Online petition over library ebook embargo

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

I am wrong because why?

The publishers say: 43% of reads (library) generate only 15% of revenue.

Who is to blame? The libraries, because they make it too easy to borrow ebooks?

I fail to see the reason of that conundrum? Here is my reasoning of why ebooks have this discrepancy: Ebook only readers read ebooks, because they are no longer willing or capable to read paper. A typical ebook only reader is no longer willing to pay for expensive new release publisher ebooks for the majority of their reading. So ebook sales from those ebook only readers declined a lot for publishers. The reason for that decline is is not that the library got all of a sudden more attractive due to frictionless convenience, but that cheaper ebooks get bought instead. Simple demand and supply.

You're wrong for the reasons I gave in the post.

You're now arguing the topic of the thread, the efficacy of the embargo on licenses to libraries.

And while I agree with the embargo, because I trust Macmillan has people with degrees in the subject matter, and way more access to sales information than you or I have, I do not agree that it's the only reason for the decline in sales.

I agree with you that some ebook only readers, especially those on this forum, insist that ebooks should be prices lower than the publishers seem to want. Personally I think these people are short sighted and are going to do much more harm to the reader side of the book industry than they intend. Notably because the slimmer and slimmer you cut the profit margins the less and less authors you're going to inspire. To say nothing of the cover artists, the editors, etc. I'll leave the quality of the ebooks aside, because one mans trash is another mans treasure, however as you decrease editors you're going to start having more continuity errors in series, and grammatical errors in books. That's not a judgement on the ability of authors, it's just how it is.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

I agree with you that some ebook only readers, especially those on this forum, insist that ebooks should be prices lower than the publishers seem to want. Personally I think these people are short sighted and are going to do much more harm to the reader side of the book industry than they intend. Notably because the slimmer and slimmer you cut the profit margins the less and less authors you're going to inspire. To say nothing of the cover artists, the editors, etc. I'll leave the quality of the ebooks aside, because one mans trash is another mans treasure, however as you decrease editors you're going to start having more continuity errors in series, and grammatical errors in books. That's not a judgement on the ability of authors, it's just how it is.

Do you sell less eBooks at a higher price or more eBooks at a lower price? Would you make more money with the greater sales at the lower price or would you make as much or similar if you sold less at the higher price?

That been the question size agency pricing came into being. I just wish we had the answer.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

You're wrong for the reasons I gave in the post.

Reasons like this?

The library doesn’t give the publishers anything regardless of how much the book is borrowed for a single license

How about money? The library actually pays money, even when the book is underutilized. Up front. It is not necessary to pay even more money each time the library loans it out. The library already owns the license until it expires, if it expires. Again it is not lost sales. Would the publisher like to sell more direct licenses instead of selling the license to borrow? Absolutely. They are fighting for market share. They don't want to compete on price, so the only thing they have left is converting borrows into sales. Not lost sales, they are trying to create more sales. They could also try to sell more expensive licenses to libraries during the new release window.

And while I agree with the embargo, because I trust Macmillan has people with degrees in the subject matter, and way more access to sales information than you or I have, I do not agree that it's the only reason for the decline in sales.

I don't think even Macmillan themselves believe the problem to be single fold. They can only hope that they gain enough extra revenue to make up for additional lost readers. If it is not n the library any more (with as many copies) then the would be borrowers either buy, or go to a competitor for a different non embargoed book, or simply grow more patient.

I agree with you that some ebook only readers, especially those on this forum, insist that ebooks should be prices lower than the publishers seem to want. Personally I think these people are short sighted and are going to do much more harm to the reader side of the book industry than they intend. Notably because the slimmer and slimmer you cut the profit margins the less and less authors you're going to inspire. To say nothing of the cover artists, the editors, etc. I'll leave the quality of the ebooks aside, because one mans trash is another mans treasure, however as you decrease editors you're going to start having more continuity errors in series, and grammatical errors in books. That's not a judgement on the ability of authors, it's just how it is.

There is a valid price slot just below the publishers. It is not going away, and neither is it a race to the bottom. Are publisher going to compete in that price slot? Not with new releases. Maybe with their back catalogue. Their business model does not allow new releases to be that low. Maybe they adopt, maybe they don't have to.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Do you sell less eBooks at a higher price or more eBooks at a lower price? Would you make more money with the greater sales at the lower price or would you make as much or similar if you sold less at the higher price?

That been the question size agency pricing came into being. I just wish we had the answer.

Not all ebooks are sold under the agency model. There are price tiers in the non agency model market as well, which is to be expected, so at least in the ebook only market, we see a couple of different business models that lead to different price points. Authors who produce 2 or 3 books a year tend to go with the higher price model while authors who produce new books every month or two tend to go for the lower price points. Note, I am talking about authors who have enough of a track record to be recognizable and have enough popularity to make money at it. Based on the books that I've been buying, the less prolific authors tend to be getting pretty close to the agency book prices, if we are talking about books that are out in paper rather than hardback.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Reasons like this?

How about money? The library actually pays money, even when the book is underutilized. Up front. It is not necessary to pay even more money each time the library loans it out. The library already owns the license until it expires, if it expires. Again it is not lost sales. Would the publisher like to sell more direct licenses instead of selling the license to borrow? Absolutely. They are fighting for market share. They don't want to compete on price, so the only thing they have left is converting borrows into sales. Not lost sales, they are trying to create more sales. They could also try to sell more expensive licenses to libraries during the new release window.

I don't think even Macmillan themselves believe the problem to be single fold. They can only hope that they gain enough extra revenue to make up for additional lost readers. If it is not n the library any more (with as many copies) then the would be borrowers either buy, or go to a competitor for a different non embargoed book, or simply grow more patient.

There is a valid price slot just below the publishers. It is not going away, and neither is it a race to the bottom. Are publisher going to compete in that price slot? Not with new releases. Maybe with their back catalogue. Their business model does not allow new releases to be that low. Maybe they adopt, maybe they don't have to.

A couple of points. First, readers who don't buy books are not customers to publishers. I doubt publishers are going to waste effort or change their business model trying to chase that will o' the wisp.

Second, libraries are a much, much smaller piece of the pie than they were back in the 50's. According to one article I read, in 1950, the there were around 11,000 titles published in the US, the average library purchased 14,000 titles a year and there were a bit over 11,000 libraries in the US. In 2015, the sales to libraries had dropped to 1.3% of publishers' trade sales. Ebook sales to libraries doesn't move the needle much for publishers at all.

Pretty much, the argument for library sales importance to publishers has been reduced to marketing, but if a library patron isn't going to buy books, I'm not sure that's a particularly effective marketing platform.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Not all ebooks are sold under the agency model. There are price tiers in the non agency model market as well, which is to be expected, so at least in the ebook only market, we see a couple of different business models that lead to different price points. Authors who produce 2 or 3 books a year tend to go with the higher price model while authors who produce new books every month or two tend to go for the lower price points. Note, I am talking about authors who have enough of a track record to be recognizable and have enough popularity to make money at it. Based on the books that I've been buying, the less prolific authors tend to be getting pretty close to the agency book prices, if we are talking about books that are out in paper rather than hardback.

What about books from the big 5 only? The ones who work under agency pricing in the US? They are the ones who are pricing eBooks that hight that a lot of us turn to the library. I used to buy a lot more eBooks before agency.

An example of stupidity is S&S. They publish Star Trek books. They were published mostly in MMPB format and eBook. The eBook has not changed, but since the new contract was ratified, S&S are now releasing the pBook in Trade PB format. So the eBook price has risen. The price of the eBook has gone from $7.99 to $11.99. The price of the eBook should not always be based on the price of the current pBook. The eBook should be priced fairly or at least allow the stores to discount like to do with the pBook.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The price of the eBook should not always be based on the price of the current pBook.

Of course it should, and vice versa. They're interrelated. Some won't read digital and some won't read paper, but many are fluid in their preference and price is a factor.

The eBook should be priced fairly

"Fairly" is neither useful nor accurate in the context of pricing, with the exception of subsistence goods. Leaving out natural monopolies, sellers are free to price as they will and buyers are free to buy or not. In fact, I'd argue that publisher prices are more fair than they've ever been, given the low barriers to entry for digital books.

or at least allow the stores to discount like to do with the pBook.

Yeah, I agree with this.

[Gardenman]

Originally Posted by issybird

[Bolding mine.]

By definition, this doesn't apply; library borrows are not Internet piracy. And if you're implying that Jon is an Internet pirate, he's not.

Time to drop this. A book which a customer would never buy, whether or not he could borrow it from the library, is not a lost sale. The only lost sales in this context are from those who'd buy the book if they couldn't borrow it in a timely manner.

issybird you are 100% correct.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Reasons like this?

How about money? The library actually pays money, even when the book is underutilized. Up front. It is not necessary to pay even more money each time the library loans it out. The library already owns the license until it expires, if it expires. Again it is not lost sales. Would the publisher like to sell more direct licenses instead of selling the license to borrow? Absolutely. They are fighting for market share. They don't want to compete on price, so the only thing they have left is converting borrows into sales. Not lost sales, they are trying to create more sales. They could also try to sell more expensive licenses to libraries during the new release window.

How about you quote the full sentence rather than quoting part of it without full context.

And again, it is lost sales. You literally can not create a sale from a previous non-sale (the person who borrowed instead of bought) without that sale having been lost in the first place.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

What about books from the big 5 only? The ones who work under agency pricing in the US? They are the ones who are pricing eBooks that hight that a lot of us turn to the library. I used to buy a lot more eBooks before agency.

An example of stupidity is S&S. They publish Star Trek books. They were published mostly in MMPB format and eBook. The eBook has not changed, but since the new contract was ratified, S&S are now releasing the pBook in Trade PB format. So the eBook price has risen. The price of the eBook has gone from $7.99 to $11.99. The price of the eBook should not always be based on the price of the current pBook. The eBook should be priced fairly or at least allow the stores to discount like to do with the pBook.

What about it? My point is that there are price points that are established by the market and we know what they are. If you just want to rail about how much you dislike the Big Five publisher and that you think eBooks should be dirt cheap, fine.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

How about you quote the full sentence rather than quoting part of it without full context.

And again, it is lost sales. You literally can not create a sale from a previous non-sale (the person who borrowed instead of bought) without that sale having been lost in the first place.

And again it is not. We will have to agree to disagree on this one. And sure you can create sales. Make buying more enticing. One way is advertisement. You advertise a book, you create sales. Every sale that happens is new and existed as a non-sale previously. You can choose. Either let someone else pay for it for a crippled book (time limited borrow you might have to stand in line for to read) and get it from the library, or choose to pay yourself by getting your own license right now without time limits. If you can convince a future borrower waiting in line to drop out and buy outright, you created an additional sale. Not even publishers are as stubborn as you in declaring every borrow from the library as lost opportunity to create an extra sale.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Nor do I claim they do. A lost sale is not always something you -can- get back. I have in fact spelled out previously that this would fall into the accounted for losses. But any business worth a damn is still going to factor in losses they can not prevent.



Which:

1) assumes no one on those lists returns them early

2) provides no information on the number of licenses the library has for those books

3) provides no information about the buying intentions of anyone on those lists

4) does not account for people who may be part of multiple library systems one of which you're looking at

Hmmm...

1. According to library records, very few ebook loans are returned early. In point, their computer system will flag people who borrow books and return them early on a consistent basis. Very few people can churn through 5 to 10 books per week on a consistent basis. I was caught by this at one time and ended up chatting with the library IT about the effect of a 1K WPM reading speed on book consumption.

2. You want the number of copies? They are displayed along with the projected hold wait period. On these books, the number was from 1 to 13 -- the 13 copy had an 18 week wait time.

3. Nor was it intended to. You seem to be saying the publishers regard any library loan as a "lost sale". To me, those wait times suggest that those people are not planning on buying the book or they would not have bothered to place the hold. After all, the wait time is displayed when you go to place the hold.

4. In this area, some libraries have an ebook collection outside of the BC Libraries Cooperative Library2Go but the majority are using the same collection. I checked the Vancouver Public Library which does have their own collection in addition to accessing the BCLC and basically, their wait times on the new in the last 7 days books that are common to the BCLC are identical (these are likely to be the more popular books and their wait times on their own collection vary from 2 weeks to at least 6 months (I suspect 12 holds or more all get the at least 6 months message). I tend to the belief that very few people are willing to pay for access to libraries such as the Orange County or Philadelphia Free libraries.

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Yes, a library will pay more for a given books license. You'll note I did not claim the publishers weren't making good money off the library. My only claim has been that they count the borrowed books as lost sales. Of course with your own example the publisher only needs to entice 5 people in that 90 day period to not wait for the library to have the book before the those sales overtake the library sale.

You might want to read my words more closely. The library paid $40.31 more for a single copy with a limited lifetime. That is the amount over costs that would have to be made on the sales to those 5 customers allowing for whatever additional costs are associated with Overdrive or other service provider reducing that number. Are we to believe the total costs of producing and selling an ebook sold at $8.99 Cdn is $0.93 Cdn? Not to mention that when the library copy expires, the library will have to choose whether to repurchase the ebook at the same inflated price or remove it from their collection so yet another chance for profit.

Originally Posted by MGlitch

As I've said before, a publisher isn't going to just sit back and say "well we sold to the library for a nice profit, lets just leave the possible extra money on the table'. That's not how businesses operate, they want to maximize their profit.

So Macmillan limits libraries to 1 license for the first 90 days, in that 90 days it's fully possible greater than 5 people will buy the book. The probability only goes up using the figures you provided above with longer and longer wait times. And as I demonstrated in an earlier post those 5 sales start to mean a lot of profit as you crunch the numbers.

90 days with an average 2 week loan is 6.5 people borrowing the book. And I still wonder where you get the 5 sales from since simple math makes it fairly obvious that the profit margin on a sale to a library is a bleep of a lot higher than on retail sales even allowing for Overdrive et alia's desire to make money as well. How many libraries will buy a copy of the ebook? Say 120,000 public libraries between the USA and Canada so, at a WEG, 4000 ebook purchases (allowing for many libraries that do not purchase their own ebooks but are part of a larger group). So using your logic, that would indicate the publishers are hoping for 20,000 extra sales over those 14 weeks. That would put the book just on ebook sales almost halfway to a NYT bestseller.

I probably buy a lot more ebooks than most people, even the members of Mobileread. I might purchase an ebook at full price if I had to wait 3 months but my past behaviour says that I would wait out the hold period. OTOH, I tend to be quite active in recommending books so the automatic hold means that I will be near the front of the queue for books I am interested in.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by issybird

Of course it should, and vice versa. They're interrelated. Some won't read digital and some won't read paper, but many are fluid in their preference and price is a factor.

pBooks are based on the container used. HC is most expensive. TPB is the next expensive. MMPB is the least expensive. So why should eBooks have prices go up when the container is exactly the same? Plus it costs less.

for example, in most cases, a film is cheaper in digital form then on disc. So why not the same for eBooks?

"Fairly" is neither useful nor accurate in the context of pricing, with the exception of subsistence goods. Leaving out natural monopolies, sellers are free to price as they will and buyers are free to buy or not. In fact, I'd argue that publisher prices are more fair than they've ever been, given the low barriers to entry for digital books.

I think $11.99 with no chance of the shop discounting or putting on sale is unfair. I think fair for a non-HC eBook should be $7.99 when the current eBook is a trade PB.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

What about it? My point is that there are price points that are established by the market and we know what they are. If you just want to rail about how much you dislike the Big Five publisher and that you think eBooks should be dirt cheap, fine.

The price does matter. That's why I borrow from the library instead of buying. It's not a lost sale because I would not be buying at that price.

It's the fault of the publisher that I'm not buying because they've got it priced too high.

[leebase]

The "price of the container" was always "marketing hookus pokus". Hard backs always carried a premium far greater than the extra cost of the format to print, ship and store.

It's more like movie pricing. New release, in hotel ppv release, hbo release, release to dvd, release to general tv

Now we have streaming in the mix.

But it's all still the same movie.