What is with these Publishers?

[daffy4u]

Originally Posted by dsvick

What a great idea, I wonder if they'll actually implement it though, it seems like a conflict of interests - after all they are trying to sell books not help people not buy them. An even better way I've seen posted here, is whenever you add something to your blacklist, send a note to the publisher and author and let them know they just lost a sale.

What was posted was actually a reprint of PM I sent and in the other side of the conversation we discussed making it a user option.

[poohbear_nc]

For me, this delay policy will just decrease the ebooks I buy from that publisher. Like many owners of ebooks, I have loaded more books than I can ever read in any reasonable time (like my lifetime!), so delaying an ebook release merely short-circuits my impulse buy of that title. By the time it is available I will be happily reading other titles that I was able to snap up when they were published, and probably lost interest (or forgotten) about the delayed title.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by poohbear_nc

Just saw on the news last night that Netflix has caved in to this delay model. They have agreed to delay offering movies for 28 days after they are released on DVD - to bolster the DVD sales.

It's like they're wilfully ignorant of the world. Who the hell waits 28 days for anything when you have the internet?

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by cian

The margins are higher, but (and I can only really comment on the UK here) the sales are tiny in comparison to paperbacks. Also in the UK the discounts are now very large on hardbacks (up to 50% in some cases), and (going by discount/returns shops) the return rates must be quite high.

Correct, but my best understanding is that the profits / margins are significant enough for the process to make sense. (AFAIK hardcover royalties are also higher, so it's beneficial for the writers as well.)

As to the discounts, the way it works in the US (and presumably the UK, but I'm not sure) is that the retailer will pay the publisher a percentage based on the actual cover price, not the price the retailer charges. So if there's a huge discount, the retailer is basically taking a small loss. This is typically referred to as a "loss leader," e.g. they lose a small amount on the new Harry Potter book just to get you into the store, and thus encourage you to buy other (profitable) books.

Originally Posted by cian

Why don't publishers just charge more on new books? If you can't wait for the latest book then you pay more?

If you mean set the price at £20 for the ebook new, drop to £15 after 3 months, then £10 after a year, IMO that's probably a good plan. The main issue (again, in the US but probably elsewhere) is that the retailers are pushing for lower prices from the get-go. This pricing pressure, by the way, fuels publishers' attempts to lower the royalty rates, which IMO is not particularly beneficial.

[rhadin]

Well, I'm not so sure that the delay in ebook availability is such a bad idea. (Yes, I'm ready for the shooting to begin.) I just blogged about this today at An American Editor where I proposed a new publishing model: do away with paperbacks and publish only hardcover and ebooks, delaying ebooks for 3 months. With such a change, several constituencies could be appeased, although there will be no appeasement of those who require instant access to everything.

[omk3]

But there are still a lot people who don't want either hardcovers (because of their bulk for example) or ebooks (because they don't have a reader or don't want to give up paper for whatever reason). Paperbacks are just right for them, so why take them away?

If publishers have to keep the current model as it is, why not have ebooks come out at the same time with the hardcovers, and at the same price. I may want to read a specific book the moment it comes out, but no way am I going to add another bulky volume to my already suffering bookshelves. When the paperback comes out, lower the price of the ebook to match that of the paperback.

I know it doesn't really sound right to have two different prices for the same product, but then timing is an important factor, and it's not like the difference in quality between hardcovers and paperbacks is such as to alone adequately explain their price difference.

[daffy4u]

Originally Posted by rhadin

I proposed a new publishing model: do away with paperbacks and publish only hardcover and ebooks, delaying ebooks for 3 months. With such a change, several constituencies could be appeased, although there will be no appeasement of those who require instant access to everything.

Here's the choice. You can either have my money now (when the book is first released) or not at all. I will reward those sellers who show they appreciate me by giving me what I want as soon as possible. Those who make me wait for no good reason will never see my money (if that means giving up Stephen King, so be it).

I have yet to go to the darknet for a book but I feel like I'm being pushed toward it.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Well, I'm not so sure that the delay in ebook availability is such a bad idea. (Yes, I'm ready for the shooting to begin.) I just blogged about this today at An American Editor where I proposed a new publishing model: do away with paperbacks and publish only hardcover and ebooks, delaying ebooks for 3 months. With such a change, several constituencies could be appeased, although there will be no appeasement of those who require instant access to everything.

So let me get this right, you artificially delay a digital product in the hopes that the people who will buy a digital product will wait for 3 months, even though there would be no chance of anybody whose willing to buy a digital product waiting that long? And at the same time you stop producing paperbacks for those who don't want to buy digital? So your market is basically - people who buy hardbacks.

The RIAA and MPAA are looking for brave, bold thinkers such as yourself.

[RonF]

Originally Posted by cian

Why don't publishers just charge more on new books? If you can't wait for the latest book then you pay more?

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

If you mean set the price at £20 for the ebook new, drop to £15 after 3 months, then £10 after a year, IMO that's probably a good plan. The main issue (again, in the US but probably elsewhere) is that the retailers are pushing for lower prices from the get-go. This pricing pressure, by the way, fuels publishers' attempts to lower the royalty rates, which IMO is not particularly beneficial.

I believe that part of the publishers concern are piracy. Even if they charge $100 for an eBook on day 1 release they would only need 1 person to get it, strip the DRM and post it. At least I think that may be the thinking behind it.

[dsvick]

Originally Posted by omk3

I know it doesn't really sound right to have two different prices for the same product, but then timing is an important factor, ...

That's it exactly "timing is everything". There will always be those, like daffy, that are perfectly willing to pay a premium for immediate availability, while there are also a lot of willing to wait a few months for a reduced price.

Yes, there will be some people that want the reduced price and the immediate availability and some of them may go to the darkside for their needs, but I would venture to say that those people would have gone there anyway, regardless of price or timing. This is almost the same situation as exists with pBooks now, except that you can go to the library to get the hardcover if you really want to, but maybe publishers can sell eBooks to libraries in advance of the paperback pub date.

[daffy4u]

Originally Posted by dsvick

That's it exactly "timing is everything". There will always be those, like daffy, that are perfectly willing to pay a premium for immediate availability, while there are also a lot of willing to wait a few months for a reduced price.

I didn't say I was willing to pay a premium. The only way they can get me to go above $9.99 for most books (I'll pay more for technical books) is to release the ebook on time and make sure the formatting is perfect and DRM-free (throwing in some kind of extras like on DVDs wouldn't hurt either).

[Spectrum]

Originally Posted by RonF

I believe that part of the publishers concern are piracy. Even if they charge $100 for an eBook on day 1 release they would only need 1 person to get it, strip the DRM and post it. At least I think that may be the thinking behind it.

yup..

the analogy is similar to:

There are roads going to the banks..making it easier for robbers!

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

So let me get this right, you artificially delay a digital product in the hopes that the people who will buy a digital product will wait for 3 months, even though there would be no chance of anybody whose willing to buy a digital product waiting that long? And at the same time you stop producing paperbacks for those who don't want to buy digital? So your market is basically - people who buy hardbacks.

The RIAA and MPAA are looking for brave, bold thinkers such as yourself.

Before ebooks your choice was hardcover, paperback, or not at all. I didn't hear a scream by anyone for paperbacks and hardcovers to be released simultaneously. It was expected and accepted that the paperback version would come a year later. And this is still the accepted process.

Now, because you want to read an ebook rather than a pbook you demand that they be released simultaneously. What makes for the sudden change? I don't get your intense dislike for publishers. Seems to me that a 3 month delay for a cheaper version is not unreasonable and is better than the 12 month delay that exists for paperbacks and with which you have been content for decades.

Why aren't you demanding that the hardcover, paperback, and ebook versions be released simultaneously? What is so special about ebooks other than you like them?

I'm proposing that ebooks be the paperback substitute and that the delay be reduced. Considering that there are competing interests involved, I think it is a reasonable solution. OTOH, I have no doubt that publishers would be willing to simultaneously release hardcover and ebook versions at the same high price but I don't hear any clamor for that.

At least I offer a proposal that takes into account the varied interests. Where is your suggestion that balances the competing interests?

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by daffy4u

I didn't say I was willing to pay a premium. The only way they can get me to go above $9.99 for most books (I'll pay more for technical books) is to release the ebook on time and make sure the formatting is perfect and DRM-free (throwing in some kind of extras like on DVDs wouldn't hurt either).

Bottom line, Daffy, is that if the publishing industry had to meet your demands there would be no publishing industry. That may be acceptable to you and to many others, but I see a role for publishers for quite some time to come.

As with Moejoe, I wonder why you weren't refusing to read Stephen King when your only choice was hardcover or paperback -- when ebooks didn't exist -- and the paperback version was delayed 12 to 18 months. What makes the ebook so special?

[daffy4u]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Bottom line, Daffy, is that if the publishing industry had to meet your demands there would be no publishing industry. That may be acceptable to you and to many others, but I see a role for publishers for quite some time to come.

As with Moejoe, I wonder why you weren't refusing to read Stephen King when your only choice was hardcover or paperback -- when ebooks didn't exist -- and the paperback version was delayed 12 to 18 months. What makes the ebook so special?

This is the choice I am making now. We all pick our battles and when we choose to fight them.

Edit: A different kind of publishing industry will have to evolve. I'm going to support those publishers who move closer to the way that works for me.