Ebooks: Scarcity, abundance and economy

[stonetools]

the problem with the abundance vs scarcity debate is that it focuses on the wrong kind of abundance. For sure, its easier today to produce and publish content than ever before. Unfortunately, creative TALENT is as scarce as it ever was. Also just as the scarce is EDITING talent, which refines the product of creative talent into good books. What this means is that the amount of quality literature is not really much greater than before. Its more easily available, but the AMOUNT of it is not that much more.

As far as the public is concerned, there is no perceived abundance. The general public doesn't know or care that there is a vast pool of free and near free stuff available on the Internet. What the public wants is the professionally curated and produced stuff, written by writers that they are familiar with through exposure in bookstores , traditional marketing, libraries or recommendations by intimates. The public believes that books produced by such writers are much more likely to deliver quality entertainment than unknown " indie" writers-so much so that the general public is not even aware that we are living in an era of "abundance. "
Of course, the public's perception may change as we move from the present era- which is still 80 per cent print - to a mostly ebook era. Right now I would say that the era of abundance has not dawned for the general public.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

As far as the public is concerned, there is no perceived abundance. The general public doesn't know or care that there is a vast pool of free and near free stuff available on the Internet. What the public wants is the professionally curated and produced stuff, written by writers that they are familiar with through exposure in bookstores , traditional marketing, libraries or recommendations by intimates.

John Locke's first million sales say you're wrong.

The public believes that books produced by such writers are much more likely to deliver quality entertainment than unknown " indie" writers-so much so that the general public is not even aware that we are living in an era of "abundance. "

I think you have a skewed concept of "the general public." In my mind, that includes the several-million people who spend time reading blogs and hanging out at Reddit and Fark and Livejournal, who are entirely aware that the internet is *clogged* with interesting free stuff. They may default to gatekeeper-selected reading materials most of the time, because it's worth paying someone else to winnow through the selection of what's available... but they aren't averse to other sources, and are actively involved in telling other people that you can find endless free-and-cheap entertainment online.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by stonetools

What the public wants is the professionally curated and produced stuff, written by writers that they are familiar with through exposure in bookstores , traditional marketing, libraries or recommendations by intimates.

I'd disagree: What the public wants are good books, and it doesn't really care where they're from. The major publishers try to convince the public that they are the only source of "good books," but the public only has to look at the latest book by some reality show wipeout to know that isn't so. Talent isn't exclusive to major publishers, and it's possible to produce a good book without their help.

The "era of abundance" may not have dawned for the public yet, but that's because the ebook industry hasn't provided them with decent searching tools, and the public has yet to learn to use what's out there (beyond going to Amazon, et al, and seeing what they push at the entry page).

[stonetools]

[QUOTE=Elfwreck;2016587]John Locke's first million sales say you're wrong.



I think you have a skewed concept of "the general public." In my mind, that includes the several-million people who spend time reading blogs and hanging out at Reddit and Fark and Livejournal, who are entirely aware that the internet is *clogged* with interesting free stuff. They may default to gatekeeper-selected reading materials most of the time, because it's worth paying someone else to winnow through the selection of what's available... but they aren't averse to other sources, and are actively involved in telling other people that you can find endless free-and-cheap entertainment online.[/]


With respect , the general public has never even heard of Fark or Livejournal, much less hung out there. Dont confuse the habits of the " technologists" with those of the general public. Remember that 80 per cent of all book purchases are print and that most people don't have ebook readers. For those people, there really is no " abundance".

Another point is that all this applies to genre fiction. For literary fiction and non fiction, there is no huge outflow of interesting new stuff.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

I'd disagree: What the public wants are good books, and it doesn't really care where they're from. The major publishers try to convince the public that they are the only source of "good books," but the public only has to look at the latest book by some reality show wipeout to know that isn't so. Talent isn't exclusive to major publishers, and it's possible to produce a good book without their help.

The "era of abundance" may not have dawned for the public yet, but that's because the ebook industry hasn't provided them with decent searching tools, and the public has yet to learn to use what's out there (beyond going to Amazon, et al, and seeing what they push at the entry page).

There are good indie writers out there. I think we agree that they remain mostly undiscovered. Also too this discussion of " good books" seems to to define " good books" only in terms of fiction. Good non fiction seems as scarce as ever.

[Kumabjorn]

@stonetools
This thread opened with an opinion about the book market from the macro perspective. You are takeing it to the micro perspective and there is always scarcity in micro perspective. When you start with segmentation (editing, well known authors etc) you will by definition create scarcity, but then we are no longer comparing yesterday's apples with today's apples.

[Blue Tyson]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It would lead to a more rational ebook marketplace where quality writers with a decent backlist have a hope of earning a decent living. I do think that having a strong, deep backlist is going to be key, though. (Which, alas does not bode well for the Sterling Lanier's of the world.)

Once you are mortally challenged like Lanier, doubt it will worry you.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

The "era of abundance" may not have dawned for the public yet, but that's because the ebook industry hasn't provided them with decent searching tools, and the public has yet to learn to use what's out there (beyond going to Amazon, et al, and seeing what they push at the entry page).

The industry also needs to develop a reliable, accurate and high quality rating/review system. John Locke is a good example of the poor abusive system in place now.

[Greg Anos]

[QUOTE=stonetools;2016660]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

John Locke's first million sales say you're wrong.



I think you have a skewed concept of "the general public." In my mind, that includes the several-million people who spend time reading blogs and hanging out at Reddit and Fark and Livejournal, who are entirely aware that the internet is *clogged* with interesting free stuff. They may default to gatekeeper-selected reading materials most of the time, because it's worth paying someone else to winnow through the selection of what's available... but they aren't averse to other sources, and are actively involved in telling other people that you can find endless free-and-cheap entertainment online.[/]


With respect , the general public has never even heard of Fark or Livejournal, much less hung out there. Dont confuse the habits of the " technologists" with those of the general public. Remember that 80 per cent of all book purchases are print and that most people don't have ebook readers. For those people, there really is no " abundance".

Another point is that all this applies to genre fiction. For literary fiction and non fiction, there is no huge outflow of interesting new stuff.

General public doesn't include "technologists"? Interesting viewpoint, but factual inaccurate. General public includes "technologists" as well as illiterates...

Also, define "new stuff". There is much "old stuff" that is perfectly valid, in both categories. Are William James, Willa Cather, Joseph Hergesheimer, Booth Tarkenton, Pearl Buck, et al suddenly worthless because they are not part of this year's publisher cycle? Go look at the bestsellers since 1920. Are they all trash? (Some you may consider trash, such as Zane Grey, but all?) I could say that there is not a large amount of "interesting new literary fiction" because there is a very small market for it. 15 Years ago, I read where a fantasy writer (who was successful in her niche), listened to all her literary friends and wrote a very literary historical novel, set in the 12th century. It was well reviewed in top literary sources. It sold 700 copies. Her comment was, "I spend 2 years of my life to sell 700 books? Never again. I'll go back to writing fantasy."

Non-fiction is not so clear cut, as certain area are in continual flux, requiring new books. But even there, there are large swatches of information that don't require continual rewriting. I learned comparative vertebrate anatomy from a book first published in 1942. It's still perfectly valid and usable, if you need to learn vertebrate anatomy. Same for learning lots of mathematics. Calculus, Linear Algebra, Differential Equations, and lots of other branches haven't changed in a hundred years. Of course, Physics, Cosmology, Molecular Biology, and lots of other branches change every 5 minutes. They always need new books. Or is your idea of non-fiction novel-length People Magazine books?

Stonetools, the world is leaving you behind. In the world today, as opposed to even three years ago, brick-and-mortar bookstores are steadily going broke, and the largest bookseller in the US (Amazon) sell more e-books than it does print book, (they inverted about a year ago). How many people do you see with iphones? Are they all "technologists"? They can, (and more and more do) read books on their iPhone in their spare time. (Or android phones). The world has changed, and it isn't going back.

[stonetools]

Non-fiction is not so clear cut, as certain area are in continual flux, requiring new books. But even there, there are large swatches of information that don't require continual rewriting. I learned comparative vertebrate anatomy from a book first published in 1942. It's still perfectly valid and usable, if you need to learn vertebrate anatomy. Same for learning lots of mathematics. Calculus, Linear Algebra, Differential Equations, and lots of other branches haven't changed in a hundred years. Of course, Physics, Cosmology, Molecular Biology, and lots of other branches change every 5 minutes. They always need new books. Or is your idea of non-fiction novel-length People Magazine books?

Stonetools, the world is leaving you behind. In the world today, as opposed to even three years ago, brick-and-mortar bookstores are steadily going broke, and the largest bookseller in the US (Amazon) sell more e-books than it does print book, (they inverted about a year ago). How many people do you see with iphones? Are they all "technologists"? They can, (and more and more do) read books on their iPhone in their spare time. (Or android phones). The world has changed, and it isn't going back.
__________________

RSE, thanks for replying. I do think the abundance theme tends to be overstated. Genre fiction, yes, but there is a lot more to books than romance, mystery and SF. The non-fiction piece is really crucial, at least for me. There's not only science writing, but current affairs, travel writing, history, biography-the list goes on. Frankly, the public can do without the latest SF or romance potboiler, but an educated and effective citizenry must have knowledge of the past and current affairs. There has got to be a way to make non-fiction pay in an e-book world. Luckily, there does seem to be a path for long form journalism in the form of "the single" - the short ebook.

I agree that the era of B&M stores is passing and that we are moving from print to electronic in the area of narrative text. We aren't there yet and won't be for quite some time. In the area of illustrated books, we may not move to electronic for an even longer time.
All this means is that its not all abundance, unicorns and rainbows out there. Its a time of troubles for the book industry. I'll happily embrace the e-book future but I want some vital categories of books to come into that future with me.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Genre fiction, yes, but there is a lot more to books than romance, mystery and SF.

Sure.
But the *ebook* business that exists today (and the topic is about *ebooks*, not print) is primarilly narrative text and heavily dependent on the genres. Much as the paperback revolution of the last century started with the genres, the commercial ebook industry of *today* is driven by the economics of genre recreational reading.
So yes, traditional publishers and their workflows and overlords still rule! (Glory, glory Hallelujah and all that)... *outside* the genres.
Outside ebooks.

But in ebooks, the old economics are being superceded by... something new.

Just *what* that something new is, is what this thread is about.
It isn't about defending the ancien regime but exploring how things are changing in the ebook realms. We're looking at the leading edge of change, not the legacy realms.

[pwalker8]

I think that when we talk abundance and good books, then we need to break things down a bit. I tend to break authors into three different groups.

Group one is the great writers, the ones with that special spark, the natural story tellers, the authors who write books that people read, can't put it down and then read it over and over again. There will never be an abundance in this group, since it's a pretty small group of authors. I don't know if there are more than a handful at any one time in a specific genre [I would also say that there are some writers who start in this group and fall back down to the good category after a time for various reasons]. These are the best sellers, the J.K. Rowlings of the world.

The next group are the good writers, those writers who produce quality work, yet lack that special something that separates the great from the good. The majority of writers who make a living at writing fall in the group. Yes, there is an abundance here. For the average reader, there isn't a big difference between name writers in a specific genre. They tend to have a pretty good backlist built up, and there is a known quality about their books, but you aren't going to wait in line to buy their latest.

The last group is the hacks. This is the 90% who fill the slush piles of publishers everywhere and threaten to overwhelm the internet with free ebooks. They may have the talent to be good, but not the discipline, or they may simply not have the talent for writing a good story.

Ultimately, I do think that some filtering mechanism will come into play in the ebook world. Most people don't have the time or desire to wade through masses of dreck to find good books. They want someone else to do that and tell them "hey, try this out, this is a good book". I also think that good ebooks will always sale. What price they will sale at is a different question, but I do think that people are willing to pay for quality.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by stonetools

RSE, thanks for replying. I do think the abundance theme tends to be overstated. Genre fiction, yes, but there is a lot more to books than romance, mystery and SF. The non-fiction piece is really crucial, at least for me. There's not only science writing, but current affairs, travel writing, history, biography-the list goes on. Frankly, the public can do without the latest SF or romance potboiler, but an educated and effective citizenry must have knowledge of the past and current affairs. There has got to be a way to make non-fiction pay in an e-book world. Luckily, there does seem to be a path for long form journalism in the form of "the single" - the short ebook.

I agree that the era of B&M stores is passing and that we are moving from print to electronic in the area of narrative text. We aren't there yet and won't be for quite some time. In the area of illustrated books, we may not move to electronic for an even longer time.
All this means is that its not all abundance, unicorns and rainbows out there. Its a time of troubles for the book industry. I'll happily embrace the e-book future but I want some vital categories of books to come into that future with me.

Stonetools, I have to ask the question - why aren't those catagories selling well as e-books? I suspect that they don't sell well as print books. I also suspect that in the old model used the "Genre" titles that did sell well to susbidize those type of books you find important (and you find lack abundance in). I only have ancedontal evidence to support this, but it is something to consider.

Frankly, most of those catagories I have no great need for. Travel books? I can read a 50 year old travel book and get a feel for the land (as opposed to the people). The land isn't going to change. People, roads, things to do/see? I can get that better on the internet, with a swath of different people's opinions, as well, for free. (and more current). Most biography today are publicity pieces for meaningless celebreties (or corrupt politicians or both combined). And so on. I buy such books that either entertain me or tell me something I don't already know, and that has meaning to me. I like history, but most history today consists of making the past fit the "politically correct" mores of the current times. (I know, that has always been the case. So why is today's attitudes more relevant to historical events than the opinions of 50 or 100 years ago?)

What is happening is that all writing is going to have to stand on it own (sic) two legs. If a large number of people value it, there'll be a lot of it. If not too many people like, there won't be much. Selah.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Stonetools, I have to ask the question - why aren't those catagories selling well as e-books?

In the case of nonfiction, it's partially because most ebook readers suck for reference & research use. They're great for linear text; they're less-great for jumping around by chapter topic; they're atrocious for comparing individual pages' content to individual pages in other books.

There is no easy "flip through the cookbook and look for a picture that catches the eye." There is no easy "flip back and forth between page 24 with the engine diagram and page 187 with the wiring diagram." There is no "bookmark some pages with yellow for quotes to use in the dissertation, and other pages with blue for comparison with the other major source of info."

Nonfic that works as linear reading--celebrity memoirs, "how to improve your resume skills"--work fine, and are selling. (At least, from the reports I see.) Nonfic that's meant to be a permanent reference has problems.

I suspect that they don't sell well as print books. I also suspect that in the old model used the "Genre" titles that did sell well to susbidize those type of books you find important (and you find lack abundance in). I only have ancedontal evidence to support this, but it is something to consider.

I agree... "literature" that only made the bestseller lists is not indicative of public support for "literature."

Frankly, most of those catagories I have no great need for. Travel books? I can read a 50 year old travel book and get a feel for the land (as opposed to the people). The land isn't going to change. People, roads, things to do/see? I can get that better on the internet, with a swath of different people's opinions, as well, for free. (and more current).

Current travel books are useful--ones that list current restrictions on travel, businesses (what districts near the airport are good for a business lunch?), notable recent legal changes, major construction (I don't mean buildings; I mean "they're leveling a section of that mountain to put in a highway"), and so on. The problem is that travel books are mostly awful on ebook readers: the pictures are either low-res or B&W; the navigation is troublesome; and often, you want more battery than the device has. All of these can be mitigated, but the combination is why travel books haven't taken off as ebooks.

I like history, but most history today consists of making the past fit the "politically correct" mores of the current times. (I know, that has always been the case. So why is today's attitudes more relevant to historical events than the opinions of 50 or 100 years ago?)

Good history books have a market... but it is, and always has been, a small market. Pop culture books that babble about history have a bigger market, but not as much as celebrity tell-alls, which don't seem to be having any problems at all in the ebook marketplace.

What is happening is that all writing is going to have to stand on it own (sic) two legs. If a large number of people value it, there'll be a lot of it. If not too many people like, there won't be much. Selah.

I mostly agree, but I think there's a lot to be said for considering the medium. The "kindle shorts" are taking off because there *is* a demand for 20,000-word nonfiction, which prior to ebooks, had no market: too short for a whole book, too long to include in a journal.

Some types of nonfic will go well into ebooks; other types will need other media. Finding out that genre fiction is exploding in ebooks is hardly surprising; it was *always* looking for the cheapest medium and widest reach. Some of us are entirely unsurprised that the books that were literally sold by the bagful at rummage sales have a widespread appeal, and that many people actually want to read dozens (or hundreds!) of them a year.

It's only the traditional publishers who thought that they had reached the entire market with paperbacks and the 50% return rate showed a lack of interest rather than poor business planning.

[Greg Anos]

Thanks for the response. I'd like to volley back a little.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

In the case of nonfiction, it's partially because most ebook readers suck for reference & research use. They're great for linear text; they're less-great for jumping around by chapter topic; they're atrocious for comparing individual pages' content to individual pages in other books.

There is no easy "flip through the cookbook and look for a picture that catches the eye." There is no easy "flip back and forth between page 24 with the engine diagram and page 187 with the wiring diagram." There is no "bookmark some pages with yellow for quotes to use in the dissertation, and other pages with blue for comparison with the other major source of info."

Nonfic that works as linear reading--celebrity memoirs, "how to improve your resume skills"--work fine, and are selling. (At least, from the reports I see.) Nonfic that's meant to be a permanent reference has problems.

I think we need a new format for reference material. It should be open source, like epub, but be able to store page links that can be button/touch accessable. I want page 28, I tap it any there's auto-pointer to it. Along the bottom theres a pointer bar. I touch the relevant pointer, and zap, I'm there. Tap it again and I'm back where I started. And the bar allows multiple pointers. Ebook formats were designed for linear reading, not reference work. Same for marking text blocks. double tap/button push and start, slide to end and double tap/button push to mark. Just some ideas.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I agree... "literature" that only made the bestseller lists is not indicative of public support for "literature."



Current travel books are useful--ones that list current restrictions on travel, businesses (what districts near the airport are good for a business lunch?), notable recent legal changes, major construction (I don't mean buildings; I mean "they're leveling a section of that mountain to put in a highway"), and so on. The problem is that travel books are mostly awful on ebook readers: the pictures are either low-res or B&W; the navigation is troublesome; and often, you want more battery than the device has. All of these can be mitigated, but the combination is why travel books haven't taken off as ebooks.

You'd be suprised what you can get of current events/ect from the internet, which is usually more current than a travel book.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Good history books have a market... but it is, and always has been, a small market. Pop culture books that babble about history have a bigger market, but not as much as celebrity tell-alls, which don't seem to be having any problems at all in the ebook marketplace.

A good history book can be read many years after it has been written, without loss. After all, the past isn't going to change (no remarks about the Change Winds, please.)

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I mostly agree, but I think there's a lot to be said for considering the medium. The "kindle shorts" are taking off because there *is* a demand for 20,000-word nonfiction, which prior to ebooks, had no market: too short for a whole book, too long to include in a journal.

Maybe I should clean up my monograph on digital abundance, and put it on Amazon...

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Some types of nonfic will go well into ebooks; other types will need other media. Finding out that genre fiction is exploding in ebooks is hardly surprising; it was *always* looking for the cheapest medium and widest reach. Some of us are entirely unsurprised that the books that were literally sold by the bagful at rummage sales have a widespread appeal, and that many people actually want to read dozens (or hundreds!) of them a year.

It's only the traditional publishers who thought that they had reached the entire market with paperbacks and the 50% return rate showed a lack of interest rather than poor business planning.