Do some publishers have any idea?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It isn't.
When it's voluntary.

When choosing not to do it comes with adjectives or it's set up as a virtuosity test there will be pushback, though. Or when it's set up as a virtuosity test.
Not everybody can afford to (or chooses to) feed their reading addiction at full price.

Okay, but I went through the posts and this is these one that seemed to start the brouhaha (selectively quoted for brevity):

Originally Posted by leebase

The fans paying the highest price at release are WHY the exists outside of patronage from the wealthy.

Its also why the vast majority of Indie authors are “authors” the way your waitress is really an “actress”.

I think that is true. Like I mentioned earlier, Stephen King and authors in that league are where they are because over years readers purchased their books new, rather than from the remainder table.

And most authors aren't able to earn a living from their writing, like most actresses aren't able to earn a living from their acting.

I don't see a moral judgement anywhere in the message.

A second post said:

Originally Posted by leebase

I think you missed my point. If you like books, and wish there to be more of the type and quality you like....pay for it...

My words were not aimed at those who can't afford books, but at the notion that folks paying the freight...the "best fans" who are "being ripped off"....are really the fans that are supporting the art. They aren't getting ripped off. They are paying for what they like and doing so in a way that will support the FUTURE creation of art they like.

And if you are one of the "ride alongs" (people who read for free or pay the cheapest prices)....at least show some respect and gratitude for those who's buying habits are paying for the art you enjoy to exist.

He's right. An author can't make a living selling books at $0.99. If you want your favorite writers to write more stuff, buy their books at the price they are asking. That doesn't mean every book you buy MUST be at MSRP, as some were saying. But if you have a favorite author, maybe don't wait and wait until their book is a freebie.

I had more, but I think you see my point. I don't see anything about it being a virtuosity test or that people must pay full price even if they can't afford it. Trying to say that was part of the argument just isn't true. Anything along those lines was insinuated by later responders.

I disagree with Lee more often than not. But reading through these last few pages of posts it felt like users were purposely misinterpreting the argument and making ridiculous assertions. It was galling since at base his argument is valid.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

It was galling since at base his argument is valid.

Which argument? That the fans paying full price at release are paving the way for those that are "ride alongs." As an individual, sure, it can probably argued that it is true for one author and one book. As a whole? It is a purely WAG that more money is coming in from early access premium prices. It could be considered merely a baseline. The minimum expected money coming in. Whether the book is successful or not might depend on the amount of money coming from those more careful to spend their money. Those that don't blindly buy.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

He's right. An author can't make a living selling books at $0.99. If you want your favorite writers to write more stuff, buy their books at the price they are asking.

Their "asking price" only applies to Indies. Because they set their own price and receive income solely from sales. No sales, no money.

For everybody else, from King to firstimers, the money they get is what they get from the publisher. There is no direct, proportional, link between book cost and author receipts. No sales? They keep their advance.
Blockbuster sales?
Still no royalties because the advance is all they get. Upfront. There is no proportionality. Period.

Very few books earn out.
That is what blows out the theory of "pay more for the author's sake".
(Even when a book exceeds publisher expectations and does earn out, royalties are based on number of sales, not sale price.)

It is a fallacy, plain and simple.

As for asking price? What is the asking price, anyway? The price listed on the cover? That's a fake price, you know, right?
Not even standalone bookstores charge that price. Some try. Don't last.
The printed price includes the profits of everybody in the distribution chain and all get paid before the author. That includes the middlemen like Ingram, Amazon, and B&N. *They* decide what the "asking price" the reader sees is, not the publisher. (Except ebooks and, as pointed out above, they deliver less to authors than discounted print.)

The publisher negotiates a fixed price with the distributor and that is *all* they see. Pay cover price, 10%, 30%, 45% off? Makes no difference to the publisher. The difference between 10% and 45% is no difference to them. Or the author.

The discount comes from the retailer's pocket, not the publisher's.
Not the author's.

Want to pay more for a book to support the retailer?
Now *that* is a trueism.
Especially if you're buying from "the shop around tbe corner".
That is definitely supporting somebody...but it's not the author.

Buying the book, that supports the author; how much you pay, where and when you buy? That supports the retailers.

Want to rail against used books, remainders, pirates?
Have at it.
There's a case for those because the author isn't getting a sale.

Even libraries, because one sale equals multiple reads. Usually single digits and low ones at that. Rarely does a library book gather dozens of reads but, yeah, it happens.

Want to know what *best* supports a writer?
Recommendations.
Reviews.
Honest ratings.

Like an author?
Recommend them.
Cite them online.
Help them find new sales.
That really helps.

Indies understand that.
That is why they accept the proportional payouts of Kindle Unlimited.
Readers can try them out, risk free. And it boosts their sales. And reviews. And recommendations.
You *could* rail against that kind of discounting but it is strictly the author's choice if their book is there. (With a few minor exceptions and those are paid full price.)

Want to buy a book on day one?
Go for it.
(I've done it. I've even bought eARCS.)
But it makes no difference to the author if you buy it at Amazon for $12 or pay $17 at the shop around the corner. If you can find one.
Or if you wait for the trade paperback or go for the ebook.

That is support enough.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

...
I disagree with Lee more often than not. But reading through these last few pages of posts it felt like users were purposely misinterpreting the argument and making ridiculous assertions. It was galling since at base his argument is valid.

My take is that it started from the assertion that publishers were ripping off their customers by charging more that how much that particular poster felt was the right price for a book, and then leebase's response from that. I think that some people who prefer not to buy books, i.e. mostly go to the library, got their feelings hurt and some reacted to what they thought he really meant rather than what he actually said. There is also a bit of the instinctive indie verse publisher push back as well.

But yea, a lot of straw man attacks and apparently purposeful misinterpretation of what was actually being said. For example, the skinflint comment was said said by someone else entirely and this was pointed out, but some still insist that leebase called them a skinflint.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

...
Want to buy a book on day one?
Go for it.
(I've done it. I've even bought eARCS.)
But it makes no difference to the author if you buy it at Amazon for $12 or pay $17 at the shop around the corner. If you can find one.
Or if you wait for the trade paperback or go for the ebook.

That is support enough.

Given that most published authors are paid a percentage of either the net or the list depending on the contract, yea, authors very much do care if you buy at hardback prices or wait for trade or paper back prices. Hard back prices is more money in their pocket (or applied to the advance for those who insist that an advance means that authors aren't actually paid when you buy a book). They may appreciate the sale regardless, but yea most people do prefer more money in their pocket.

[leebase]

What best supports an author is buying their books. Ratings help....only in as much as it helps someone else....BUY their book.

Buy their book....AND do the other stuff.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

But yea, a lot of straw man attacks and apparently purposeful misinterpretation of what was actually being said. For example, the skinflint comment was said said by someone else entirely and this was pointed out, but some still insist that leebase called them a skinflint.

Direct quote from leebase: This whole forum...filled with folks passionate about reading. But MY GOD....so many skin flints who think a book and a cup of coffee should be the same price.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by leebase

What best supports an author is buying their books. Ratings help....only in as much as it helps someone else....BUY their book.

Buy their book....AND do the other stuff.

Now it's just "buy the book". Before it was "buy it at the highest price level possible". I have no objection whatsoever to the first one, but I do mind being called cheap because I'm not willing to do the second.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Which argument? That the fans paying full price at release are paving the way for those that are "ride alongs." As an individual, sure, it can probably argued that it is true for one author and one book.

Regardless of where an author's $$$ comes from, book sales or publisher's advance, the author is better served by fans who buy the book early on rather than when the book is remaindered (or the digital equivalent).

Again, I'm not saying that every book purchase by every unknown author needs to be made this way. But if there's an author you are a fan of and you would like to see that writer continue, buy their books and don't gripe about the price.

If they're indie, they get more money from the sale. If they're tradpub, the publisher sees there is a demand for their work.

I have very few authors I am loyal like this for. Probably less than other users on this board. That's why I don't understand the blow-up that followed.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Their "asking price" only applies to Indies. Because they set their own price and receive income solely from sales. No sales, no money.

Yes, it applies to indies. Thank you.

Tradpub authors do benefit by having strong sales numbers regardless of earning out on their advances.

Honestly, the rest of your email was just a bunch of hand-waiving, “what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” to ignore the main point.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

My take is that it started from the assertion that publishers were ripping off their customers by charging more that how much that particular poster felt was the right price for a book, and then leebase's response from that. I think that some people who prefer not to buy books, i.e. mostly go to the library, got their feelings hurt and some reacted to what they thought he really meant rather than what he actually said. There is also a bit of the instinctive indie verse publisher push back as well.

Yeah, I agree.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I have very few authors I am loyal like this for. Probably less than other users on this board. That's why I don't understand the blow-up that followed.

It was not so much what he said, but the tone in which he said it. First the patronizing "support the art" and then the name-calling. I know it made my hackles rise, and I'm not even one of those who use libraries or wait for the lowest price possible.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

It was not so much what he said, but the tone in which he said it. First the patronizing "support the art"

Why is that patronizing?

and then the name-calling...

The whole quote:

Originally Posted by leebase

So many fans of reading. This whole forum...filled with folks passionate about reading. But MY GOD....so many skin flints who think a book and a cup of coffee should be the same price.

I have no issue with the point being made there. No single user was singled out there and looking at the tone of some of the other comments, he has a point. Or maybe I'm just a patronizing name-caller

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Why is that patronizing?

Because that's how I felt when I read it. The difference between us is that you happen to agree with him; I don't. And his tone made me (and obviously not only me) feel like I was being moralized to. That's what I resented.

As to name-calling, again you don't feel insulted because you agree with him. I have no problems with someone saying something I don't agree with, but they should manage to do it without insults.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Because that's how I felt when I read it. The difference between us is that you happen to agree with him; I don't. And his tone made me (and obviously not only me) feel like I was being moralized to. That's what I resented.

As to name-calling, again you don't feel insulted because you agree with him. I have no problems with someone saying something I don't agree with, but they should manage to do it without insults.

I suppose so.

Writing is an art. And when you buy a book, you are supporting the arts. Does that sound pretentious? I guess it does, because we don't think of it that way. But it is still so.

As for the name calling, if that's the issue, that's what should be addressed instead of ridiculous assertions about only children being able to morally check out books from the library or that you are only virtuous if you pay full list price for all books purchased. Yeah, they might be funny to read, but they are arguing points that were never made in the first place.