I have found numerous pirated ebooks for free online. Please tell me the benefits of

[latepaul]

I suspect most people are in the camp of mostly/only ebooks or mostly/only paper. Therefore it makes sense that they are priced independently. I understand why the comparison is made - it's natural to perceive the value of the same book in different formats as being related - but the more important comparison for the seller is what is this competing against? So is it priced similarly to other books in the same genre is more relevant than is it priced similarly to its own twin in another medium.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Yes. It really is what we're talking about. You can't prefer ebooks (to the point of expecting never to read a paper book again) and yet value them less than paper books. That you can't seem to grasp that is baffling to me. You want the format you desire more to cost less than the format you don't desire at all! Does that even sound remotely reasonable?

Just a comment... We're talking about price, not value. And when we talk about price, we talk about associated costs and profit, not intangible value that a specific customer gives to an item. According to that logic, if I like more potatoes that oysters, I should think that it is logic that potatoes cost more than oyster even it's easier to get potatoes than oysters.

And, BTW, as a customer my desire is ALWAYS to get the things I like in the cheapest way in the legal/official channels.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

@darryl: But you are not complaining that ebooks should be lower priced than pbooks. So it really doesn't matter how much cheaper or more expensive a pbook is. All DD is trying to say is that it makes little sense to compare pbook and ebook if you already excluded pbook from your purchase decision.

Duckie. I have a strong preference for ebooks. I rarely buy Big 5 agency titles, not now because of any boycott, as was the case when the price fixing conspiracy was in operation. Simply because they can't compete with Indies at the prices they set. Big 5 ebooks should be priced competitively with Indie ebooks. When I see an ebook priced close to the print book price my conclusion is usually that the ebook has been priced so as to protect prospective sales of the print book. Because print books are ancillary to ebooks in the Indie world, and prices are set by the market with little if any regard to prospective print book sales.

[DiapDealer]

The oysters and potatoes comparison doesn't work. They are different things. The Hobbit ebook is the same book as The Hobbit paper book. I understand people wanting to pay as little as possible for something. What I don't understand is people clinging to the notion that a price comparison between the format they want to buy (ebook) and a format they have no intention of ever buying (paper book) is somehow reasonable.

If price is your (rhetorical) bottom line, you buy the paper book if it's cheaper (or the ebook if it's cheaper). But if you always buy the format you prefer the most, then price is clearly not your bottom line, and you should give up comparing them.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by latepaul

I suspect most people are in the camp of mostly/only ebooks or mostly/only paper. Therefore it makes sense that they are priced independently. I understand why the comparison is made - it's natural to perceive the value of the same book in different formats as being related - but the more important comparison for the seller is what is this competing against? So is it priced similarly to other books in the same genre is more relevant than is it priced similarly to its own twin in another medium.

Very true. You really need to compare prices of items in the same market. There are a lot of very different market segments that might appear similar on the surface but have very different price points. Sometimes you have to look at it from the classic economic stand point, i.e. what price point makes you the most money, verses what price point actually sells the most books, or what price point makes a specific individual buy. There are a lot of books out there that I won't read even though they are free and some books that I'm willing to pay a lot more money than most here simply because it's a go to reference for a subject that I'm really interested in.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

There are a lot of books out there that I won't read even though they are free and some books that I'm willing to pay a lot more money than most here simply because it's a go to reference for a subject that I'm really interested in.

I'm going to publicly agree with you completely. Precisely because I so rarely do. It's only fair.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

How hard is it to understand that discounted paper books are NOT discounted by the publisher, but the retailer? Paper book has a 50% profit margin for the retailer at list price. Ebook has a 30% profit margin regardless of price that the publisher sets. Naturally it is much easier to discount the paper books way below list price than it would be for ebooks which the retailer is not even allowed to discount. On top of that the ebook that is discounted cuts into the share that the publisher gets. Discounted ebook equals lower royalties for the author, while discounted paper book is the same.

Last author I talked to, her contract with the publisher did not have royalties based on the retail price of the book in any form. The royalties for ebook, paperback, tradepaper back and hardcover editions were defined in the contract. Any discounts between the publisher and retailer never mind the retailer and customer did not affect those numbers.

And again, since while many of the fixed costs are the same for an ebook or a deadtree book and there are other costs that only apply to deadtree books while the other costs for a ebook are pretty minimal, it is hard (IMNSHO) to justify pricing ebooks at the same price as paperbacks.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

There are a lot of books out there that I won't read even though they are free and some books that I'm willing to pay a lot more money than most here simply because it's a go to reference for a subject that I'm really interested in.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm going to publicly agree with you completely. Precisely because I so rarely do. It's only fair.

I'm also going to agree. Does that break the forum rules?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I'm also going to agree. Does that break the forum rules?

It feels like it should, right?

[barryem]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Yes. It really is what we're talking about. You can't prefer ebooks (to the point of expecting never to read a paper book again) and yet value them less than paper books. That you can't seem to grasp that is baffling to me. You want the format you desire more to cost less than the format you don't desire at all! Does that even sound remotely reasonable?

I can accept that you don't grasp what I'm getting at. I'm just not sure why.

As for being reasonable, when the item I prefer costs less to produce than the item I don't prefer I'm surprised that it has a higher selling price when both are available on the same page. I do understand that demand plays a big role but I don't think that's the answer here, since all the statistics seem to indicate that paper books sales are increasing more rapidly than ebook sales.

I'd much rather have a Chevy than a 747 and yet 747 prices are considerably higher than Chevy prices.

More seriously I don't think book prices rise or fall based simply on my personal preferences. I'm not the only one buying books.

Barry

[barryem]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

What I don't understand is people clinging to the notion that a price comparison between the format they want to buy (ebook) and a format they have no intention of ever buying (paper book) is somehow reasonable.

Whether you think it's reasonable to compare prices of ebooks and paper books or not, I'm sure you're aware that many people do make this comparison. That's what this discussion and a LOT of earlier discussions are about. People think that way even if you think that's not reasonable.

On Amazon's page for a book someone is looking at if people see the price of the ebook is higher than the price of the paper book, and Amazon, who is supposed to know how their customers think and feel, has the paper book cheaper than the ebook, that's bad marketing. That's what I'm saying. It's dumb.

Again, I realize that in a capitalist society cost doesn't necessarily dictate price. But when a customer does something like this they're giving their customers a bad feeling about them. They aren't generating trust.

I realize that in most cases this is the publishers doing. Amazon doesn't set the prices. But it's happening and it's very foolish marketing.

I'm not saying it's dishonest. I'm saying it gives the impression of dishonesty and that's nearly as bad. I'm not saying publishers don't have the right to do this. They do. But they're hurting themselves when they do it.

Barry

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It feels like it should, right?

Guess I need to go out and buy a lottery ticket.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Last author I talked to, her contract with the publisher did not have royalties based on the retail price of the book in any form. The royalties for ebook, paperback, tradepaper back and hardcover editions were defined in the contract. Any discounts between the publisher and retailer never mind the retailer and customer did not affect those numbers.

And again, since while many of the fixed costs are the same for an ebook or a deadtree book and there are other costs that only apply to deadtree books while the other costs for a ebook are pretty minimal, it is hard (IMNSHO) to justify pricing ebooks at the same price as paperbacks.

That is funny. You are just giving the perfect example why the publisher is mostly interested in keeping the prices high. The higher the price, the bigger the profit margin as a smaller percentage needs to go to the author in royalties.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

That is funny. You are just giving the perfect example why the publisher is mostly interested in keeping the prices high. The higher the price, the bigger the profit margin as a smaller percentage needs to go to the author in royalties.

Also, the contract described seems to be outside the norm, or some other relevant terms not discussed. It was as I understand it normal for such contracts to provide for either no royalties or much reduced royalties if books were sold at a discount. Certainly this was the case with deep discounts. I'm sure the contract described would have some provision to ensure that the publisher is not paying royalties in respect of heavily discounted sales.

On the more general question more eloquent posters than myself have expressed the situation very clearly. "Value" to an individual is very different to price. To the extent that perceptions of value, be it to individuals or large groups is a factor in pricing, it is but a single factor amongst many and not necessarily a particularly important one. It is perfectly legitimate and rational for a prospective purchaser to assess value for money by comparing other products with even peripheral relevance should they so choose, let alone the same product in different formats. A book is a book. The product is the combination of words, be they expressed in print, electronically or in the spoken word. Imagine that a print book is priced at $20, and the corresponding ebook is priced at $1,000. The very idea that the price of the print book is irrelevant in assessing the price of the ebook because one has no intention of buying the print book in these circumstances seems to me to be somewhat difficult to defend. The result of the comparison is that I would not purchase the book in either format, irrespective of other factors.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

That is funny. You are just giving the perfect example why the publisher is mostly interested in keeping the prices high. The higher the price, the bigger the profit margin as a smaller percentage needs to go to the author in royalties.

Setting a higher price is often not the way to maximize profits. You need to balance the profits per sale against the number of sales. Takes me back to being forced to sit in on discussions about revenue vs. profits, profit maximization, pretty curves on graphs showing profits vs sales with the later 3D graphs trying to handle multiple variables including one memorable one that I thought looked like an attempt at a 3D Mandelbrot bug.