Simon & Schuster is delaying ebooks by four months

[zacheryjensen]

Originally Posted by bookwerm

I stand on the reasoning that eBooks have been around for several years, and if they were going to cannibalize paper book sales (the way digital music did to CDs), it would be more apparent and prevalent than it is today.

Then your reasoning is flawed as your historical accuracy is very poor. MP3 was ratified into standard in 1991, 12 years before iTunes Music Store even existed. I ripped my music on my slow 486 PC before a single standalone mp3 player was even feasible. Though at the time it took half a day to rip a single disc.

The fact of the matter is that technologies like this require time and conditions to be right before they become popular. You can't somehow link the fact that eBooks have been around for a while to any kind of rationalization that they won't have an impact on the market now.

The reality is eBooks have been around for forty+ years in one form or another, and in certain circles, have been the preference to print for many people. The only thing that has changed recently is big, well known companies pushing eBooks as a product that is friendly and enjoyable to regular consumers.

Standalone devices are better and more enjoyable to use. Consumers are accustomed to online ordering, and "trust" these stores now. People are creatures of comfort and convenience and are beginning to see just how much more convenient eBooks are. Finally, publishers want eBooks because they get more control over the distribution channels and can (attempt to) restrict resale markets more easily.

There are numerous reasons for an explosion of eBooks and every chance and opportunity that they will do to the book market what downloadable music has done to the music market. None of this is a bad thing. The music market is so much better now. I don't care how huge of a local cd store you had, you could never come within an order of magnitude the choice we have now with online music stores, not to mention the convenience of listening to samples or internet radio, etc. to discover things you never would've considered trying before.

I can sit in the comfort of my home and browse for new books, or, I can do the same thing in the break room at work between tasks as I unwind with a cup of chai. I can have the bookstore experience wherever I go. It's quite good!

Since this is just the beginning of popular awareness of eBooks you won't see much cannibalization right away. You'll see failed attempts at linking eBook sales to Paper book sales and so on, and lots of flailing and whining from old dogs as their market bites the dust. But eventually eBook popularity will demand changes in paper book distribution and marketing. My guess is that eBooks will displace trade paperbacks and the more obscure mass market. I suspect the entire romance section will become the main portal for people moving from paper to eBooks and probably be the first to leave the bookstore entirely in say... 5-7 years.

Eyes to the future my friend, not the past. Nobody pays attention to the past and it rarely dictates the actions of the future, especially in the frame of large market movements.

Interesting times...

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by bookwerm

I think we just settle on a difference of opinions, then. You seem to be under the impression that ebooks are to paper books what digital music is to CDs. I'm of the mindset that the relationship is more like that of Blu-ray to standard def - there's room in the market for both to exist without one annihilating the other.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, are you claiming that cd sales have been annihilated by digital downloads? If that is the case then your analogy falls down right there as cds and digital downloads co-exist just as readily as blu-ray and dvd does.

Incidentally, comparing ebooks and paperbooks to digital downloads and cds is far more valid than trying to compare them to blu-ray and dvd because in the last pair, one format has a noticeable quality benefit that isn't the case with books or music.

[eReaderPlanet]

This comes down to one simple thing: giving consumers what they want, when they want it. If publishers don't give them books the way they want them, consumers will find another way to get them (piracy). It's happened in music, it's happened in TV, it's happened in movies...and it will happen in publishing.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it will happen if publishers don't wake up and think about how their customers want to consume their content.

[vaughnmr]

I'm going to vote with my wallet. These people just lost a customer, and I'll be contacting the authors aligned with this outfit about that fact also.

[ficbot]

Every Hachette ebook I have ever gotten has had the most abysmal formatting too...every ebook I have bought which I have had difficulty with has been from them.

[AnemicOak]

Looks like Harper Collins is jumping on board too at least somewhat...
http://www.strategyeye.com/articles/...ia/id/23895061

HarperCollins is the latest publisher to say it will delay the release of e-book versions of some new titles as the industry struggles to manage the introduction of digital formats. The News Corp-owned publisher says that from next year it will delay the online release of five to 10 new books each month for between four weeks and six months, giving it a chance to sell hardback copies of new releases at far higher prices than the USD9.99 that most new e-books cost.

“We're going to experiment with this," HarperCollins CEO Brian Murray tells the Wall Street Journal. "Each new e-book represents a potential new marketing opportunity at a time when we need every possible hook to get consumer attention."

Though publishers accept that e-books increase the market for older books, many are worried that electronic versions of new titles are cannibalising hardback sales. They say dedicated customers who typically buy books as soon as they are released are the most likely to own e-readers.

Simon & Schuster recently said it would delay by four months the release of e-book versions of around 35 new titles due for release in April. Hachette Book Group has also said it intends to delay many electronic versions of new titles for between three and four months. Critics of these plans say they risk driving consumers towards piracy, or simply to other publishers that choose to keep release schedules in sync. Commentators point to the problems faced by the TV and music industries, which also struggled as new formats edged out traditional physical sales.

However, there are concerns that the prices publishers charge retailers for e-books may already be too high. TBI analyst Rory Maher claims Amazon and other retailers lose around USD2 on each e-book they sell because publishers will not compromise on wholesale prices. There are also concerns that most consumers are unwilling to pay the same price for electronic versions as for physical copies, given that manufacturing costs for digital books are marginal.

[charleski]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Apparently, these publishers are oblivious to how many people *never* buy hardcovers, and are not switching from hardcover to ebook, but paperback to ebook.

But these aren't the people who are buying bestsellers the day they're published, obviously. Those who, in the past, have been happy to wait a year for a book to come out in paperback won't be affected by this move.

Insisting that their ebooks lag behind hardcover sales won't get them back the customers who buy from their competitors during the lag time, because when that 4 months is up, there's a new crop of bestsellers--and their competitors' titles are available as ebooks *now.*

OTOH books have a degree of inelasticity - a book by Philip Roth is not the same as a book by Dan Brown, and publishers want to grab revenues from those who are willing to pay a larger sum to get a particular book without waiting.

One of the problems behind all this is that the distribution chain is geared for price changes being founded on different products. I think publishers would be happy to release a hardback at $25 and an ebook at $20 initially, then six months later they put out a trade paperback at $15 and the ebook falls to $12. The problem is that distributors and retailers have difficulty changing the price on items unless they're given a new SKU, leading to the ridiculous position at some stores where the ebook costs twice the paperback.

Of course, the real problem is Amazon's $10 price-point for new works. Publishers are simply desperate to stop the process of $10 becoming the perceived value of a new book, because they know that Amazon isn't going to keep absorbing the losses forever.

To be honest, while I agree that it's irritating and frustrating, I have a degree of sympathy for publishers on this point. They do need to protect the future state of the market and they're being painted into a corner. The bold solution would be to put out a $20 ePub version on the day of release and then let Amazon sell a discounted Kindle version several months later. That would be war, however.

[dsvick]

I've got to agree with what a lot of others have said, now that the readers are more popular and have made greater penetration into the main stream (not just early adopters and technophiles) the demand for eBooks should increase. As that increase and the demand for both paper and hard cover declines the publishers will almost be forced to make changes, or go the route of the music industry.

Sure they can delay the eBooks but it wont help, people that want an eBook wont buy a hardcover just because it isn't available in e, they'll go to the darkside and get it (you dont need to be a geek to do that anymore), and maybe, just maybe, they'll buy a real version of the eBook when they are available - depending on the quality of the darknet version.

I hope that the prices for eBooks will eventually fall a bit more as well, to something a bit under current paperback levels. Yes there is a savings on the ink, paper, transportation, storage, etc, but I would bet that it is not as significant as we might think, maybe a dollar or two for a paperback. The smart thing for publishers to do would be to do something like Baen and create there own eBook store and sell them direct. They could compete with, if not beat out, the likes of amazon and still make a better profit by eliminating the middle man. And creating a functional store is not a terribly difficult task nowadays.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Looks like Harper Collins is jumping on board too at least somewhat...
http://www.strategyeye.com/articles/...ia/id/23895061

Again the don't seem to get it do they. This is an amazing new opportunity to make even greater profits than by sticking to the old ways. Jeeze!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by charleski

....
. I think publishers would be happy to release a hardback at $25 and an ebook at $20 initially, then six months later they put out a trade paperback at $15 and the ebook falls to $12. ...

But that is just silly. The price should be based on the cost of doing business which has got to be less for digital than for hardback or paperback.

[Xenophon]

Alternatively, these publishers could look at a successful existing solution over at Webscriptions and Baen. The get their die-hard fan tax by selling eARCs (electronic Advance Reader Copies) for $15 to $25; then sell the finished eBook at $6 about two weeks before the hardcover hits the shelf. But by clever disintermediation, they (and their authors) net nearly as much money on each eBook as they would in hardcover (more than trade-paper, but a bit less than HC). And, they get a fair number of double -- or even triple -- sales to fans who purchase ebook and hardcover (and sometimes eArc as well). Cutting out layers of distribution for eBooks is perfectly feasible, and saves money for everyone -- except the distributors, of course. But they add no value in eBook sales.

I won't even mention the cleverness of monthly bundles, and the free library, and snippetting and... oops.

Xenophon

[CCDMan]

As someone elsewhere pointed out, all this may do is decrease sales. As a former Sony and present Kindle owner, I have bought exactly ONE paper book since getting an e-reader in late 2006. That one book was only bought in paper because it was the first of a series and not available on the Kindle when the rest of the series was. I really do not like the paper experience anymore and avoid paper. The risk that Simon & Schuster are taking is that by the time the e-book version comes out, the e-consumer will have moved on.

As usual, they don't get it. Sooner or later, they will have no choice. You would think they would have learned by now, it is not like there is a shortage of examples. Exasperated Sigh.

Alternatively, these publishers could look at a successful existing solution over at Webscriptions and Baen. The get their die-hard fan tax by selling eARCs (electronic Advance Reader Copies) for $15 to $2

Indeed, and I am one of those who has done just that and bought a few ARCs. The nice thing about BAEN is when you buy the ARC, you already know when the regular, cheaper, e-version will come out so can make an intelligent choice. Transparency and honesty are the key here (not to mention no DRM). Treat your customers with respect and they will return. Why do the other publishers have so much trouble figuring this out?

Indeed, BAEN has ALWAYS been ahead of the curve. Before the ebook era, I can remember buying BAEN hardcovers with a CD-ROM filled with many other books attached inside the cover - a precursor to their free library.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by kennyc

But that is just silly. The price should be based on the cost of doing business which has got to be less for digital than for hardback or paperback.

If you're saying that all prices should be based on the cost of doing business, then I have to disagree. If your saying that only publishers are required to adhere to this rule, then it's a little bit unfair, since other businesses aren't required to do so.

Economically, the more commoditized a product is, the more closely its price tends to be tied to the cost of doing business. The more unique it is, the less costs tend to impact price. Demand-side forces

Clearly, e-books, and books in general, are not commoditized, otherwise titles would be interchangeable and lack of availability of one title would not lead anyone to the darknet. It would lead them to just pick a title that is available. The fact that consumers want this title or that title puts e-books squarely in the "unique product" category--more akin to a limited-run lithograph than a can of peas--where prices are based on the demand-side "desirability" of the item.

I do, however, completely agree with your earlier post. The publishers are squandering an opportunity to grow with the inevitable e-book market rather than fight it. They could not only turn a profit on it, but they could guarantee an enormous amount of good will.

[ficbot]

I wonder if anybody here would be interested in some sort of organized letter-writing campaign? Here is what I am thinking, we write a bank of form letters for publisher, author and agent. Every time you want to buy a book and do not because of availability, you send off the appropriate letter letting these people know that their actions have cost them a profit. If they get enough of these letters (this is the utility of the form letter, they start to see a few of the same ones and they realize more than one person is having this problem and that these people are organizing!) then perhaps authors can pressure agents who can pressure publishers and so forth. This decision to delay the ebook is directly affecting the people who are most likely to actually BUY a title int he first place, and everyone on the chain needs to know this will affect them personally. What do you think?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

If you're saying that all prices should be based on the cost of doing business, then I have to disagree. If your saying that only publishers are required to adhere to this rule, then it's a little bit unfair, since other businesses aren't required to do so.
...

I know, I know, free market and what the traffic will bear and all that rot, which is true and I don't disagree, but when you are offering essentially the same product in different form the price generally reflects the cost of doing business and the profit desired. When they are so out of line and at least perceptually different then it is clear to the consumer that the price is out of line. Sort of like have Coke in a can cost $5.00 and Coke in your own cup cost $5.00 shouldn't the raw Coke cost less?