eBook prices?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Yep. The problem here is that Amazon showed that everyone could make a profit when new release, top-tier eBooks sold for $10. So that price kind of became the "norm." Then Apple and the Big Six colluded — Jobs specifically said he would force prices up when he released the iPad. People don't forget that.

So what's the result? Top-tier authors' books sell for more, but folks like me now borrow them from the library rather than buying them. What should be more worrisome for the Big Five is that more and more authors are becoming independent or going to non-traditional publishers. And this is not just new authors, but mid-tier authors as well. I'm guessing this is happening because eBook buyers balk at buying "so-so" authors' books at top dollar and these authors become less valuable to the Big Five. Meanwhile the mid-tier and new authors make more money with the new methods.

I guess we'll see how it all shakes out. Dinosaurs have gone extinct before.

Amazon sold a small group of NYT best sellers at a loss to gain market share. When their competition drifted away, they didn't doing it, even though that boogie man, agency pricing was not effect at the time. It's a standard strategy known as a loss leader.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader

The publishers didn't like it because as you show, some people fixate on the loss leader price and assume it's the new norm. Amazon didn't care about that since they planned to just squeeze the publishers to reduce Amazon's price.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

When their competition drifted away, they didn't doing it, even though that boogie man, agency pricing was not effect at the time.

To what competition are you referring to? And why did it drift away?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

By correct pricing I mean the price at which overall profit is maximised. If you publish only an ebook edition you need be concerned only in finding the correct price point to maximise the overall profits on the sale of that ebook. Adding a pod edition as ancillary makes little if any difference in this scenario. It is just icing on the cake so to speak. However, when you publish various editions of a paper book plus an ebook the price considerations are far more complex. The Big 5 and their predecessors had a wonderful business model where they effectively controlled the entire distribution system unhampered by retail competition. They maximised their profit by way of a beautifully tailored system of distribution with an initial super-profitable hard cover edition first followed by successive releases usually ending in a mass market paperback. EBooks were not of any initial concern since the demand was low and the prices set very high.
...
(cut out a bunch of stuff to save space since people can go back and read if they want to,

Correct pricing in classic economics is a price that enough sellers are willing the sell at and enough buyers are willing to buy at. When a price stays the same for a period v of time, then that's pretty solid evidence that it's a correct price point.

It's useful to look back at the history of the publishing industry rather than simply assume that it's always been the same as it is now. At one time, publishers printed books and that was the only service they provided. Authors typically made most of their money via sells to newspapers or magazines rather than by selling books. The model of the author doing all of the proof reading and editing is close to the indie model.

More recently, i.e. when I first started buying books, paper back books cost less than a buck, many stories first appeared in magainzes and large hard back runs were reserved for the big name authors. Libraries were the major market for hardbacks. My local SF&Mystery independent bookstore didn't carry hardback books, only paperback. The owner couldn't afford to stock them. Things were somewhat different in cities like New York and there are exceptions, but my description is fairly accurate for smaller cities. The chain book stores opened up the market for hard backs by making them more available to the population in general. Since bookstores had to physically stock titles and make room for new titles, most books stayed on the shelves and made most of their sells in the first couple of months of release. Titles with steady sells stayed, those that didn't were sent back. If you wanted a backlist book, you searched the used book shelves for it. Amazon opened up the possibility of stretching out the sells cycle for authors.

My guess is that we will continue to see a two tier system, much like the pulp writers verses the big publishers writers. Remember, while everyone likes to talk about the big 5 publishers, there are still hundreds of small publishers out there. Also, it's worth noting that many indie books are moving up the price scale especially the authors who have established an audience and are not quite as prolific as the guys who churn out new books every couple of months. Edelheit's latest book came out at $7 ($22 for paperback), so it would not surprise me to see multiple price points for different writing approaches.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

To what competition are you referring to? And why did it drift away?

Amazon went from 90% of the market to less than 70% of the market now, it's back up over 80%. Apple and B&N are the other two major players but there a few others. IMPO, the major reason is that B&N is incompetent and Apple has just been dabbling.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Amazon went from 90% of the market to less than 70% of the market now, it's back up over 80%. Apple and B&N are the other two major players but there a few others. IMPO, the major reason is that B&N is incompetent and Apple has just been dabbling.

The Appeals Court in the Price Fixing case against Apple quoted the District Court finding:

Amazon’s market share in ebooks decreased from 90 to 60 percent in the two years following the introduction of agency pricing.” United States v. Apple, Inc., 889 F. Supp. 2d 623, 640 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).

Amazon's market share in fact dropped to 60% when retail price competition was removed by the price fixing conspiracy. It dropped not because of competition but because of the lack of it!

When agency entered its short hiatus following the demise of the conspiracy, Amazon did not re-introduce its loss leading strategy on Big 5 ebooks but instead allowed the Big 5 to be hoist on their own petards. Yet Amazon still managed to recover much of its market share of ebooks. I believe the reason is that the Indie ebook market had by that stage grown to the extent that Amazon were no longer so dependant on Big 5 ebooks. Personally I used to spend quite a bit on Big 5 books before agency, and have Agency to thank for leading me to take a close look at Indies. I have not purchased a Big 5 book since. Anecdotally I am far from alone, and I suspect that agency pricing lost the Big 5 many avid and prolific readers.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by darryl

Anecdotally I am far from alone, and I suspect that agency pricing lost the Big 5 many avid and prolific readers.

I doubt that it lost them many at all ... anecdotally. Mainly because you don't even have to be a book buyer to continue to feast exclusively (as well as avidly and prolifically) on Big 5 titles.

I certainly suspect (like you) that the number of people who have proven willing to give indies a shot have created a new and profitable market for Amazon (and indie authors). I just don't think think that same demographic correlates directly to "gave up on the Big 5 altogether." I suspect the number of people who've given up entirely on the Big 5 and now exclusively buy/read indie titles is quite small. In fact, I suspect the number of readers who know the difference between indie publishing and trad-publishing in general is quite small.

I don't believe the vast majority of readers out there are nearly as "meta" about their favorite pastime as our membership tends to be. Most just read without thinking about how or where a book was published (or who priced it). They simply buy/borrow as their finances and wants dictate.

[darryl]

@DiapDealer. Not a lot of room for argument here. Anecdotal evidence is like that. My anecdotal evidence such as it is is a couple of posts in these forums from like minded people. Even I haven't abandoned the Big 5 altogether. I do borrow the odd Big 5 title from one of the several libraries I am a member of. I won't even guarantee that I won't buy a Big 5 book in the future if it is well priced and I really want it. But before agency my favourite authors were all tradpub. Now they are all Indie, with the lone exception of John Sandford.

I do suspect that the agency fiasco has lost the Big 5 many sales, though of course there is no real evidence either way.

[DiapDealer]

You're right. Anecdotal evidence IS like that. However ...

Originally Posted by darryl

But before agency my favourite authors were all tradpub. Now they are all Indie, with the lone exception of John Sandford.

I don't think I'm going out on much of a limb to believe that not many reading adults will abandon favorite authors for any reason--especially not for something as trivial as happening to work for people who are charging them a similar price for their new books that they've always paid. Add new favorites?? You bet. Wholesale changeover? That's not common. Not for any reason, in my opinion. *shrug*

[cfrizz]

I haven't abandoned my favorite authors, I simply get them from the library. The rest of the time I'm reading Indies, and have tons to read, especially mid-listers who have reclaimed their backlists and are self publishing.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

The Appeals Court in the Price Fixing case against Apple quoted the District Court finding:



Amazon's market share in fact dropped to 60% when retail price competition was removed by the price fixing conspiracy. It dropped not because of competition but because of the lack of it!

When agency entered its short hiatus following the demise of the conspiracy, Amazon did not re-introduce its loss leading strategy on Big 5 ebooks but instead allowed the Big 5 to be hoist on their own petards. Yet Amazon still managed to recover much of its market share of ebooks. I believe the reason is that the Indie ebook market had by that stage grown to the extent that Amazon were no longer so dependant on Big 5 ebooks. Personally I used to spend quite a bit on Big 5 books before agency, and have Agency to thank for leading me to take a close look at Indies. I have not purchased a Big 5 book since. Anecdotally I am far from alone, and I suspect that agency pricing lost the Big 5 many avid and prolific readers.

It dropped because Apple and B&N entered the market giving Amazon some competition. Before that, the only competition was from the Sony Store.

Keep in mind that just because some judge buys into someone's narrative, doesn't make it true, it's just means that the judge bought the narrative.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

I haven't abandoned my favorite authors, I simply get them from the library. The rest of the time I'm reading Indies, and have tons to read, especially mid-listers who have reclaimed their backlists and are self publishing.

That doesn't surprise me. Like I said; I don't think it's very common that someone does change out all (or even most, or many) of their favorite authors for new ones. But darryl has suggested that with the exception of one, his favorite authors have changed entirely from pre-agency to post-.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Keep in mind that just because some judge buys into someone's narrative, doesn't make it true, it's just means that the judge bought the narrative.

Also keep in mind that having opinions that differ from the judge who bought someone's narrative doesn't preclude the narrative from also being true.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You're right. Anecdotal evidence IS like that. However ...



I don't think I'm going out on much of a limb to believe that not many reading adults will abandon favorite authors for any reason--especially not for something as trivial as happening to work for people who are charging them a similar price for their new books that they've always paid. Add new favorites?? You bet. Wholesale changeover? That's not common. Not for any reason, in my opinion. *shrug*

From the most part, the average reader has no clue what publisher their favorite author uses and could care less about agency pricing.

There has long been a clientele for cheap generic books. That's the niche that the old used bookstore filled, where you took in a bag of books, got credit for them and took home a bag of books. My mother did that for years. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The issue now is that ebooks don't really have the equivalent and that clientele really, really wants cheap generic ebooks. So there have been a couple of efforts to fill that niche, i.e. the indie movement and the subscription model (i.e. KU). There are likely others. Once again, nothing wrong with those business models. My only question is can the authors make enough to keep writing. We will see.

My issue is that some people who prefer this model seem to think that traditional publishers are evil for not selling them ebooks at their preferred price point. That makes as much sense to me as complaining that Apple won't sell iPhones at the same price point as the el cheapo Korean phones. It's not a moral issue. If you don't want to pay $15 for an ebook, then fine, don't. No skin off my nose. It's a personal choice, not a moral decision. I'm not willing to pay for a BMW when I can get from point A to point B with a much cheaper Honda. But that doesn't make BMW evil.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Also keep in mind that having opinions that differ from the judge who bought someone's narrative doesn't preclude the narrative from also being true.

True enough, but I looked at the evidence and made up my own mind rather than cite some judge who is most certainly not a subject matter expert.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

True enough, but I looked at the evidence and made up my own mind rather than cite some judge who is most certainly not a subject matter expert.

And you made up your mind by reading the opinions of people who agreed AND disagreed with Cotes' ruling (since you're not a lawyer and hence unqualified to interpret precedent)? Or did you merely focus on the opinions of other experts who shared your preconceived notion that she made incorrect rulings?