Simon & Schuster is delaying ebooks by four months

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Daithi

I didn't divorce ebooks from pbooks. Quite the opposite, as I specifically assumed that both ebooks and pbooks were both being printed. I just pointed out that if you are going to produce both, you should focus on the business line that has the highest margin -- ebooks. Furthermore, I believe the logic behind my argument is valid whether it is one title being produced or 20,000.

But he also was throwing in across the entire product line, which is not valid for any particular book. We are not comparing industries here, just formats.

Basically you can throw out the advertising costs because the will (or we can assume they will) be the same for either pbook or ebook. The production costs of editing the book and preparing it (electronically/digitally) are equivalent, but from there the costs diverge.

For the pbook there is all the printing, shipping, storage returns, etc.
for the ebook there is computer storage and distribution (but those cost should be much less).

Also we are not talking about the costs of the retail piece of the business, but the publisher side costs and profits.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Maybe the problem is one of numbers (): arguing the costs of a single ebook as opposed to a complete product line. For example, Simon & Schuster publishes 2,000 titles each year so although the cost to produce a single ebook might be inexpensive compared to the cost of producing a single pbook, that equation changes when the costs of producing 2,000 books is considered. Something has to subsidize the costs of the book that sells 500 copies and is, economically speaking, a failure/disaster. If every title sold 20,000+ copies the parameters of the argument might change, but few titles of all the titles published reach such a plateau. And most books (if I had to guess, I'd guesstimate at least 75%) do not break even, let alone earn a profit.

The other "fallacy" is the attempt to impose two disparate economic models on a single product. You can't divorce ebooks from pbooks until we reach the day, which is still years away, when there are no pbooks, just ebooks. Until then both ebooks and pbooks need to fit within a single economic model.

It seems to me that the problem all along has been with this part: "Something has to subsidize the costs of the book that sells 500 copies and is, economically speaking, a failure/disaster... And most books (if I had to guess, I'd guesstimate at least 75%) do not break even, let alone earn a profit. "

Or perhaps a better idea is to change the business model so that there aren't so many failures and no way to recoup the loss. At least with ebooks, once the initial upfront costs are done, that book can "live" forever and attempt to earn out. The whole idea of printing warehouses full of books that everyone knows won't sell...seems like a bad idea. Even before ebooks that model sounds like a bad idea. I'm not saying that it didn't work for a while, but it probably needed some innovation a long time ago.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Or perhaps a better idea is to change the business model so that there aren't so many failures and no way to recoup the loss. At least with ebooks, once the initial upfront costs are done, that book can "live" forever and attempt to earn out.

How do you know in advance who will be a mega author and who will be a failure? It isn't obvious to me how you pre-weed out the failures.

Plus mega authors almost solely occur in fiction. Stephen King's writing subsidizes both new fiction authors and new and established nonfiction authors. Exceedingly rarely does a nonfiction history book about the ancient Greeks, for example, sell 5,000 copies. Are you suggesting that because the biography of Helen of Troy won't break even it shouldn't be published? And if it should be published, how is it to be paid for?

When you discuss a publisher and what its product should retail for you can't discuss a single book or a single genre; you need to view the whole spectrum of the publisher and recognize that no book stands on its own. When Stephen King submitted his first novel, he was an unknown; somebody took a financial gamble. In his case, it worked out but in most cases it does not and it is because he makes a profit for the publisher that the publisher is able to finance the search for the next Stephen King and publish important books such as the writings of Marcel Proust or Reinhold Niebuhr.

[Barcey]

I believe that ebooks provide an option to promote and publish new authors with relatively low risk and if they sell well then they consider moving to print.

You're not going to convince most people that they have to pay more to fund the publishers mistakes. It's the publishers job to pick authors that will sell and if they do a bad job of it they lose money.

I also find it amusing that the cost of printing, shipping and returns is insignificant when we're discussing why ebooks should be cheaper and it's a major cost when we're talking about authors that don't sell sell.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by rhadin

How do you know in advance who will be a mega author and who will be a failure? It isn't obvious to me how you pre-weed out the failures.
...

When you discuss a publisher and what its product should retail for you can't discuss a single book or a single genre; you need to view the whole spectrum of the publisher and recognize that no book stands on its own. ,,,

This is exactly the wrong view. The publishing industry has to change or die. It has been getting away with sloppy practices forever and now it's time to correct it. Streamline the process, get editors that know what they are doing, publish the books that have the best chance of earning out - do not rely on chance. Do not try to control the market with marketing, but find and publish the best product you can. Make every effort to maximize profit and remove chance from the equation. Ebooks do that.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Barcey

I believe that ebooks provide an option to promote and publish new authors with relatively low risk and if they sell well then they consider moving to print.

You're not going to convince most people that they have to pay more to fund the publishers mistakes. It's the publishers job to pick authors that will sell and if they do a bad job of it they lose money.

I also find it amusing that the cost of printing, shipping and returns is insignificant when we're discussing why ebooks should be cheaper and it's a major cost when we're talking about authors that don't sell sell.

Is interesting, isn't it.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

This is exactly the wrong view. The publishing industry has to change or die. It has been getting away with sloppy practices forever and now it's time to correct it. Streamline the process, get editors that know what they are doing, publish the books that have the best chance of earning out - do not rely on chance. Do not try to control the market with marketing, but find and publish the best product you can. Make every effort to maximize profit and remove chance from the equation. Ebooks do that.

And that is exactly the wrong thing for the wider culture. If we publish what has the greatest potential to earn out, then all we'll have is celebrity biographies, ghost-written celebrity novels and Dan Brown. Is that the book culture you want? You want mindless pablum for the rest of time, because if profit is the bottom line, then that's all you'll ever get (not that the traditional publishers aren't doing that right now).

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And that is exactly the wrong thing for the wider culture. If we publish what has the greatest potential to earn out, then all we'll have is celebrity biographies, ghost-written celebrity novels and Dan Brown. Is that the book culture you want? You want mindless pablum for the rest of time, because if profit is the bottom line, then that's all you'll ever get (not that the traditional publishers aren't doing that right now).

As much as I hate to I have to admit it and agree with you there is truth in that. But much of the reason is the marketing to the mindless masses. There is still a place for "real" books as well IMO. Perhaps different types of publishers just as there are now -- mass market publishers and literary publishers. Nothing wrong with that.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

As much as I hate to I have to admit it and agree with you there is truth in that. But much of the reason is the marketing to the mindless masses. There is still a place for "real" books as well IMO. Perhaps different types of publishers just as there are now -- mass market publishers and literary publishers. Nothing wrong with that.

Publishers don't care about talent or literary worth any more. The last of the great editors is gone. The publishing companies are now part of bigger corporations who have no other motif other than profit. We won't see another Joyce or Steinbeck or even a Chandler coming from the big-pubs, there's not enough money in it, there's not enough audience. Why pay a real writer with real talent money when you can give a clueless celebrity a million up front and pay some scab writer money on the backend to actually write the book?

We don't need to worry about what the publishing industry is doing or not doing, we need to crush the thing completely. We need the creative people in charge again, not the money people. We need to take this opportunity, writer and reader alike to make something more equitable for everyone.

Or, we can just keep on doing what we're doing. Accepting their DRM, inflated prices, poor royalties for the actual talent and staggered releases so they can make more profits. That and watching Stephen Seagal: Lawman Episode 3....that reminds me....

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And that is exactly the wrong thing for the wider culture. If we publish what has the greatest potential to earn out, then all we'll have is celebrity biographies, ghost-written celebrity novels and Dan Brown. Is that the book culture you want? You want mindless pablum for the rest of time, because if profit is the bottom line, then that's all you'll ever get (not that the traditional publishers aren't doing that right now).

I don't think it has to be this drastic. Many a small publisher works from POD/small print runs rather than mass market or hardback printing. The reason they do that is because they can't afford to do massive printings/warehousing and so on. If they ever get a big hit or an author that is steadily doing better
they can slowly increase print runs.

No, there is no way to know what the public will love and buy ahead of time--but in this electronic/feedback age, there has to be a way to improve the models. If a single editor can't pick the winners, the expense model has to change. And truthfully, it has changed even before ebooks. In the olden days, publishers used to sort their own slush piles. These days, agents do that work for them--getting a cut from authors for the efforts of networking, selling, knowing the market and so on. Models need to continue changing and they need to include ebooks.

Of course, most importantly, and what started this whole conversation: If there is a customer willing to part with money, find a way to get that customer a product and take their money.

I don't think the model of "buy the hardback because that is what we are selling" will work over the long term. It's possible it may work for a while, and I say that because it worked for a long time with paperback/hardbacks. But I think the audience is more educated about what they want and more used to getting it. We see more than just what a single bookstore or two presents on the shelf. In this age, there are more methods to get things we want as well. It's easier to hear about a book, to find out if your library has it, to find it used and so on. The landscape is changing. Ever so.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I don't think it has to be this drastic. Many a small publisher works from POD/small print runs rather than mass market or hardback printing. The reason they do that is because they can't afford to do massive printings/warehousing and so on. If they ever get a big hit or an author that is steadily doing better
they can slowly increase print runs.

No, there is no way to know what the public will love and buy ahead of time--but in this electronic/feedback age, there has to be a way to improve the models. If a single editor can't pick the winners, the expense model has to change. And truthfully, it has changed even before ebooks. In the olden days, publishers used to sort their own slush piles. These days, agents do that work for them--getting a cut from authors for the efforts of networking, selling, knowing the market and so on. Models need to continue changing and they need to include ebooks.

Of course, most importantly, and what started this whole conversation: If there is a customer willing to part with money, find a way to get that customer a product and take their money.

I don't think the model of "buy the hardback because that is what we are selling" will work over the long term. It's possible it may work for a while, and I say that because it worked for a long time with paperback/hardbacks. But I think the audience is more educated about what they want and more used to getting it. We see more than just what a single bookstore or two presents on the shelf. In this age, there are more methods to get things we want as well. It's easier to hear about a book, to find out if your library has it, to find it used and so on. The landscape is changing. Ever so.

Don't get me started on agents, for me they're a notch below child-molesters (shamelessly stealing a Woody Allen joke and fully aware of the irony too).

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, writers need to be their own publishers. They need to cut these parasitic old industries away from the flesh and start doing all this stuff for themselves. We're entering a very radical time in writing, it hasn't been this way since the 1960's when zines and author-owned publishing companies started to flourish. It's the perfect opportunity for writer and audience to cut a new, fair deal.

I've stopped buying from corporate publishers now, same as I don't buy from RIAA affiliated music publishers. The creators are never paid what they deserve, my money is bypassing the pockets of the artists and going into the faceless coffers of some industry that treats artists like shit.

Four month delays, eight months, two years, doesn't matter any more. I'm no longer a customer and there are more joining me every day.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Publishers don't care about talent or literary worth any more. The last of the great editors is gone. The publishing companies are now part of bigger corporations who have no other motif other than profit. ...

I'll agree that the corporation is the root of all evil today. But is disagree in that all publishers are not interested. There are any number of small publishers that do care.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I'll agree that the corporation is the root of all evil today. But is disagree in that all publishers are not interested. There are any number of small publishers that do care.

i never did mention independent publishers, who have always, and will always, it seems be on the side of writers. (My guess is also that they'll be the only ones who survive).

[whitearrow]

If you could pre-weed out the failures, there wouldn't be any, as they'd never be published in the first place.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yes and no. You are right about the upfront money perhaps, but it depends on the terms the retailer has with the publisher --- perhaps 90 days, which means they could get the books and not have to pay for them and perhaps even return them before they had to.

The costs and the distribution mechanism are critical. There are shipping costs, warehouse costs etc. You can say those are all built in but the are going to vary from book to book and the equivalent costs for the ebook are tiny in comparison. There is no retail sales people etc. Just an on-line presence. No storage costs no production costs (minimal at least) so the profit on the ebook is perhaps 2-10 times more than for the pbook. In your example you are assuming the profit is the same. It's not.

Yeah, my example was simplistic, but I was trying to illustrate a point, not delineate the actual facts - for the precise reason that you point out, namely, it all depends on the deal, and there are all kinds of deals.

As you point out, the ebook distribution business and the pbook distribution business are two different things. But when they are housed under one roof, and selling the same content, they impact each other's dynamic.

My point is this: existing publishers not only have an existing business model, they have an existing financial structure that is premised on a particular kind of money flow. Ebooks alter all that. Pbook publishers, even ones who embrace ebooks, are in the position not only of having to rebuild the airplane while it's in flight, but refuel it, too.

It is not going to be easy for them.