Backlash against Author Douglas Preston

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Barcey

My argument was that the author's effort and risk is exactly the same between a physical book and an ebook and their compensation should not change. You've said nothing to refute this.

Nor am I trying to. In case you missed it, I was largely correcting your assertion that "authors get a raw deal," and at no point did I suggest authors should get less than their current royalty rates or smaller advances.

Originally Posted by Barcey

On average I would guess that a typical author spends 6 months to 2 years of effort to write a book. The majority of them do this for no guarantee of income and make nothing. That's the largest financial risk they can make. They are forced into signing bad contracts because they're already risk vested.

I concur that most authors are investing significant time and energy into their projects.

That does not change the fact that there is a tremendous number of people with the exact same goal of getting published, that the supply of new titles overwhelms the demand, that no one knows what books will sell, and that authors are consuming, not supplying, the financial resources involved in publishing the book.

Originally Posted by Barcey

I'm tired of hearing about the enormous risks that publishers make. It's their job. The personal risk that an author is taking is huge compared to the risk the publisher is taking to their company.

As in, you're tired of hearing facts that don't support your position?

I concur though that they willfully accept the risks involved in publishing a book. But it's also an author's choice to write, and more importantly, an author's choice to sign a contract. Not to mention any author with half a brain is going to have an agent and a lawyer reviewing the contracts. There is no force, no duress, only consent.

By the way, it also gets somewhat tiresome to hear people proclaim that publishers are greedy fiends who foist miserable contracts onto poverty-stricken writers, and assuming that all publishers do is just rake in money with no effort.

Originally Posted by Barcey

Dan Brown sold 100,000 ebooks in a market that everyone keeps saying is insignificant compared to physical books. At $9.99 that's $1 million which is enough for producing a quality product. It's very easy math for publishers to pick authors that they are confident will sell enough copies to recover costs.

You're joking, right?

I'd be stunned if Dan Brown's advance for The Lost Symbol was less than $4 million. Not to mention that if Amazon had gotten their way, the publishers would've collected $5-7 per book, thus losing anywhere from 25-50% of the revenues.

And no, it's not "easy math" to "pick the winners." Knowing what will and won't sell is excruciatingly difficult, and a couple of big-budget duds can trash the publisher's bottom line. Audiences are fickle; there is absolutely no way to know which novice writers will sell, let alone which experienced writers will sell, let alone which authors can crank out blockbuster after blockbuster. That's why a publisher can make a huge profit off of a Dan Brown book, but at the end of the day still have a 10-15% profit margin on their operations.

And let's not forget, those blockbuster authors get their multi-million dollar advances months, if not years, before their new books hits the stores. That's quite a chunk of change to fork over before you've made dollar one on a book.

Originally Posted by Barcey

1) I wasn't talking about the agency model.
2) According to another post in this thread you're saying the same thing. The retailer pays 50%. Are you incorrect?

No, you're just not paying attention.

Under the current arrangement, a retailer essentially buys the books from the publisher or distributor, and resells it to the public at whatever price they want. Typically the retailer is 50% of the cover price, though discounts may apply.

In an agency model (which is what I was discussing in that section) -- and by the way is how Apple will sell its ebooks, and is soon how Amazon will sell at least some ebooks -- the retailer is acting more as an "agent" for the publisher, and in that situation the retailer only gets 30%. They do not pay up front for the books, so the retailer takes less risk, and thus gets paid less.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

You're joking, right?

Why should he be? If the publisher's silly enough to pay out enough up-front to eclipse their profits, their call. $1 million is still a heck of a lot more than even most books considered successful earn!

[maggie*]

Originally Posted by pricecw

So the only way an author would make less money for having the book price drop while costs go down, they signed a poor contract & the lower price doesn't increase sales. The first is their fault, and the second is their fault if they didn't keep some distribution control (mandates against DRM or other things that would make consumers rebel against them). Remember, they are the ones granted the monopoly license, they are the only ones that can trade that away.l

I absolutely agree with this. Very clear post!

[Laine]

I find all of this discussion amusing. I bought Impact for $10 from Audible a few weeks ago. I have it on my Creative and my husband has it on his ipod.
It's beginning to look like audiobooks make more sense than ebooks. Especially as I think I need new new glasses. ;-)

[mikemc2]

So much FUD in this thread! First off;publishers are getting wholesale prices for their ebooks from Amazon. Amazon has been paying ~$14-$15 per book and selling them at a loss to drive Kindle hardware sales. Macmillan etc... have been making the same money from Kindle editions as hardcovers, they will actually make less using the agent model but they will be able to control the pricing. The biggest concern the publishers is that Amazon's loss-leader pricing "undervalues" their product. I have news for you, your product is only worth what people are willing to pay for it.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

You're joking, right?

No, in you previous post you stated...

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.

I was disagreeing with this.
1) I believe that selling 100,000 copies is reasonable for a successful author. (Demand)
2) At the $9.99 price that Amazon was successfully selling that's $1 million revenue.
3) $1 million is sufficient revenue to produce a professional book

My reference to Dan Brown selling 100,000 copies was just evidence that it's already been done (although the market is small).


As for the "enormous risk" that publishers are taking that's business.
- An investor builds a $100 million building and nobody might lease space in it
- James Cameron invests $280 million in Avatar and he might not recover the cost
- A publisher invests $250K in publishing a book and might not recover the investment. Boo hoo

Complaining about the risk is just a negotiating tactic used to drive down the percentage going to the author. I'm sorry if it falls on deaf ears when explaining costs to consumers. Most of us are working in industries with much larger risk.

[ficbot]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

But you're ignoring the already successful authors who may see a pay cut. You'd likely be pissing and moaning and saying your company are dirty rat bastards if they tell you to take a 5% pay cut and keep doing the same high quality work you've been doing for years.

Lots of people see a pay cut, especially in sales-based jobs (look at the price of computers---the first laptop I ever bought, people felt like anything sub-$2000 was a deal. Now, a $1000 mac is considered high-end and a cheap Dell can be had for $300 and change. There is no real that says prices have to stay the same forever, and some things have gone up in price while others go down.

Even a job like mine, we have two staff who went on mat leave and were not replaced so all of us are doing extra duties. And yes, we do grumble and complain. But I have a *lot* of friends in my field who do not have any jobs at all, or who have to go to very remote communities to find them. That's life. I may not think it's fair when it happens to me, or fair when it happens to authors or whomever. But that's *life.* My complaint is with authors who think that being 'writers' somehow makes them the special cases that should be immune from these market forces and/or that the public should feel sorry for them in their victimization. They can moonlight with commercial work, they can increase their marketing efforts, whatever. It's not like they have zero options. Yes, it takes time away from the 'writing' but you know what, having to do three extra playground duties a week gives me less time to spend on my teaching stuff, and that's just the way it is when you have a *job* instead of a hobby. If all I wanted to do was teach, I could get a part-time job where I am paid by the hour and all I have to do is work with kids. With my contract at my present job, which is full-time, I have to do this extra stuff. Similarly, a writer who just wants to write for fun can pay no heed to marketing, commercial jobs etc. But if they choose to sign a contract, and make this their livelihood, they are going to have to hustle a little to make it work, and they should not expect me to feel sorry for them.

With that said, I do pay for my books, and I do support the authors whose work I enjoy by other efforts as well. If I didn't "care" about the authors, I would be downloading off the darknet But publishers and authors need to be more realistic and work out a fair process (for example, matching the lowest paper prices so we don't have $6 mass market paperbacks selling in ebook for $20). I am okay with windowing and such as long as they really do play fair and lower the prices later. But they are not doing that yet, so people don't believe them when they say they really will lower the price later.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by ficbot

With that said, I do pay for my books, and I do support the authors whose work I enjoy by other efforts as well. If I didn't "care" about the authors, I would be downloading off the darknet But publishers and authors need to be more realistic and work out a fair process (for example, matching the lowest paper prices so we don't have $6 mass market paperbacks selling in ebook for $20). I am okay with windowing and such as long as they really do play fair and lower the prices later. But they are not doing that yet, so people don't believe them when they say they really will lower the price later.

Then we're on the same page on the pricing front. An e-book should NEVER be more than the cheapest print version available. It should be the same as that or a bit lower if the savings in cost can be passed on while giving the author the same dollar amount per copy sold (the publishers costs and efforts are reduced with ebooks vs. print, not the author's).

Most of the Kindle books I've bought that have been stuff available in mass market paper backs have been priced the same as those paperbacks are on Amazon. If not, I've not bought them. I won't got illegally download them, I just vote with my wallet by not making the purchase and buying something to read that's priced fairly.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Barcey

I was disagreeing with this [the idea that readers do not value the non-material costs, and that pricing is based on demand]

Well, you shouldn't, certainly not on your failure to comprehend the economics of the situation.

The basic language of many reader's objections -- e.g. dmaul's "an ebook should not cost more than a paper version" -- clearly demonstrates that people value the material object. Further, the fact that some people are willing to pay $10 or $15 more for a hardcover, which probably only costs $1 or $2 more to produce, is another demonstration that people place excess value on the paper aspect.

The reality is that when you're buying the hardcover, you are not really paying for "more paper." You're paying because the book is new, the demand is higher, and people are willing to pay extra -- and willing to wait 6 months for the price to drop. The higher quality of a hardback is a thin veneer on the mechanics of demand.


As to this analysis....

Originally Posted by Barcey

1) I believe that selling 100,000 copies is reasonable for a successful author. (Demand)
2) At the $9.99 price that Amazon was successfully selling that's $1 million revenue.
3) $1 million is sufficient revenue to produce a professional book

My reference to Dan Brown selling 100,000 copies was just evidence that it's already been done (although the market is small).

Unfortunately, as I tried to point out before, your analysis is incomplete.

Dan Brown almost certainly received a multi-million dollar advance for The Lost Symbol. So even with $1 million in revenues from early sales, the publisher is still several million in the hole. That advance was paid long ago, a process that also incurs costs of its own -- including opportunity costs, since they cannot use the millions Brown was advanced to publish other books.

Also, for every Dan Brown, there are hundreds of John and Jane Does whose books do not break even. Again, over 47,000 new fiction books are produced each year, and I'd be stunned if more than 500 of those got onto a best-seller list. The revenues earned by Brown not only go to operations, they go to cover the losses by other authors. At the end of the day, a publisher will have margins, as I mentioned, around 8-15%.

So it does not make sense to isolate the sales of one of the biggest authors out there, presume that covers all the costs, and on that basis determine the "proper price."

Originally Posted by Barcey

As for the "enormous risk" that publishers are taking that's business. Complaining about the risk is just a negotiating tactic used to drive down the percentage going to the author.

Yes, it's a business. But that cuts both ways. The author signs a contract, is told right up front about the advance and royalties, and is given no guarantees of success. The only way the arrangement is "unfair" is if the publisher reneges on their contractual obligations, but that's not the issue here.

I'm not a publisher, and I'm not "complaining." I am pointing out that your perception of costs, and how prices are determined, and the analysis you present forthwith, are essentially incorrect.

Originally Posted by Barcey

I'm sorry if it falls on deaf ears when explaining costs to consumers. Most of us are working in industries with much larger risk.

Again, this is incorrect. Books have the same levels of risk as any other industry, and are just as susceptible to economic conditions as anyone else -- possibly more, since a) the industry is about to deal with a major disruptive technology, and b) it's a non-essential industry that can be disproportionately affected by a negative economic climate.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Then we're on the same page on the pricing front. An e-book should NEVER be more than the cheapest print version available. It should be the same as that or a bit lower if the savings in cost can be passed on while giving the author the same dollar amount per copy sold (the publishers costs and efforts are reduced with ebooks vs. print, not the author's).

Well, you two might agree, but....

Price should ultimately be based on demand; it really should not have anything to do with even the price of a good in another format. "Cost" should ultimately only generate a minimum floor for the price of a good.

Or should we base the price of digital audio, or even CD's, relative to the price of vinyl records, cassettes and 8-track tapes? Or price video games on CD based on the price if it was on floppy discs?

Not to mention there are several reductions in the consumer's cost that no one ever acknowledges. For example, that $15 ebook has no shipping costs; for that $10 paperback, you could tack on sales tax and/or the time in the store and/or $3 for shipping and handling (a profit center for retailers, by the way). Or if you really want to compare apples to apples, $8 or whatever for overnight shipping, which still isn't as fast as digital distribution.

I see no particular reason to link an ebook's price to its paper equivalent. It's only even mentioned because we are used to paying X for paper books, and hold the illusion that you are ultimately paying for paper rather than the intellectual property and the financial resources invested in the book.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I see no particular reason to link an ebook's price to its paper equivalent. It's only even mentioned because we are used to paying X for paper books, and hold the illusion that you are ultimately paying for paper rather than the intellectual property and the financial resources invested in the book.

They can be a bit cheaper as I noted. As long as the author gets the same $$ per copy, as they are doing the same amount of work regardless of what format the book is sold in. For me it's not the illusion of paying for paper, as I know it doesn't cost much to print a book. I'm paying the author for writing the book is how I view it, so I have no problem paying the same for an e-book as print as I get the same enjoyment out of either format.

As long as authors get the same $$ per copy, sure, e-book prices can drop below the print books and I'll be fine with it. And that's more on publishers to not rape authors on e-book slaes and take all the savings from not printing and shipping books (which isn't much, probably $1-2 a copy I'd think) for themselves while paying the author's less per copy by giving them the same %, but of a lower cover price.

Yeah, yeah, it happens in all kinds of industries, but I'm a firm believer that no one should ever get paid less for the same work. Authors should make less per copy of a book because a cheaper format comes out (they can make less total if their sales drop, that's the business). People shouldn't be asked to make less per hour for the same work etc.

I'd rather be fired/laid off than get salary reductions. At least then people can draw unemployment while looking for a new job. With reductions you're stuck with the job until you find another unless you want to quit and have no income in between.


As for window pricing, yep that's paying a premium to have the book early. Just like you can pay $12 to see movie at release, or wait for it to hit the dollar theater, or wait to rent it on Netflix, or wait for it to be on a cable channel etc. I see nothing wrong with paying more to enjoy something sooner. Some stuff I do, most stuff I wait on.

[MrBlueSky]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Well, you two might agree, but....

Price should ultimately be based on demand; it really should not have anything to do with even the price of a good in another format. "Cost" should ultimately only generate a minimum floor for the price of a good.

Or should we base the price of digital audio, or even CD's, relative to the price of vinyl records, cassettes and 8-track tapes? Or price video games on CD based on the price if it was on floppy discs?

Not to mention there are several reductions in the consumer's cost that no one ever acknowledges. For example, that $15 ebook has no shipping costs; for that $10 paperback, you could tack on sales tax and/or the time in the store and/or $3 for shipping and handling (a profit center for retailers, by the way). Or if you really want to compare apples to apples, $8 or whatever for overnight shipping, which still isn't as fast as digital distribution.

I see no particular reason to link an ebook's price to its paper equivalent. It's only even mentioned because we are used to paying X for paper books, and hold the illusion that you are ultimately paying for paper rather than the intellectual property and the financial resources invested in the book.

It really does not make any difference how the author/publisher/retailer tries to justify their pricing 'model', Amazon called it right

<< QUOTE >>We want you to know that ultimately, however, we will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan's terms because Macmillan has a monopoly over their own titles, << QUOTE >>

They will charge you as much as they can get away with, for as long as they can get away with it — and you will all grumble about it and pay up.

They know it and you know it. You can't reason with a monopolist!

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Well, you shouldn't, certainly not on your failure to comprehend the economics of the situation.

My comprehension of the economic situation is as simple and as complete as I can make it. The advance has nothing to do with the economic situation. If the publisher pays out an advance above what the book makes in revenue, then they made a bad business decision.

[mcl]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

But you're ignoring the already successful authors who may see a pay cut.

You'd likely be pissing and moaning and saying your company are dirty rat bastards if they tell you to take a 5% pay cut and keep doing the same high quality work you've been doing for years.

Yet you seem to have no problem telling a successful authors to suck it up, write just as many books of the same quality as they always have and take less money for it.

That's what bothers me about the tone of many in this thread.

But that's just human nature. Companies are dirty rat bastards because they are made up of human beings who are dirty rat bastards that don't care about anything but their own self interests for the most part.

Yes, I'd be moaning about it. And everyone within earshot would rightly tell me to shut up, suck it up, and either soldier on or do something about it. I would not expect random people to start championing my cause and decrying how unjustly I'm being treated, and how dare my company try to avoid layoffs by decreasing pay and keeping everyone employed, or so forth.

I didn't see all of you author-boosters frothing at the mouth when Macmillan lowered its contractual payout by 5% late last year.

[ficbot]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

They can be a bit cheaper as I noted. As long as the author gets the same $$ per copy, as they are doing the same amount of work regardless of what format the book is sold in.

I don't really think the authors getting the 'same $$ per copy' is something it's really fair to demand though. As I pointed out, there are TONS of jobs where people do the same (or more) work for less for the same pay, and tons of *sales* jobs (which is really what authoring, as a profession, is) where there is absolutely no such guarantee. Just to give you an arts-related example, my cousin is in a band and he gets paid for his gigs. But I can promise you that his take-home pay for a gig is not the same as Aerosmith's take-home pay for a gig, even if they both are doing the same 'job.' Similarly, I have co-workers who do the same work as me who get paid more because they have more experience, and others who get paid less because they have either less experience, or less education and so on. So there is some truth to the whole 'it's worth what people will pay for it' argument, however you might wish it was otherwise. Authors do not get to be a special exception just because they are special or anything like that.