Do some publishers have any idea?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Baen famously lost a bundle on Gettysburg by Gingrich.

I didn't know that. What happened there? I thought Gettysurg was a bestseller published by one of the Big 5? (I'm not a fan of alternate history and certainly not a fan of Newt, so I'm ignorant of the story.)

I would say that the 70% is heavily weighted towards the mass of first or second time authors who likely sell a few thousand copies at best and who disappear as a writer after that.

Yes, exactly.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by darryl

Paying top price for a new release hard cover gives little incentive to an author.

I think this is exactly the misunderstanding.

Those who take umbrage at being told they shouldn't always be cheap, at least on books by authors they value highly, are making the argument that since many Big 5 books don't earn out, the author doesn't make more money whether you pay $25.00 or $0.99. Therefore the amount the book sells for doesn't provide incentive to the author.

But those of us arguing that you should support your favorite authors aren't making that case at all. It's not about me somehow directly putting more of my hard-earned shekels directly in the author's pocket. It is about making sure that the author sells enough that the publisher will give the author more chances to publish.

It's not incentivizing the author, it is giving the author an opportunity to continue publishing their work.

[GlennD]

A healthy percentage of the authors I read are dead, so they don't care what prices their ebooks sell at. I doubt it provides any incentive to their heirs in most cases.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

But those of us arguing that you should support your favorite authors aren't making that case at all. It's not about me somehow directly putting more of my hard-earned shekels directly in the author's pocket. It is about making sure that the author sells enough that the publisher will give the author more chances to publish.

Not at all. The initial argument was exactly that, you should pay the hardcover price, or you're cheap. Yes, by now it's been changed to just buying at all. But that wasn't how it started out.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Not at all. The initial argument was exactly that, you should pay the hardcover price, or you're cheap. Yes, by now it's been changed to just buying at all. But that wasn't how it started out.

As far as I remember, this is the post that started the current conversation:

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”.

And the follow-up:

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.

A very few authors are going to pay the rent selling books for $.99, let alone the mortgage.

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.

I don't see anything saying that buying a new release directly pays the author.

And, even if that were misinterpreted by other users, the main point still stands.

[DiapDealer]

There was definitely a "Paying the highest price for books supports an author more than paying a cheaper price" argument being floated. No need to try and retcon it away.

I think it's been fairly well established that paying for books supports the author. In fact, I'd wager to say that no one here has ever argued otherwise. But what has been thoroughly debunked, in my opinion, is the notion that paying new-release prices for traditionally published works somehow supports an author even more (which WAS a notion that was floated). And it certainly doesn't make anyone more of a patron than someone who waits for the price to come down.

With the exception of indie authors who are getting most (if not all) of their ebooks proceeds, the only thing that can be definitively stated about those who pay the highest price for books by their favorite authors is that they spend more money on their books than others. That's about it.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

There was definitely a "Paying the highest price for books supports an author more than paying a cheaper price" argument being floated. No need to try and retcon it away.

No retconning. Buying a book while it is newer is better for an author who received an advance from a big publisher than buying the book when it is older, hence my mentions of the remainder table.

But what has been thoroughly debunked, in my opinion, is the notion that paying new-release prices for traditionally published works somehow supports an author even more (which WAS a notion that was floated).

I think you are misinterpreting 'support' to only mean a buyer's dollars flowing directly into the author's pocket.

A traditionally published author who sells a lot of books when they are released is more likely to continue publishing than an author who's book flops upon release.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Buying a book while it is newer is better for an author who received an advance from a big publisher than buying the book when it is older.

I remain utterly unconvinced that this true.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I remain utterly unconvinced that this true.

If you were a publisher, would you continue to offer advances to an author whose work never sells?

Gordon Dahlquist received an enormous advance for his first book. The book flopped, hard. He has published a few follow-ups, because he was signed to a multi book contract. But you can bet he never saw those types of advances again.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

And there I actually thought you cannot sink any lower. I wish your money tries up and you are forced to use the library. With any luck the non support from you will make all your favourite authors give up and stop writing. Your individual support is not as important as you make it sound like.

P.S.: In case you are wondering, I borrowed exactly one book from the library so far this year. And I really could not care less if that author writes another book (if he was still alive that is). Go ahead and do what you have to do to make yourself feel superior and righteous. I have plenty of books in my price range that will entertain me.

Learn to read. “If you can....”. Precedes “and don’t”

I have had my share of ups and downs financially, and I’m sure this will continue.

[DiapDealer]

If you were a publisher, would you continue to offer advances to an author whose work never sells?

Again, you're confusing the argument as it applies to who is (supposedly) supporting an author more. It is entirely possible for readers to buy the same new release book at different price-points while, in fact, "helping" the same author equally. The price the book is sold at is irrelevent to the amount of "support" an author gets from the sale. Which debunks the earlier claim that paying more supports the author more.

[leebase]

Zodwallops timeline missed the original sin post...the one claiming folks buying new release books at new release prices were rubes and being ripped off (or words very close to that).

It is those very people that support the art the most. Yes they do. yes....yes they do. The dude reading books out of the charity pile or local garage...are valuable human beings. They just aren’t supporting the creation of more books by the very authors they like.

The rest is just defensiveness that “I’m a good person even if I only buy books that cost a dollar”. You are, perhaps...as this has nothing to do with being a good person. It has everything to do with supporting the art the we all here seem to love.

Maybe...just maybe...instead of buying books at the best deal for yourself...you buy books in a way to support the creation of the next book. For those that can.

If you CAN afford to buy a book...perhaps you do, EVEN THOUGH you could check it out of your local library for free...leaving said book available to check out for those who can’t afford to buy their own copy AND supporting the author better as well.

Just a thought

[DiapDealer]

Sorry, Lee, but you're all wet. And adding extra "yeses" won't make you any drier. Had you argued that buying as early as possible supported an author more, you might have had a pot to pee in. But you didn't. You hung your hat on the notion that "highest price paid" equals "most support given," and that's just not true. Now you're backtracking to "paying vs library-borrowing" and hoping no one noticed the goal-posts being dug up and moved.

And before you try ... No. buying as early as possible does not automatically mean you've paid the highest price possible. Think ebook vs pbook and early promotions. You can sale shop new books and still support the author just as much as the elite patron who waits for the promotion to be over so they can pay more and feel superior.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by leebase

Learn to read. “If you can....”. Precedes “and don’t”

I can read just fine, thank you very much for being concerned about my well being. So how about that? If I can, but choose not to, then you are saying I should anyway, because of reasons. The reason being that I am passionate about reading. Now please explain to me how I am only allowed to be entered into the "passionate about reading club" if I also have a membership of the "irresponsible with money club"?

I also believe that you just dug your own hole with this:

I have had my share of ups and downs financially, and I’m sure this will continue.

So you are saying that you become smarter about spending money once you hit a financial low? It doesn't happen, because you turn from a valued passionate reader to a leech passionate reader. It happens, because you were over spending while you had so much money, you didn't know what to do with it. If you truly want to be a passionate supportive reader, then you should make sure it is independent of your financial luck at the moment. Save your money you are overspending now for later when you will hit a low again. You will be able to keep reading as you have been without using your current discretionary money, but your old savings from before.

[leebase]

You aren’t very good at this. Either you play the poor mouth and “oh my oh my, don’t judge me for riding along on the art paid for by others”......or your the guy who’s a skin flint, able to support the art he consumes....but doesn’t, because he doesn’t have to as somebody else will.

I'm no daddy war bucks. I’ve been poor, I’ve had good money and I’ve fluctuated between having and not having. But ethics don’t change with circumstances. When I was out of work, I went to the very food pantry to feed my family...that I had volunteered for during better days. I could go there now and get free food. But when I can afford to buy food, I don’t go for the charity food just because nobody would dare tell me not too.

When I was a kid I went to the block parties and the fireworks show and it never occurred to me to pitch in....not that I had anything. As an adult, I go and bring more food than my family will eat and I contribute to the fireworks fund.

As a kid I got glasses with the help of the Lions Club. Now I give to the Lions Club from time to time.

Those that are poor have never been what I’ve talked about. It’s a smoke screen being put up. If you can, pay your way. Support the art you enjoy.