Do some publishers have any idea?

[Timboli]

Originally Posted by darryl

I've never seen the point in pre-ordering ebooks. In the absence of a real incentive such as a lower price, it seems to be pointless.

In my case, it has always been about lower price, and Amazon promise to reduce price if it should fall further before release.

I have seen ebooks go up in price on release or shortly thereafter.

It is also nice to have an ebook popup seemingly out of nowhere on release. Sometimes they even get released earlier. I see it as set and forget and get it at a good price while you can.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid that's where we fundamentally disagree. I've said it before and I'll say it again: a company's legal obligation is to obey the law and act in the best interests of its shareholders. Generally speaking, that means maximising its profits. There's no pretence involved: that is the company's legal duty and its sole reason for existing. A publisher is not in the business of selling books at the lowest possible price, but at the price that will generate maximum profit. There's nothing immoral or unethical about that - it's the reason for the publisher's existence.

That is true for a publicly traded company, but then again, many of the publishers are privately held so the same rules don't necessarily apply. It really comes down to where they are incorporated and who actually owns them. To a great extent that is why we are seeing a lot of publicly held companies go private. There isn't a requirement to maximize profit, especially short term profit. Even with public companies, the fiduciary responsibility is to the health of the company, rather than to the purely to maximize profits or as the catch phrase goes "investor value".

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Timboli

How? DRM prevents that.

Actually, if you have multiple Kindles attached to the same account, multiple people can be reading the book simultaneously. Happens all the time with my books, as I have multiple family members all using Kindles registered to my account.

Originally Posted by timboli

How many actually use those things?
I click on an ebook and read it. In some instance I change the font size, but perhaps that is not my fault ... most are fine without doing that.

It's all very well to provide such features, but they are not a benefit if not used, and it is more to do with the device than ebook itself.

I think they should charge more for physical books, because one day our nanny robots will read to us, and won't that be a fabulous benefit.

I change the font and lighting multiple times druing the day. My eyes get tired as I go through the day, and I need larger fonts at the end of the day than I do at the beginning. I also like to read in bed, and reading in bed with my glasses on isn't comfortable at all.

Weight and comfort are also a factor for me...it's much more comfortable to hold my Kindle one-handed than it is to hold a paperback or hard cover book.

Then, of course, there's the travel factor. I went away last weekend, and read four books while I was gone. In the old days, I would have had to pack all of those books, plus a few more, just in case I had more time for reading, or decided that I didn't care for one of the books that I brought with me. Now, I just brought my Kindle, all loaded up with books. If I did run out, I could always connect to Amazon and download more.

I am no longer interested in reading paper books at all, so I don't even look at the price of the paper book when deciding whether or not to buy the ebook.

Shari

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

That is true for a publicly traded company, but then again, many of the publishers are privately held so the same rules don't necessarily apply. It really comes down to where they are incorporated and who actually owns them. To a great extent that is why we are seeing a lot of publicly held companies go private. There isn't a requirement to maximize profit, especially short term profit. Even with public companies, the fiduciary responsibility is to the health of the company, rather than to the purely to maximize profits or as the catch phrase goes "investor value".

Even privately-held companies can have shareholders--just not public ones. That doesn't really change their fiduciary duty. And the "health of the company" is usually not measured in ways other than financial, when it comes to investors, shareholders, stockholders, etc.

Hitch

[Timboli]

Hi Shari.

Originally Posted by shalym

Actually, if you have multiple Kindles attached to the same account, multiple people can be reading the book simultaneously. Happens all the time with my books, as I have multiple family members all using Kindles registered to my account.

I've already responded to that idea.
I'm sure you will appreciate that most households don't do that. Certainly not in my experience anyway.

In fact, I know relatively few people with an ereader. Most in my experience have either a Tablet or an iPad. And everyone I know has their own accounts. I can see where in a young family, it may be expedient to do as you and at least one other has said. Though I am not sure about trusting fragile devices to really young kids.

In the end I guess, it depends on how financial you need to be, and how independent family members want to be. So a good solution for some I expect, but not most.

I change the font and lighting multiple times druing the day. My eyes get tired as I go through the day, and I need larger fonts at the end of the day than I do at the beginning. I also like to read in bed, and reading in bed with my glasses on isn't comfortable at all.

Weight and comfort are also a factor for me...it's much more comfortable to hold my Kindle one-handed than it is to hold a paperback or hard cover book.

Then, of course, there's the travel factor. I went away last weekend, and read four books while I was gone. In the old days, I would have had to pack all of those books, plus a few more, just in case I had more time for reading, or decided that I didn't care for one of the books that I brought with me. Now, I just brought my Kindle, all loaded up with books. If I did run out, I could always connect to Amazon and download more.

Sounds like you definitely need ebooks, though I am sure you can appreciate that a lot of people don't do what you do with an ereader or have your needs. Clearly you are prepared to pay more for something you find crucial, but many of us don't think you should have to ... your choice though for you.

I am no longer interested in reading paper books at all, so I don't even look at the price of the paper book when deciding whether or not to buy the ebook.

I don't look at the physical book price either. I only browse Kindle ebooks. But having bought physical books for years I am well aware of the usual prices ... certainly at the local stores and the many online stores.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It's relevant from the stand point that some seem to think there is one guy setting policy for Penguin, for example, while the reality is that each little imprint and purchasing editor within Penguin is doing their own thing within broad guidelines. Heck, even if you look at the same imprint within Penguin, say G.P. Putnam's Sons, you see that all the kindle prices aren't the same for all new books put out in the same month, just a quick cursory glance shows prices varying several dollars from book to book. The big 5 publishers are hardly the monolith that people seem to assume.

I see your point now. Your article you linked, if I read it correctly, was talking about the ownership of each Big5 as a whole. That inside each Big5 is yet another hot mess of their own with imprints galore, is a different thing, IMO. I did not make the connection to zoom in, so to say. Trying different strategies with different imprints can be either by freedom of choice from each imprint, or that allowance comes from higher up. We can never know for sure.

Either way, the fact that each big publisher, and by extension each tiny imprint, is owned by an even bigger company only complicates the restrictions that apply.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

I see your point now. Your article you linked, if I read it correctly, was talking about the ownership of each Big5 as a whole. That inside each Big5 is yet another hot mess of their own with imprints galore, is a different thing, IMO. I did not make the connection to zoom in, so to say. Trying different strategies with different imprints can be either by freedom of choice from each imprint, or that allowance comes from higher up. We can never know for sure.

Either way, the fact that each big publisher, and by extension each tiny imprint, is owned by an even bigger company only complicates the restrictions that apply.

Big fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so, ad infinitum.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Even privately-held companies can have shareholders--just not public ones. That doesn't really change their fiduciary duty. And the "health of the company" is usually not measured in ways other than financial, when it comes to investors, shareholders, stockholders, etc.

Hitch

Health of the company tends to be measured in long term profitability, i.e ability to survive rather than quarterly profits or stock prices. There is quite a bit of debate going on right now about what fiduciary duty actually means. The idea that companies should maximize profit was really a reaction whose best known advocate was Milton Friedman to Keynesian economics. To a certain extent, I think it is really an exaggeration of what Friedman was trying to say and frankly was seize on by investors who are more focused on short term returns to investors than the long term survival of a company. You really have to look at what the norm in corporate governance was when Friedman was talking about profit, not where we are now.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Health of the company tends to be measured in long term profitability, i.e ability to survive rather than quarterly profits or stock prices. There is quite a bit of debate going on right now about what fiduciary duty actually means. The idea that companies should maximize profit was really a reaction whose best known advocate was Milton Friedman to Keynesian economics. To a certain extent, I think it is really an exaggeration of what Friedman was trying to say and frankly was seize on by investors who are more focused on short term returns to investors than the long term survival of a company. You really have to look at what the norm in corporate governance was when Friedman was talking about profit, not where we are now.

To be fair, not all investors think long term, or even invest long term. Wall Street is on the side of investors. It is Wall Street that has been complaining about Amazon not making any effort to report overall profit. Amazon doesn't fit the norm for publicly traded companies, but is still judged by it.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Hitch

I wanted to speak to this--you're misconstruing how copyright and publishing rights work. Yes, sure, copyright exists for the life+70 years--but publishing contracts don't. The typical longest length for a Big 5 publishing contract is 7 years--not, life, not 70 and not life+70. When publishing houses bought books outright, sure--that would work for them, but publishing hasn't worked that way in the last 100 years.

My understanding is that most publishing contracts grant the Publisher rights for the life of the copyright. Whilst I am not myself in the business there are multiple sources for this. Are you distinguishing between the publishing contract itself and the grant of rights? Would you elaborate please.

[Timboli]

Some publishers really need to have a hard look at themselves. Like many politicians, they seem to take trust, respect and liking for granted, when they really aren't earning it.

Take for instance that hugely over-priced ebook of Terry Brooks, that I mentioned earlier.

Most of the customers buying that book, would be long term fans, because it belongs to a series within a long ongoing series, and quite a way in.

Those fans, have been supporting Terry Brooks in a big way, many like myself for decades, so what a disgusting way for the publisher to treat us.

As they say, what comes around goes around.

If you don't have transparency, if you do stuff that erodes trust, then you can expect topics like this one of mine, at the very least.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Timboli

If you don't have transparency, if you do stuff that erodes trust, then you can expect topics like this one of mine, at the very least.

You may perhaps have noticed that the overwhelming majority of posters to this thread have disagreed with your opinion.

[Timboli]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You may perhaps have noticed that the overwhelming majority of posters to this thread have disagreed with your opinion.

And that means what?

Are you saying I am alone in 'my' opinion? Or just a small voice here?

Who exactly are all these people posting here? I and I expect most, know very little or nothing about them.

It's not the opposition that counts really, it is the words said and what they mean.

It's not like the majority is always right is it?

Am I wrong about that Terry Brooks example? I notice you never quoted that and tried to explain.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Timboli

And that means what?

It means that most posters think you're wrong.

Am I wrong about that Terry Brooks example? I notice you never quoted that and tried to explain.

There's nothing to explain. The publisher is free to set whatever price they wish, and you're free to choose to buy it or not as you wish. There's nothing immoral or unethical about the situation.

[Timboli]

Here is another example of publisher predatory behavior.

Most people know J.K. Rowling. She's a great author and I love her work.

Many would also know she is reputedly the richest woman in the world ... but don't quote me on that. She is very very rich by any measuring stick, and so are her publishers.

If ever there was a time, when the usual Hardcover shenanigans should have been done away with, it was with her Harry Potter books. But no, they milked it for all it was worth, not giving a stuff about the poor people effected. Sure, they gave away a few as promotion etc.

Many many people around the world love and read her books, and many many of those poor people. Because they are so popular, they are talked about at school and everywhere, so just imagine what it must be like for a poor kid especially, in that circumstance.

The next novel in the series comes out in hardcover first, and of course the affluent snap it up immediately and reading commences straight away, and then discussions and spoilers abound.

Any kid not wanting the story to be spoiled for them, would want to get the novel right away too. That put a lot of pressures on a lot of families and kids, and many of them suffered unnecessarily.

It could have been avoided to huge degree, by bringing out a fair priced paperback from the word go.

It's not like J.K. Rowling and the publisher wouldn't have made a killing anyway from profit. How can any reasonable person view it as anything but greed?

Just imagine how many parents refused to budge? How many gave in and made some kind of sacrifice, because they love their kids?

It's unconscionable really, that situation they were put it.

I wonder how many of you have ever thought about that?

P.S. I thought about that every time I bought the hardcover for my kids. Luckily I could afford it, even though the extra money spent could have gone to other areas that needed it. I always spared a thought for those less fortunate, and the greed made me angry ... and very very sad.