Backlash against Author Douglas Preston

[daffy4u]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Then you wait a few months for the e-book price to drop when the paperback comes out. Just like you waited for the paperback if you wanted the book cheaper back before e-books.

I never bought books like that. If I wanted a book, I'd buy it in whatever form was available at the time I wanted it (hardcover, paperback, tape or CD).

Now that I'm committed to not buying paper books, I've gone through my own shift in thinking (as publishers must). I prefer to fight to keep things the way they are now with the ebook being a lower price and released at the same time as the hard cover. I do this by supporting authors who *do* follow the current scheme.

The is delay stuff just means people will go to the darknet to get the books days after release rather than months. They may buy the book later when it is officialy released in ebook form or they may not (especially if they end up not liking it). "Guaranteed" money over "maybe" money... decisions, decisions.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

So I find it very lame to give low reviews when an author complains about consumers not wanting to pay a price that gives him his fair share.

Not at all. It amounts to whining because he couldn't get a decent ebooks contract. "But"... no, if the model is broken, then it needs to change. One of the reasons I support Baen is they take non-exclusive online publishing rights...

The ebook can sell, and keep selling for the entire copyright-lifespan of the book and beyond, for minimal marginal costs. Less money in the short term does not mean less money in the longer term.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by fastesthamster

Or due to a sense that an ebook is inferior in many ways. I can't give it to my friends to read, I can't sell it on, etc.

What's the stat? One book is read by five people? So ebooks should be 1/5 of the price (or something along those lines).

That's not a flaw of e-books themselves, but a flaw of current DRM schemes.

The solution isn't to bitch about wanting to pay less for e-books period. The solution is to bitch at publishers to drop DRM, or to change it to allow loaning like the Nook can, to develop a system where you can sell/give a book away and transfer the license from your account to someone else's etc.

[DawnFalcon]

DRM lowers the value of the book. People are right to be willing to pay less for DRM'ed books. Restoring 1% of user's rights restores, at best, that much of the value lost due to DRM.

[dsvick]

Originally Posted by daffy4u

I HATE that idea. I am NOT going to pay hardcover price for an ebook no matter when it is released. No, a thousand times no!

That's the beauty of it - if it works the way everyone seems to be suggesting, you wont have to. You might have to wait a few months to be able to get the eBook at a discounted price but it will get there eventually. That really is no different from how you would have had to do it with pBooks just a few years ago. The problem is that I cant see publishers adhering to the schedule like that and really lowering prices on time.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I do agree that the answer is to eventually cut out the middleman and do away with publishers. Authors can just sell e-books themselves, hire marketing firms once they have some success etc. and have more freedom in setting prices, not having publishers take a big chunk of sales etc.

But publishers add value too. I am in no way defending them, I'm just stating that they do add value, from editing and proofreading to copy fitting and marketing, these are all things that add to the value of the book. If readers are willing to give them up then sure, you can eliminate them completely, personally I am a lot less inclined to read more books in a series or even by the same author if they are full of errors and are hard to read. Sure the author could do some of that themselves, some might even be good at it, but for the most part they are not the ones that should be proofing their own work.

I think a more likely step will be to get rid of the distributors and publishers will begin selling eBooks directly.

[dmaul1114]

You can have all that without publishers. Authors can hire editors/proofreaders, they can hire a marketing firm etc.

All without having a publishing contract that's keeping prices up and paying them little per copy sold.

Obviously an up and coming author will have a harder time as they don't have the money to hire those services--so publishers will stick around for at least newcomers.

But hopefully at least successful authors can just pay for editing/proofing/marketing out of pocket and then reap all the profits for each copy sold as an e-book after paying for those costs with the first few thousand book sales etc.

A good example is music, where some famous bands have started distributing their own music. When their contract with Epic was up, Pearl Jam didn't sign a new deal. Their last album Backspacer they sold on their own--CDs and MP3s from their website, and signed an exclusive retail deal with Target--as well as shipping copies to independent record stores themselves.

No reason a successful author can't do something similar, especially as the e-book market widens and the need for physical copies in stores declines.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Barcey

I have yet to see anyone argue that authors should be making less money because it's an e-book.

Uh huh. Most big publishers have profit margins ranging from 8-15%, hardly an extortionate rate -- in fact, right around the same range as a typical author's royalty rates. Meanwhile, the public is demanding that publishers both slash their prices by 30% (far more than what they save by going electronic) and increase their costs even further by doubling, or tripling the royalties.

Would you like it, by the way, if your boss decided to slash your salary by 20% because he found out you moved to a cheaper apartment? After all, your costs are now lower, so why do you need the extra money?

Originally Posted by Barcey

I personally think that authors were getting a raw deal on paper copies (which is not surprising because they've been negotiating from a position of weakness - they're already risk vested when they're negotiating with the publisher).

• Experienced writers who can actually sell a decent number of books actually have a bit of strength in their negotiations, as they can actually justify the advances and higher royalties.
• Novice writers generally have not demonstrated any ability to sell their books. Just taking on a new writer is a leap of faith, and requires an investment of significant resources.
• Self-published writers get a "better deal," but zero support and zero dedicated resources. As such, it is extremely unlikely that a self-published author will ever make a decent wage from their writing efforts (though if they are targeting a small audience, they may very well accomplish their goals).
• Authors don't necessarily get a "raw deal." The publisher invests a lot of time, money and other resources into getting a book published and distinguishing it from the other 250k new books (not including another 250k of short-run and on-demand titles) published every year.
• Authors don't take 50% of the financial responsibility or risks involved in publishing the book. As such, the standard royalty rates -- while perhaps not perfect or ideal -- are far more fair than you assert.
• No one is forced to sign a contract. If an author doesn't like the deal, and they sign anyway, that is their own responsibility.

Originally Posted by Barcey

What readers will not accept is that they have to pay more for e-books because the authors signed a bad contract with the publishers. Having the author's cut tied to the list price for e-books is just wrong.

What ebook readers will not accept is that it actually costs money to produce an actual professional book, or that prices are based as much on demand as anything else. In a few years, the idea of pegging an ebook's price to a paper copy will be an absurdity, since paper will be largely gone.

Originally Posted by Barcey

Take a $24 list price hardcover. Say the wholesale price is $12 to Amazon. Remove the $2 printing costs. Remove the risk of returns. The publishers are making more net profit on a $10 e-book paying the author less and trying to tell the readers they have to pay more to support the poor authors.

Incorrect, especially with an agency model.

$15 cover and list price for an ebook; retailer gets 30%, author gets 10%. Revenues (not profit) are $9. From that $9 you have to repay the investment in the book (advance, editing, proofreading, marketing, special promotions, maybe a book tour), pay taxes, pay your overhead, pay your staff and so forth. And of course, many books just don't sell, and something needs to fill that hole in the ground. The publisher's profits -- what's left over after all that -- is much smaller; as I mentioned, it's around 15%.

Originally Posted by Barcey

The publishers then have the nerve to guarantee Amazon/Apple 30% for performing an electronic transaction. If they really cared about the author why aren't they guaranteeing them 30%.

Because the authors aren't taking as much of a financial risk as the retailers.

A typical author isn't putting out a lot of cash to get their book sold. The retailer, on the other hand, is hosting tons of content; handling credit card transactions; security for all of the above; paying taxes. Plus they provide a platform and access to an audience a solo author, or even sole publisher, could not possibly achieve. I.e. without the retailer, you are not selling squat.

As with most other aspects of a capitalist society, the publishers pay the authors what the market will bear. Over 45,000 new fiction books alone are published in the US alone (again, not including on-demand and short runs). Not many of these books sell enough for the publisher to recoup their investment; a tiny handful turn into blockbusters.

So like it or not, there is a tremendous surplus of books, and a tremendous number of people who are willing to write those books. That fact alone results in low royalties.

[DawnFalcon]

Wonderful defence of a post-scarcity model.

...

Oh, right, internets.

[daffy4u]

Originally Posted by dsvick

That's the beauty of it - if it works the way everyone seems to be suggesting, you wont have to. You might have to wait a few months to be able to get the eBook at a discounted price but it will get there eventually. That really is no different from how you would have had to do it with pBooks just a few years ago. The problem is that I cant see publishers adhering to the schedule like that and really lowering prices on time.

See my last post a few above yours.

This whole delay is based on keeping Hardcovers at the top of the book food chain... it's time to revise that thinking. I don't know that paper books will ever go away permanently (nor do I think I want them to) but there is a new format which is growing fast an will replace hardcovers at the top (my strong belief). Publishers need to help grow this new format not cripple it to protect the status quo. It's time for a new way of thinking.

[dmaul1114]

Not going to happen as that's a new way of think that will eat into publishers and authors profits.

Popular books are going to stick to window pricing and cost more around release and drop price over time similar to the hardcover, then cheaper paperback model.

Non-bestseller type books may shift, and just come out in e-book/paperback and not bother with a pricey hardcover. E-books are an opportunity for non-established authors, but really nothing but a threat to profits for established authors locked into long contracts. Could be great for established authors at the end of contracts who can just start selling e-books directly and cut out the publishers eventually.

But it will be a LONG time before e-book sales outpace paper book sales (hardcover and paperback combined) for best sellers as the majority of best seller buyers probably don't read enough to bother with buying an e-reader, trying to read on the PC or their phone etc.

So I think we're all getting a bit ahead of ourselves here.

[daffy4u]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

But it will be a LONG time before e-book sales outpace paper book sales (hardcover and paperback combined) for best sellers as the majority of best seller buyers probably don't read enough to bother with buying an e-reader, trying to read on the PC or their phone etc.

So I think we're all getting a bit ahead of ourselves here.

We've already seen the possibility when Dan Brown's last book sold more Kindle versions on the first day of release than hardcover (and that's just on Amazon).

We're *thinking* ahead not getting ahead... yet.

[dmaul1114]

Yeah, but that's just on Amazon. I'm sure the Lost Symbol sold a ton more physical copies than e-book copies in total to date--and that disparity will grow once the paperback is out on on the bestseller list. And copies read would skew even further to paper books if you factor in library checkouts.

I think e-books will be the future, but we're a decade+ from seeing e-books sales be the majority of copies sold for books on the best sellers list IMO.

In any case, we'll just have to agree to disagree on pricing as I just see that as selfishness on the part of consumers who only care about paying as little as possible for everything, and care little to nothing about publishers covering costs/making profits, author's making profits etc.

No one likes spending more money than they have to. But I respect talent and always try to pay a fair price for books, movies, cds I love vs. say buying used, checking it out from the library etc. as I like to reward the creators for the enjoyment I got out of their work. So I hate to see shifts in pricing that threaten that on their end, even if it helps my budget.

But at the same time, I realize that I'm pretty well off and can say that easier than someone living nearly paycheck to paycheck etc.

[llreader]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Yeah, but that's just on Amazon. I'm sure the Lost Symbol sold a ton more physical copies than e-book copies in total to date--and that disparity will grow once the paperback is out on on the bestseller list. And copies read would skew even further to paper books if you factor in library checkouts.

Yes, but the advantage of an ebook is the impulse buy, and the instant satisfaction. Dan Brown is a part of the potboiler, romance/mystery/sci-fi series gravy train, so people are going to buy his book. The electronic version is just easier to buy, and faster. It takes maximum advantage of they hype and the publicity.

[daffy4u]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

In any case, we'll just have to agree to disagree on pricing as I just see that as selfishness on the part of consumers who only care about paying as little as possible for everything, and care little to nothing about publishers covering costs/making profits, author's making profits etc.

It's not selfish for those who *want* to pay to try to get the best deal for themselves. I am more than willing to pay a "fair" price but we may differ on what that price is. I don't think paying hardcover price for an ebook is fair.

No one likes spending more money than they have to. But I respect talent and always try to pay a fair price for books, movies, cds I love vs. say buying used, checking it out from the library etc. as I like to reward the creators for the enjoyment I got out of their work. So I hate to see shifts in pricing that threaten that on their end, even if it helps my budget.

I mostly buy new at a price I'm willing to pay. I don't buy used books, I don't use the library. I rarely buy whole CD's anymore and choose to pick and choose the songs I really like. The only renting I do is Netflix because there are very few films I want to see more than once.

I truly do want the author's to get paid for their work. If I enjoy their work, I want to help them continue to bring me more reading enjoyment (that's a good kind of selfish) but I'm not willing to pay inflated prices for ebooks.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I just see that as selfishness on the part of consumers who only care about paying as little as possible for everything, and care little to nothing about publishers covering costs/making profits, author's making profits etc.

No one likes spending more money than they have to. But I respect talent and always try to pay a fair price for books, movies, cds I love vs. say buying used, checking it out from the library etc. as I like to reward the creators for the enjoyment I got out of their work.

Adam Smith would disagree with selfishness being a bad thing. Hell, even Keynes argued from the point of self-interest being a great motivator, burying gold and all that.

At any rate, the first thing you learn in Econ 101 is that everything has a different utility to different people. So, a fair price to you is not necessarily a fair price to another. Arguing that authors are special and should not have their wages cut, ignores the sheer supply of newly written material out there on top of older stuff. When supply goes up...

Publishers understand this, and use their power as gatekeepers to enforce stupid contracts on the rabid author who just wants to get their stuff out there. Until authors wise up and stop agreeing to stupid contracts (it's their freewill signing that contract), they'll continue getting raked over the coals.

Publishers are not evil, they simply act as self-interested corporations whose real duty is to increase profits. Authors need to either realize they have tons of competition and they aren't special, or find another route to monetizing their thoughts that don't include publishing contracts in their current form.


I support all customers whose legal actions, and preferences, lead to lower prices. It's freshman level economic theory.

And yes this has happened in my field. Witness all the whining about technological jobs going to H1-B visas. My answer is the same, adapt to changing circumstances or be left by the wayside.