Where your eBook money goes

[kjk]

Originally Posted by mcl

Oh, you're one of the stross/scalzi followers. That explains it.

Not sure why you are so intent on setting up an "us vs. them" atmosphere about this issue. We all are here because we enjoy eBooks.

[K-Thom]

I realise the conversion algorithms may be complicated, but once they're written (which they are) then it's just a matter of passing a file through a filter. This is basically free.

Sorry, it isn't. Each of the 800+ commercial eBooks I've created from manuscripts of authors and cooperating publishers needed a cleaning, fixing, converting, correcting. But even if they are "nice and tidy" files you still have formatting to do to get page breaks, chapters, sub-chapters, etc. right.

Next: if you want the job really to be done, never ever use PDF for converting. Never. You need a clean and well-structured HTML or XML, and that's what hardly any printing publisher has at hand.
So, "someone" (who has to be paid) has to convert the PDF into HTML and to format it correctly. This may actually take more time than running your RTF through Quark Xpress or InDesign to get your print-ready PDF.

Sure, if most publishers had some sense left, they would have kept a DOC or RTF and use that for converting. Sadly, most publishers don't, as can be easily witnessed ... and they let the readers pay today for their short-sightedness.

Heaven, I even had authors whose novels I had to scan, because they deleted their 300 KB(!) DOC file. "Took up too much space, and why keep it? It already got printed". Oh--my--goodness ...

Why should ebooks get a free ride? Because by and large, they ARE a free ride! No significant extra effort goes into creating an ebook from an existing pbook. No significant extra money goes into storing, distributing, or advertising an ebook created from an existing pbook.

Even if it were true to some extent (which it isn't), it wouldn't answer what eBooks-only publishers and authors should charge. Surely you don't expect them to give away their product line for free?

[mcl]

Originally Posted by K-Thom

Sorry, it isn't. Each of the 800+ commercial eBooks I've created from manuscripts of authors and cooperating publishers needed a cleaning, fixing, converting, correcting. But even if they are "nice and tidy" files you still have formatting to do to get page breaks, chapters, sub-chapters, etc. right.

Next: if you want the job really to be done, never ever use PDF for converting. Never. You need a clean and well-structured HTML or XML, and that's what hardly any printing publisher has at hand.
So, "someone" (who has to be paid) has to convert the PDF into HTML and to format it correctly. This may actually take more time than running your RTF through Quark Xpress or InDesign to get your print-ready PDF.

Sure, if most publishers had some sense left, they would have kept a DOC or RTF and use that for converting. Sadly, most publishers don't, as can be easily witnessed ... and they let the readers pay today for their short-sightedness.


Heaven, I even had authors whose novels I had to scan, because they deleted their 300 KB(!) DOC file. "Took up too much space, and why keep it? It already got printed". Oh--my--goodness ...

So, what you're basically saying is that there's a lot of waste resulting in extra cost, in terms of poor formatting. And we're expected to soak up the costs associated with their poor workflow? I don't think so.

Even if it were true to some extent (which it isn't), it wouldn't answer what eBooks-only publishers and authors should charge. Surely you don't expect them to give away their product line for free?

No, I don't. I expect them to charge cost + a reasonable margin for their work, just as I expect the big six to do. What the big six is in the process of doing is charging cost + an exorbitant margin, while simultaneously strongarming the retailers and the authors into terms more favorable to the publisher.

[raac]

>You obviously didn't read what I wrote. They specifically DO NOT share the costs of
>editing or marketing, as there are no separate editing or marketing processes for e
I did read your post :-)
I think you may have misunderstood what I said. Yes, there are no separate costs. All costs are one big blob and they need to be paid for by book sales. Right? If you under-price some of those books and everyone buys them then you obviously will end up in debt. Of course, at the moment they're over-pricing them. My point was just that e-books aren't a free ride because if you price them wrong they'll bite you in the ass.

On you other point, I think ebook sales will go up. A lot. Because many of the issues you raise are likely to be sorted out. Don't forget that this is a very new market which is only just finding its way. Interest is only increasing:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=ebook

[raac]

@mcl
err... :"Oh, you're one of the stross/scalzi followers. That explains it. "
Doesn't explain anything, mate. I literally just stumbled across that page on a Google search and I don't even known what "stross/scalzi" means. I just thought others may find it interesting. Try an apology next time.

[raac]

@K-Thom
But how do they make the PDF? Isn't there a Latex-type mark-up language from which you can conduct a conversion? Maybe it's not XML but it's got to come from somewhere.

[K-Thom]

So, what you're basically saying is that there's a lot of waste resulting in extra cost, in terms of poor formatting. And we're expected to soak up the costs associated with their poor workflow? I don't think so.

Then live with the poor formatting. Really, there's nothing more to it. You pay for any additional work, whatever you buy. You just mostly don't think about these hidden costs.

No, I don't. I expect them to charge cost + a reasonable margin for their work, just as I expect the big six to do. What the big six is in the process of doing is charging cost + an exorbitant margin, while simultaneously strongarming the retailers and the authors into terms more favorable to the publisher.

Totally fine with me. But what exactly is "a reasonable margin for their work"? Of any Dollar (Euro, in my case) I earn gross only 20-25% are net income. As a publisher. And about 40-45% as an author. Of the work I self-publish. Oh, forgot VAT. Deduct some more.
If I'd demand a reasonable margin for my work I would have to double my prices. Which I don't, because I want to offer my readers a fair price.

Sue me for my commercially-oriented idealism.

[K-Thom]

Originally Posted by raac

@K-Thom
But how do they make the PDF? Isn't there a Latex-type mark-up language from which you can conduct a conversion? Maybe it's not XML but it's got to come from somewhere.

A lot of publishers either simply delete them (yeah, D'oh ...) or outsource the PDF creation to DTP studios which keep their hands on the files (yeah, Huh ...?!).

If you take into account that hundreds and thousands of original manuscripts written by hand or typewriter simply got thrown away by the publishers after publication, this has a long, long tradition of disregard for authors.

This was even common up to the late 1960s among comic book publishers. What a loss. At least novels are more easily recreated from old files.

[raac]

@K-Thom
Ok, but /now/ that they know they need these files it ought to be very simple for new books to be converted to epub. There are algorithms for managing page-breaks and, whilst this needs supervising, most of the work can be automated. If the DTP guys have the mark-up files then the DTP guys make the e-pub. I can't believe the DTP studios would be in the habit of regularly deleting such files.

[K-Thom]

I can't believe the DTP studios would be in the habit of regularly deleting such files.

Depends on the contract with the publisher. If it states "create the PDF, send it to us then delete the original file (i.e. 'and don't you ever consider distributing it ...')", it is deleted. And lost.

And in all my years the conversion of a PDF to a format I could actually work with always was tedious manual labor. No automated process ever substitues a final check of the manuscript by someone actually looking at it.

I've been working years in search engine business. And I've experienced so many programmers proud of their search algorithms. I was responsible for QA. To check the search results as a user would see them. Guess who found the errors.

[Jack Tingle]

Everything I've looked into makes me believe K-Thom is charitably overestimating the rationality and intelligence of publishers and their IT minions. Apparently they believe a badly structured PDF file is what they need for a permanent electronic record of the document.

Those original author .doc, .rtf, etc. files they demand are disposable, rather than being the original-of-record. This is despite the fact that the author's files are probably tolerably structured, at least to the point that someone in the future can see what is needed to make a new version. Somewhen, the frustrated and enraged shades of future archivists and historians are clamoring for time machine permits to go back into the past with Uzis to decimate the BPH's IT department.

Regards,
Jack Tingle

[raac]

Overestimating?
Quite depressing if they don't see the importance of the raw data.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by mcl

You obviously didn't read what I wrote. They specifically DO NOT share the costs of editing or marketing, as there are no separate editing or marketing processes for ebooks. The pbook is edited. The pbook is marketed. The ebook is sold as just another format, and requires nor receives any significant additional editing nor marketing. For all intents and purposes, the ebook is nothing more than the TPB or MMPB version of a hardback, in terms of the editing. And there's a near-total lack of format marketing for the ebook, so you can't even compare the marketing of the PBs to ebooks.

There are certain costs which apply to every book regardless of the format it is produced in. These costs include editing and marketing. The question here is should those costs be passed along to all consumers, or should one specific group of consumers bear the brunt of these costs so that other consumers may receive the benefit of lower prices?

The truth is, the book is edited before the process forks to either ebook or pbook. HC, TPB, and MMPB all have their share of such costs figured into their cover price. Why should ebooks be exempt?

Why are ebook buyers so special that everyone else has to pay for editing and they don't?

If the book were released only in e-format then those costs would have to be passed along to ebook buyers. Why does the presence of a paper edition make that any different?

The shared costs of producing a book should be appropriately shared among all formats, paper and electronic alike. Anything else is inequitable. Saying that one's own preferred format can be priced lower because all the other formats will pick up the costs sounds selfish to me.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by K-Thom

Sure, if most publishers had some sense left, they would have kept a DOC or RTF and use that for converting.

The reason most publishers don't keep those files is that those files are not the most current files; they rarely match content-wise the final printed version.

Proofreading, for example, occurs at the PDF stage or the galley stage because one of the jobs of a proofreader is to make sure the page is structured correctly. I agree that this is less problematic with novels and that a final DOC/RTF version of a novel probably could be maintained, but this is not the case with a lot of nonfiction.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Jack Tingle

Those original author .doc, .rtf, etc. files they demand are disposable, rather than being the original-of-record. This is despite the fact that the author's files are probably tolerably structured, at least to the point that someone in the future can see what is needed to make a new version.

Jack, yes, the author's files can be the basis to make a new version but then all of the costs for, say, editing, would have to be reincurred. Very few authors produce manuscript that can go directly to the printer.

And if the author's manuscript is reedited, it is unlikely that the print and e versions would be identical. Rarely do two editors agree on everything and always there is some error that is missed by one and found by another.

What is really needed is for Adobe to step up to the plate and solve the problem of going from InDesign files and/or PDF to the ePub form seamlessly.

Oh, FWIW, even if the publishers do not have the original DOC/RTF files, they should have the original InDesign files as well as the PDF. It is not impossible to go from InDesign to ePub.