Interesting article on book pricing and why it might rise

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Some do, but that's rarely the case with the major publishers. You may not see the cover in the file, but it's always there on the website when you buy the book.

Since the cover's used to sell the ebook as much as the dead tree edition, it should share in the cost. After all, the main function of any cover is to sell the book - whether it's on the book, on a dust-jacket or on a poster.

If the cover is sharing the cost, then it should be part of the eBook and not some generic cover. Not of the times, we get this nice green cover or white cover that's totally ugly. This is just one more thing the publishers are taking away from us in a lot of cases.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

And some eBooks have the same legal notice when the eBook doesn't actually have a proper cover as well (generic cover is not a proper cover) and thus are they legal to sell?

Do you really have to ask the question?

But the notice is there for the same basic reason as it is on the stripped cover PB body.

If you buy a used paperback with cover, it already sold once. If you buy a stripped cover PB body, it didn't sell in the first place.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If the cover is sharing the cost, then it should be part of the eBook and not some generic cover. Not of the times, we get this nice green cover or white cover that's totally ugly. This is just one more thing the publishers are taking away from us in a lot of cases.

Which publishers do you buy who are doing this?
______
Dennis

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

If what you're talking about is a repackaged public domain edition, or a self published indie work, perhaps. If what you're talking about is a trade book from a major publisher, not so. (All of my Baen editions include a cover, for example)

I've seen folks elsewhere advocating dropping the cover art to save money and price the ebook cheaper. Aside from the fact that I know a number of the artists who get commissioned to produce the cover art and are trying to make a living, covers are features for me. An ebook that dropped them to save costs would simply be worth less to me, and I might not buy it at all.
______
Dennis

The problem is we don't know when an eBook is using a generic cover until after we've bought it and then it's too late. What I end up doing is finding a cover image and using that in place of the generic cover. I really dislike them.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

From my point of view, it does, and your comment enforces my point. In the time of George H. Scithers you could find 10% of the authors with manuscripts good enough to publish as they were, but that is gone now.

The situation that is described by Making Light is depressing:


Most of the people that belong to numbers 1-10 shouldn't have gotten the idea that they can write. In fact, some of the ones from numbers 1-7 shouldn't have graduated primary school. But here they are, submitting manuscripts. And why? Because they think that they did a good job, and an editor out there can make it great.

Most of the people in groups 1-7 are convinced they're writing the finest prose ever set to electrons and the merest suggestion of any change or hint that something could possibly improved is viewed as a clear sign that the person making the suggestion is grossly incompetent and wouldn't recognize good writing if it fell on them.

These are often the same people who also believe a single draft is all anything ever needs.

It's generally the better and more professional writers who respond well to editorial suggestions. They may disagree vehemently with particular changes, but they respect that it's part of the editor's job to recommend changes when they think it appropriate.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Which publishers do you buy who are doing this?
______
Dennis

DAW Books, Knoff Books, Balentine Books, Pocket Books, Ace Books, TOR...

And I am sure there are others. And these are from authors who's books sell pretty well... Alexander McCall Smith, Mercedes Lackey, Anne Rice, Charlaine Harris, Douglas Preston & Lincoln Child (to name a few)... So really why do it since they are now charging us for the cover they don't include?

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

As a reader I don't have a problem with that, in fact I don't think that there should be an editor in the first place. If you aren't good enough to write a compelling story to begin with, why should you expect to make a living out of writing?

Because writing is a process. What I write now is better than what I wrote 10 years ago. I did not learn in a vacuum. I had helpful editors and people who critiqued--some of them were pros who received my manuscript and felt it had enough promise to offer me comments--but not a sale. Many authors get better over time, but most of us get better because we get feedback. A good editor (and there are plot editors, copyeditors and so on) has a wealth of talent--not only do they understand good plots, they are well-read in SEVERAL genres. So they know an over-used trope. They also know a unique spin. They can spot lazy writing and nudge a writer to improve or make a scene dynamic.

It's not to say an editor is absolutely necessary--but a good editor or even a good beta reader is a special talent. The right person can really help a writer (like a coach) reach for that next level.

I've been fortunate to have had a beta reader say, "You know this is a good ending, but. I think it could be more." It was a good ending. But that comment pushed me to think about how to make it a great one.

No, we aren't all going to get that and not with every story. But don't think editors out there are just sitting there being gatekeepers. The good ones do a heck of a lot more.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

It looks the same from the other perspective. Here you are saying that you know more about publishing than the rest of us because you talk to publishers. And we are supposed to believe that their perspective isn't biased?

Of course it's biased. But let's consider whose perspective I'm talking about.

The folks I know aren't the CEOs concerned with the price of the stock, or the shareholders concerned with their investment.

The folks I know are the working stiffs - writers trying to make money writing (where "make money" means "more than minimum wage for the hours they spend crafting their work"), editors who acquire and line edit titles, who get a paycheck from their employer to keep a roof over their head and feed their family, copy editors and proof readers who expect to get paid for skilled work, artists who get commissioned to create covers, DTP specialists who prepare finished manuscripts for publication - friends trying to make a living helping to produce books people will buy and read.

I'm biased. I want to see my friends survive and prosper. I have some idea of the skill required to do what they do. When I see posts that suggest their actions have no value, and should be omitted in the service of providing cheaper ebooks, I'm not sympathetic. My reaction tends to be "What do you do for a living? How would you feel about suggestions you should be paid less, or perhaps dispensed with entirely, in service of your employer being able to provide goods/services cheaper?" Of course, they're different. Such concerns shouldn't apply to them...

In too many cases, I don't see concerned consumers. I see people who want something for nothing or very little, and are unconcerned with what might be necessary to bring that about.

One definition of "greed" is "inappropriate expectations". I see lots of comments about producer greed. Oddly, I don't see any about consumer greed, but it's very real, and a driving factor in economic decisions.

Personally, I think that what the folks I know do adds value I'm willing to pay for.

Not *no value* but *no cost*.

Depends upon the viewpoint. The person involved might set a value on their time in dollars per hour, track hours spent, and assign that as a cost.

It's done in large publishers to track costs on products. There is no reason an independent publisher couldn't do the same thing,

I'm shocked!

Oh, good! Let's do it again! *bzzzzt!*

But we were talking about the division of costs between the different formats. That implies that there are other formats beside MMPB.

It does indeed. But costs get divided among the formats a book is actually published in. If there is no hardcover edition, there are no hardcover related costs to apply, nor is there an edition you can assume covers various costs so the others tag along free.

That would be marketing. The free books go into marketing costs.

Correct. But from Bean's POV, it's cheap marketing.

The costs get cut. Smaller advance, less people working on copyediting, less time spent on the cover, little if any marketing.

Good luck. Smaller advances are problematic. Advances are paid based on anticipated sales. Publishers compete for good content. It will be hard to get away with paying smaller advances, especially if you are talking about authors with proven best seller status. The folks who will get nailed on this will be new authors/midlist authors, who already have problems. Copy editing/proofreading is increasingly not done now to save money, and you'll see lots of complaints elsewhere on MR about the results. Less time spent on the cover is also increasingly the norm. Artists are under pressure to go all digital to get it done faster and cheaper. And marketing is absolutely critical. I don't care how good the book is. You have to let the audience that might want to read that book know it exists. That's what marketing is all about, and it's just as critical for an ebook as a print edition.

There are also no print related costs. And I'm not talking just about manufacturing. Marketing is easier, accounting is easier, and this translates to less costs.

I'm not sure why you think marketing is easier. Accounting may be easier. But I don't think either of those will drop the costs by a significant amount.

But there is a solution to the current problem: ads. Have the initial sale of the ebook be a "HC" version when it comes to price, but release a different version of the book when the PB comes out that would show on the header of every page something along the lines of "this cheap version was brought to you by...". You know, something that is easy to do, and everyone can be happy. And of course, for those that want a clean copy, they can pay the full price.

There have actually been attempts at ad support in pure print editions. Once upon a time, you would find ad inserts bound into mass market paperbacks in the US. They didn't last long: most of them were from tobacco companies.

There have been suggestions of ad support in ebooks, too, and someone might try it. But the basic issue is that the supply of ad dollars is finite. Advertisers are increasingly focused on results. The question will be "Did the ad sell the product?" Ads that don't produce don't get continued. How many ads in ebooks do you think might actually sell products? What pitch would you make to a media buyer at an ad agency to get the placement?
______
Dennis

[caleb72]

I'm probably one of the evil people that helps the market bear the current "outrageous" prices.

In Australia, a paperback often costs over $30AU. For me, choosing to pay $9.99US is a no brainer, especially with the current exchange rate.

Of course I could do the same with paperbacks but then pay significantly higher shipping fees, so again there's a perceived difference between paperback and ebook prices for me.

Hardback has never featured in any of my decisions. As my partner pointed out the other day, I have a library full of books and not a single hardback. I perceive value differently. I need to be able to carry a couple of books around and read them easily. I do not find anything easy about hardback.

In any case though, it wasn't actually price that moved me to ebooks, it was physical space, the comparatively cheaper buy-in to the technology (specifically talking about eInk devices) and the improved accessibility of ebooks in Australia. OK, that last one is still a pain, but it seems to be slowly getting better.

Regards
Caleb

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You don't quite understand my point. Since you are there, ready to do this for them, the authors pay less attention than they normally would.


And they never learn. It is like having training wheels on a bike: to be able to say that you are cycling, you shouldn't be needing them.

Not true at all. Most writers believe in improving the craft EVERY SINGLE TIME WE SIT DOWN. We want a better book EVERY book. We want to hand off a perfect book. I just got back changes from my editor a couple of weeks ago. I was DISMAYED to find she had changes. THE BOOK WAS PERFECT. I had edited it over a hundred times. THIS time, I was smug. I knew her skills. So I was ever so careful to FIND those problems before she ever saw it...Oh, I was wondering whether I maybe had one too many characters? Was it confusing because of it?

Well, geez. That wasn't even mentioned. She honed in on word choices. She focused on REDUNDANCY!~ WHAT??? I said that already?? WHERE??? Hmm. There it is in black and white...

It DRIFTED??? WHERE??? Hm. Yeah, that spot could be tighter. Yeah those two chapters (three chapters apart) DO actually prove the same point so one of them needs to move the plot forward in some OTHER way or there is no point to having them both.

Most writers don't have sloppiness due to lack of training or due to lack of trying. We have sloppiness or errors due to reading it too many times. Due to focusing in on our own pet peeves. I know what I meant to write and THAT is what I see--it just might not actually be the words that showed up on the computer screen. And yes. I can misread that same paragraph 12 or 13 times. My editor reads it once. And apparently it glares...

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Most writers don't have sloppiness due to lack of training or due to lack of trying. We have sloppiness or errors due to reading it too many times. Due to focusing in on our own pet peeves. I know what I meant to write and THAT is what I see--it just might not actually be the words that showed up on the computer screen. And yes. I can misread that same paragraph 12 or 13 times. My editor reads it once. And apparently it glares...

Believe me, not a problem limited to people who write books.

Computer programmers have exactly the same issue which is why I always encourage peer reviews in my team.

Having an editor - or at least reviewer, isn't a prop - it's just a bloody sensible idea.

But that's another discussion.

Regards
Caleb

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Most writers don't have sloppiness due to lack of training or due to lack of trying. We have sloppiness or errors due to reading it too many times. Due to focusing in on our own pet peeves. I know what I meant to write and THAT is what I see--it just might not actually be the words that showed up on the computer screen. And yes. I can misread that same paragraph 12 or 13 times. My editor reads it once. And apparently it glares...

<grin> The same thing happens to programmers writing computer code. It fails to compile and build. It had been just fine, then the programmer made changes to add a feature. The programmer reads the code again and again, unable to see where the problem is...until a colleague glances at it, says, "Oh, yeah. You left out a statement terminator there, and everything following made no sense to the compiler because of that!" A single missing character in thousands of lines of code...

But yes, that's what editors do. In some cases it may be structural, like "You can drop the whole first chapter, because you are using it for setup you are actually repeating later in the book." Or "You need to decide what story you're telling. There are two different ones in this book, and you can't tell both at once."

In other cases, it may be prose. Some years back, Virginia Heinlein spearheaded a reissue of her late husband's work, using the original manuscripts before editing as the base. In some cases, it made a difference, like _Podkayne of Mars_, where the original story had Poddy dying at the end, but was changed at the editor's insistence because it was being written for a Juvenile/YA line. (Heinlein felt that undercut the point he was making, but complied.) In other cases, the editing was be more subtle. A word here, a line there...all intended to tighten the prose and add to the drive of the story. The edited versions were arguably better because of it.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

And I am sure there are others. And these are from authors who's books sell pretty well... Alexander McCall Smith, Mercedes Lackey, Anne Rice, Charlaine Harris, Douglas Preston & Lincoln Child (to name a few)... So really why do it since they are now charging us for the cover they don't include?

I don't know whether they are. Neither do you. If I wasn't applying the print edition cover to the ebook, I wouldn't allocate part of the costs to the ebook. I have no idea what they are doing.

But the cost of the average cover is likely under $1000, and in many cases, well under that, with the current trend towards digital art and Photoshopped images. Just how much do you think not having a cover on an ebook actually saves, and how much lower do you think the price ought to be because of it?
______
Dennis

[tompe]

The problem with cover as I understood it have been for old book were the publisher did not have the rights to electronically publish the cover.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I wasn't responding so much to your initial comment as to your later blanket comment, "I don't think there should be an editor in the first place."

That's the comment I have the greater issue with.

I understand that authors need to learn some things, and I also understand that they have to write to learn. My initial comment was on the fact that if what they are writing is part of the learning process, they can't expect to make a living out of writing while they are still learning.

When I read, I like to see the world through the author's eyes. I consider changes in the line of the plot as interference. If you are doing your job right, you are taking away from my enjoyment of the book. And I stick by my words: I don't think there should be an editor in the first place.

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Most of the people in groups 1-7 are convinced they're writing the finest prose ever set to electrons and the merest suggestion of any change or hint that something could possibly improved is viewed as a clear sign that the person making the suggestion is grossly incompetent and wouldn't recognize good writing if it fell on them.

These are often the same people who also believe a single draft is all anything ever needs.

It's generally the better and more professional writers who respond well to editorial suggestions. They may disagree vehemently with particular changes, but they respect that it's part of the editor's job to recommend changes when they think it appropriate.

And now groups 1-7 can self-publish and they will be left at the mercy of potential readers. Since they don't want your opinion anyway, there is less chance that they will want to submit it anyway, so you should have less slush to deal with.