HarperCollins returns to Full Agency pricing

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The release version eBook is the same regardless of any other container and regardless of the current pBook version. Each different pBook version has it's own price. It's only the eBook that has changing prices which (IMHO) is very wrong.

Not always. Sometimes the one that comes out during the hardcovers run will have bonus content like a short story or novella & sometimes you'll get that when its "re-released" with the paperback.

The eBook should be priced reasonably from the start.

What's reasonable for one isn't reasonable for others. There's still a camp that thinks eBooks should all cost a "buck or two". Ultimately it's up to the publisher to set what they feel the price should be and up to consumers to buy it at that price or not. If enough vote not to buy then the price is likely to be adjusted downward sooner rather than later.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

What's reasonable for one isn't reasonable for others. There's still a camp that thinks eBooks should all cost a "buck or two". Ultimately it's up to the publisher to set what they feel the price should be and up to consumers to buy it at that price or not. If enough vote not to buy then the price is likely to be adjusted downward sooner rather than later.

Uh-huh.
There's quite a few Indie authors around, "refugees" from Harlequin and other traditional publishers, for whom the payouts from $0.99 sales or KU checkouts are quite reasonable, compared to their past experiences.

There's a lot more tradpub veterans gone Indie who appreciate the math of 70% of $2.99 > 12% of $15.99. Especially with reverted backlist that wasn't earning them nothing.

Not everybody in publishing runs in Patterson/Preston territory.
Some folks are happy to be making a few thou per book each year and racking up new readers instead of being out of print and forgotten.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Not always. Sometimes the one that comes out during the hardcovers run will have bonus content like a short story or novella & sometimes you'll get that when its "re-released" with the paperback.

I consider that to ber a different version. But if the bonus content is just an excerpt of another book, then I don't consider that to be a different version. I consider that to be the same version with added rubbish.

What's reasonable for one isn't reasonable for others. There's still a camp that thinks eBooks should all cost a "buck or two". Ultimately it's up to the publisher to set what they feel the price should be and up to consumers to buy it at that price or not. If enough vote not to buy then the price is likely to be adjusted downward sooner rather than later.

I think that non-backlist eBooks should be $6 without any discount. Backlist should be $4. That's very reasonable and sales would skyrocket.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I consider that to ber a different version. But if the bonus content is just an excerpt of another book, then I don't consider that to be a different version. I consider that to be the same version with added rubbish.



I think that non-backlist eBooks should be $6 without any discount. Backlist should be $4. That's very reasonable and sales would skyrocket.

Just curious: are you open to Indies or are you tradpub-only?
I've found that is a good indicator of how reasonable "reasonable" gets.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

That is a different version. An ARC is not the same as the release version.
.

It is worse since it contains more errors.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by tompe

It is worse since it contains more errors.

An ARC can even contain a different ending.

[murg]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I disagree on cheap editing. Editing and covers are actually fairly expensive and have gone up substantially in the last 7 years. Even if you do your own cover, you are probably going to pay 70 to 100 dollars for various pieces of stock art--and that is at the low end.

While copy editing can be had for around 200 to 300 dollars, that isn't all that cheap for some budgets and it doesn't include storyline editing which is often more like 300 to 600. Marketing is becoming extremely expensive for self-published authors--check the prices at bookbub one of the most popular places to take an ad out these days. Some one-day ads are over 1000 dollars. I think the cheapest is 300 or so for a one-day ad. Book sites that used to take a percentage of the haul (Based on amazon numbers sold) now price such that they take nearly 80 to 100 percent of what they guess the profit to be. The author gets "visibility" and hopes for "sell-through" on a series.

Marketing USED to be cheaper because many sites relied on at least some income as an Amazon (or other) associate. But the cost of ads has skyrocketed, especially on a site that has the ability to drive sales. You can buy 5 and 10 dollar ads, but your results are usually zero. (Many ad sites spend too much time trying to reach AUTHORS rather than readers.)

Some of the low-cost advantages of being indie have receded as the cottage industry serving us writers has expanded and grown.

That said, we don't have employee costs such as paying out for healthcare or 401k or pensions or whatever benefits a large company might offer.


(These are not complaints. Just pointing out some of the costs of indie publishing.)

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

It can be minimal, but many of the more successful self-published authors are spending thousands of dollars per title. Developmental editing can run big bucks (thousands), copyediting in the hundreds or more depending on length, covers free to thousands depending on artwork used, formatting can be free but can also have a cost, ISBN fees, distribution (Amazon & other retailers are free besides their percent of sales, but getting on OverDrive can cost), print formatting if doing on demand printing (free to $$?), translation costs for other language editions (and editing in those languages), audiobook costs depending on how you do it. That's all before marketing costs which from what I hear are rising.

My point was that compared to the costs associated with semi-pro video (the Hollywood scheme), even self-published video, the costs associated with ebook publishing are relatively minor. Yes, these costs can add up, but it is up to the author to limit those costs. And some people do spend a lot of money on marketing, etc, but they are generally successful authors protecting and exploiting their brand/products.

While there can be costs associated with self-publishing ebooks, there are higher costs associated with semi-pro (and pro) video production. For example, just the number of crew involved in the shooting is at least 10 people, all of whom expect to be paid.

One would expect that self-published ebooks are at least at the semi-pro level of quality. I realise that some are lower than this, but then again, some professional video/movies aren't even at the semi-pro level.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by murg

While there can be costs associated with self-publishing ebooks, there are higher costs associated with semi-pro (and pro) video production. For example, just the number of crew involved in the shooting is at least 10 people, all of whom expect to be paid.

One would expect that self-published ebooks are at least at the semi-pro level of quality. I realise that some are lower than this, but then again, some professional video/movies aren't even at the semi-pro level.

I'm not sure why book publishing should be compared to video, but I do know at least one author who paid a model and photographers for a cover shot/shoot because he couldn't get the cover he wanted any other way. (And it turned out badly after all that). That means at least one model and one photographer and someone to do the photoshopping so it couldn't have been cheap. With publishing these days there is also audio--which we are expected to do ourselves. We have to hire a voice actor after sorting through options and either pay for that or find one willing to do a royalty share. Those costs can be prohibitive considering that audio is a much smaller market than reading books.

I have been on enough writer forums that I can also say it isn't mostly the successful authors paying high prices for ads/marketing. In fact, I'd venture to guess it is the complete opposite. Those who are successful may do an ad or two, but their visibility comes from rankings, word of mouth, reviews and so on. It's those of us who lack visibility who are often enticed to spend money on ads--big money, small money--whatever an author can cobble together. The ad sites aren't making their money off the 10 percent of highly successful authors. That wouldn't be enough ads...

[darryl]

There is a world of difference between Advance Reader Copies as Baen does them and so-called Windowing. According to Baen's site:

An eARC is an electronic Advance Reader Copy. This is an unproofed manuscript and is guaranteed to be full of typos and error. It is pretty much raw from the authors word processor. But you get the entire eARC well in advance of even the Monthly Baen Bundle release.

Contrast this with a finished book which is withheld from most of the market for a year or more in an attempt to attract a premium price for the hardback edition. Baen are offering an opportunity to pay a premium for a privilege not otherwise available. I have never heard a suggestion that Baen withholds releases to sell more earcs.

[murg]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I'm not sure why book publishing should be compared to video,

My original comment was in reply to someone saying that the PBH were moving to a Hollywood-style market (relying on blockbusters, etc.).

I was pointing out that the markets are different, especially cost/effort to produce/release.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

An ARC can even contain a different ending.

Can you give an example of this, please, Jon?

[RobertDDL]

Originally Posted by darryl

According to Baen's site:

An eARC is an electronic Advance Reader Copy. This is an unproofed manuscript and is guaranteed to be full of typos and error. It is pretty much raw from the authors word processor. But you get the entire eARC well in advance of even the Monthly Baen Bundle release.

If I were one of their authors, I'd be horrified at the thought that an unproofed manuscript were made available to the public. Does this really happen, with the authors' consent? Or is this a way to pressure authors into paying for their own proofreaders/editors, before they hand their manuscripts over to the publisher?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by RobertDDL

If I were one of their authors, I'd be horrified at the thought that an unproofed manuscript were made available to the public. Does this really happen, with the authors' consent? Or is this a way to pressure authors into paying for their own proofreaders/editors, before they hand their manuscripts over to the publisher?

It's a pure money-making exercise, which Baen have used for many years. I'm sure it must be done with the authors' consent.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by murg

My original comment was in reply to someone saying that the PBH were moving to a Hollywood-style market (relying on blockbusters, etc.).

I was pointing out that the markets are different, especially cost/effort to produce/release.

You are looking at the mechanics instead of the business model.
The actual business models, and the way they've evolved is very similar.

Hollywood used to produce movies by the thousands. Those movies used to circulate through theaters for months and even years. That allowed even quickie low budget movies with b-list actors and directors to turn a profit over time. Movies stayed "in print" for years.

Every once in a while, the studio would release a high profile movie that would bring in millions and the studio would enjoy a windfalls from the Blockbuster so they would always be on the lookout for potential "bestsellers" but their business was not built solely around the DeMille's of the business. Even the biggest of studios had a diversified release schedule of high profile projects, regular A-list movies, b-list projects, shorts, cartoons, and serials.

Over time, the high profile projects grew bigger and swallowed more studio resources and all the other classes were slowly deprecated and eventually killed.
Then JAWS and STAR WARS hit. RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and ET...
Better communications and marketing, and the emergence of the multiplex theaters, allowed much bigger attendances over a short time. Pay TV and later, Video sales and rentals emerged, all providing big money outside of theaters, and over time theaters evolved into a new release business almost exclusively. Theater runs became shorter, even for blockusters (STAR WARS' ran for almost two years in theaters, TITANIC and AVATAR were anomalies at six months), and windowing emerged.
With the increased focus on blockbusters, B-list movies were replaced by TV movies, then died. (A limited version has returned in the firm of Indie movies and cable only movies but the numbers are much lower than the heyday of the old studios.) More recently, entire genres have pretty much vanished from the big studio release schedule. Projects that might have gone to the studios are going to HBO, SHOWTIME, STARZ, Lifetime, Hallmark, Amazon... or Indie. Some, like DR HORRIBLE'S SINGALONG BLOG and CAPER (among others) have gone online-first.

The big studios' focus on the big blockbusters has allowed new studios to pop up to fill the gaps in family-friendly fare and viewership to shift to new formats. And it has caused a lot of creators to simply take their projects elsewhere. If you have a cute romcom you take it to Lifetime, you don't waste time trying to sell it to UNIVERSAL or DISNEY unless you have a name actor pre-attached.

More recently, even blockbusters have come under pressure by the focus on big bucks quick. Where RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and ET were released with marketing plans based on getting good word of mouth and long theater runs, by now even *good* blockbuster movies saddled with bad marketing get tagged as failures on the very first day of release. (C.F., Disney's JOHN CARTER.)

Entire books have been written on how the big Hollywood studios have become slaves to blockbuster movies and in the process lost control of vast swaths of the audience they once dominated.

The 5 BPHs are not that far gone but they are pretty deep down that road and heading deeper.

The parallels abound, from resource allocation to the obsession with quick cash from short release windows, even to gimmick accounting. Lessons to be learned are there, but only for those willing to actually see the perils of the blockbuster addiction. Short term gain vs long term relevance.

MGM, United Artists, and RKO Radio loom as very likely futures for at least some of the BPHs.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by RobertDDL

If I were one of their authors, I'd be horrified at the thought that an unproofed manuscript were made available to the public. Does this really happen, with the authors' consent? Or is this a way to pressure authors into paying for their own proofreaders/editors, before they hand their manuscripts over to the publisher?

I don't know that I would be horrified, especially with a money making opportunity. But I would be cautious. I'd imagine that some authors would be happy to do it, others perhaps not.