a limited and carefully designed law to protect authors from poverty. It allows authors control over the rights in their books, so that they, like any worker, can make what profit they can from their work."

I can live with that. But Life + 50? Life + 70? Keep stretching it to infinity minus 1? That doesn't benefit "the author", it benefits the middle man. That's where my beef comes from. I have no problem with authors deciding to cut out the middle man. I'm an independent contractor, and I may or may not farm out some of my marketing. I choose, not the middleman. And when I die, I get no more money from my work. Same as a Doctor, Lawyer, or Plumber - even if my work is used for another 100 years. So why are writers special?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by stonetools

If you are going to buy indie, well, that's great-keeps the major publishers on their toes. Most buyers are going to buy established authors, because they know that Steven King or James Patterson will deliver, whereas they have never heard of aspiring author Stephanie King , who can only compete by doing everything herself and pricing her book at used book prices.

There is a place for everyone in the ebook market, just as there are places in the car market for the BMWs and the Infinitis,(to say nothing of the Ferraris and the Bentleys) as well as for the Sentras and the Chevies. you don't have to sell BMWS at Sentra prices.

Stonetools, let me explain again. Indie is the new pulp. Historically there are a lot more pulp readers than high-brow readers.

If "Stephanie King" ever builds up a fan base (which may happen over time) it's her fan base, not a Big 6 publisher's. All the money will be hers. Like any other businessperson's business.

A lot of gerne bestsellers build up their reputation among their fans the hard way, in the pulps. Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov, LeGuin, all started in the pulps. They "cashed in" with the bestsellers later. That's what the system allowed, until recently. But nowadays, that's only one choice among others. Both for the writer and the readers. Pulps is back, and more profitable than ever. And the more successful an author becomes, the less reason to "graduate" to the big leagues...

[HarryT]

What are "gerne bestsellers", Ralph? Haven't come across that term before.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What are "gerne bestsellers", Ralph? Haven't come across that term before.

genre. So I can't type good....

[TechnoCat]

Originally Posted by tompe

No. The people that read books do not think that one book is interchangeable with another book. They want to read a specific book..

That may be true for a series... e.g. I will read the next Terry Pratchett book (though I am deeply disappointed in the current one so that may change), but it is not typically true. I usually am buying a book that either I don't know the series or isn't in a series (as in most non-fiction.) And I am very price sensitive, not because I don't have enough money - I probably average five $100+ bar-nights a month! - but because there's a sense of unfairness in paying more for the ebook than for the paperback or $11 for short ebook A when short ebook B costs $3.

The books may not be precisely interchangable, but there are trade offs.

[MrsJoseph]

What it boils down to is this:

with the exception of some nonfiction and educational materials, reading is a hobby. It is part of the entertainment industry.

So what that means is that publishers and authors can bitch and moan, gripe and complain all they want but at the end of the day they are fighting for my money. I choose how my money is spent, not publishers and authors.

What will happen is that they will look up and realize that all their bitching and price manipulation has lost them the few customers they still have. Angry Birds cost $0.99 and I can get hours upon hours of entertainment from that alone. And if I want to read something? I have so many books that I can read for the rest of my life without spending a dime. I have so many free books that I have to make myself read them. Pffft.