Publishers still missing the point on e-book prices

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

If paying for something is just as bad (in your mind) as just taking it without paying, then we will just have to agree to disagree. Though my guess is that only the giggly guy will be able to follow your line of reasoning.

Well. In other domains there are trivial examples showing that paying for something do not automatically makes it right. Paying for stolen goods for example is of similar badness as stealing the thing yourself.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by tompe

You make it less likely that it will be a locale edition of the book that people can buy without circumvent computer checks. So you are in that sense hurting local publishers and local people that do not know how to buy the books they want to read.

Actually, by circumventing geo-restrictions and posting about it you are helping local people by speeding up the process of getting rid of these restrictions. And if no local English versions are available then even the publisher doesn't get hurt.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well. In other domains there are trivial examples showing that paying for something do not automatically makes it right. Paying for stolen goods for example is of similar badness as stealing the thing yourself.

Good grief.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well. In other domains there are trivial examples showing that paying for something do not automatically makes it right. Paying for stolen goods for example is of similar badness as stealing the thing yourself.

Funny you should mention that, but the seller didn't steal the books.

But to get back to your example --- so going to a liquor store, showing a fake ID to prove that your old enough and then paying for it is just as bad as going in with a gun and taking one bottle? That would be a more apt comparison of the actions we are discussing.

[sabredog]

I remember a particular court battle here in Australia, where Sony was sent packing from court over the ability for mod chips that allowed playing DVD's and games from other regions on Playstations. That decision flowed over to DVD players as well. Within a couple of years almost all DVD players were region free, eventually including Sony players as well.

The ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) stepped in on the side of the mod chippers as their belief was that region locking was anti-competitive and hence illegal in Australia.

Sony had badly miscalculated what the legal system was going to rule.

Geographic Restrictions are no different. They are anti-competitive and only serve to disadvantage consumers.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

No, the highest cost is the editing cost. As it is currently for paperbooks. Savings on printing, etc., are 10-20% of the cost.

For new books. For backlist books--and paperbacks--editing costs are minimal; mostly reformatting, with the potential of touching up phrasing that's archaic or catching the occasional typo that got past the first edition proofreaders.

None of the agency-pricing publishers have ever given a cost breakdown for paperbacks. They try very hard to pretend paperbacks don't exist when they talk about the costs of book production.

[Dimwit]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

None of the agency-pricing publishers have ever given a cost breakdown for paperbacks. They try very hard to pretend paperbacks don't exist when they talk about the costs of book production.

Thanks for that. I've been wondering about that for a while, every time someone complains about the cost structure it's always vs. hardbacks. Never a pb in sight. Since they grind these things out by the ton and there ARE novels that have never been in HB, does anyone have an idea what the costs for an average pb are?

There are now regularily priced pb's in the $13-15 range, which is obscene, but those things are massive usually. Very high page counts and popular authors. What would, say, a Harry Potter pb cost to make?

Originally Posted by Dimwit

There are now regularily priced pb's in the $13-15 range, which is obscene, but those things are massive usually. Very high page counts and popular authors. What would, say, a Harry Potter pb cost to make?

I was looking at some rather massive PB books the other day. They were published in the 1960s and 1970s. So I adjusted those prices for 2011 dollars, and they were about half the price of current books.

The funny thing is, it should cost less to prepare a book for publication today. Computers have turned the publishing industry upside down since then because it became possible to go directly from an edited manuscript to print. Ebooks, of course, take that to the next level. Even though it doesn't really impact upon publication costs since authors get royalties, this revolution has also vastly streamlined the writing process. In theory, it is possible for authors to write more in the same amount of time in order to earn a desirable income.

If the computer industry was run like the publishing industry, we would be buying 8-bit computers with 48 kB of RAM at a pricetag of $17000. Oh, and the cassette drive and monitor are extra.

[Yapyap]

Originally Posted by tompe

You make it less likely that it will be a locale edition of the book that people can buy without circumvent computer checks. So you are in that sense hurting local publishers and local people that do not know how to buy the books they want to read.

But I just said that (a) it's completely unlikely (and I mean there has never been a precedent and I very much doubt there ever will be) that there will ever be an English version (ebook or paper book) released by a local publisher, and (b) for many of the books I like to read, it's highly unlikely that there will ever be a translated edition (the entire market for books in Estonian is under one million people - that means the overwhelming majority of books will never, ever get translated anyway - there simply isn't enough market), and (c) the market for books in the original language is not the same as the market for translations anyway.

There is some overlapping re: (c) - some people who might buy a translation if they cannot get their hands on the original, but knowing my local market, where almost everyone is Internet-savvy and online shopping is common, anyone who can read English well enough is buying their books in English anyway (faster access, 2-3 times cheaper books).

Also, in your explanation, my buying English books - any English books - harms the local publishers. How does my buying of geo-restricted English books harm local publishers more than my buying of non-geo-restricted English books?

In either case, I end up with the book in English and won't be buying the translated version anyway, although in either case there is a small chance of a local publisher picking up translation rights. (The English ebook being geo-restricted has no relevance to translation rights being sold; I can buy, and have bought, without having to circumvent anything, plenty of ebooks in English that have also been translated.)

[stonetools]

No one here has yet mentioned one of the major costs of the publisher- author advances. This is huge because without author advances, much quality nonfiction and fiction could not be written. Without those advances authors would simplyly not have the wherewithal to do research ( which might involve travel and lots of time going through archives) and to pay living expenses while writing their book.
One of the great public benefits of the major publishing houses is precisely " betting" on new authors and fostering, sustaining, and giving them the resources to pursue their vision. I think here of Laura hillebrand . She was a struggling journalist with a debilitating illness when her agent went to Random House . Had the publisher not bought into her vision and advanced her the money to research and the write " Seabiscuit " , I doubt that the book or it's successor " Unbroken " would ever have been written . Similarly, back in the early seventies, a publisher bet on a laundromat employee with a crazy story about a girl with super powers taking revenge on a town- and Stephen King was on his way.
I don't see any other institution being to fill this essential role of a publisher, and unless someone can come up with an alternative , I for one am rooting for the continued existence of the major publishing houses.

[stonetools]

Those who rail against geo restrictions should understand that geo restrictions arose because authors wanted control over where and when their books should be published. Publishers would be happy if they didn't have to negotiate with authors for those rights.
I think that geo restrictions will eventually go away, but be aware that means less power for authors.

[DiapDealer]

I don't see any other institution being to fill this essential role of a publisher, and unless someone can come up with an alternative , I for one am rooting for the continued existence of the major publishing houses.

Patronage and commissioning seemed to work fairly well for hundreds of years.

And publishers haven't "gambled" for quite some time. The hype machine makes sure they will at least recoup their investment. I mean, when was the last time you heard of a publisher losing their ass on an author they were "betting" on? So it's not so much "picking a winner" as it is "manufacturing a winner." Unless you believe that best seller lists strictly represent what readers are asking for.

If they decide to publish someone's book, it will succeed... but not necessarily due to their trained artistic eye for great literature.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

If they decide to publish someone's book, it will succeed... but not necessarily due to their trained artistic eye for great literature.

I'm not at all sure that's true, DD. Not even publishers can predict which books will be best-sellers, and which flops. I'm referring to novels here, not the silly stuff like celebrity biographies, and so on.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Patronage and commissioning seemed to work fairly well for hundreds of years.

And publishers haven't "gambled" for quite some time. The hype machine makes sure they will at least recoup their investment. I mean, when was the last time you heard of a publisher losing their ass on an author they were "betting" on? So it's not so much "picking a winner" as it is "manufacturing a winner." Unless you believe that best seller lists strictly represent what readers are asking for.

If they decide to publish someone's book, it will succeed... but not necessarily due to their trained artistic eye for great literature.

Patronage? Seriously? You want authors to be controlled by some rich guy somewhere? I expected better of you, DD.
You think publishers don"t gamble because you have'nt heard of the losers . Only a small percentage of books and authors make money for their publishers, and those best sellers fund the flops and the experiments. Indeed, publishers will put out books knowing that the chance of those books making money is low( think of poetry collections or certain types of nonfiction).

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I don't see any other institution being to fill this essential role of a publisher, and unless someone can come up with an alternative , I for one am rooting for the continued existence of the major publishing houses.

These days a budding author can go the self publishing route. It is happening now and many, many authors are succeeding without the necessity for a publisher. Best of all, the author gets a hell of a lot more percentage per book sold that they would if they signed up with an agency 6 publisher.