Back list vs. New release

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by VicLavigne

The producers of ebooks are not looking at volume correctly. Ebooks are potentially unlimited in supply since their is no further production costs.. The publisher could sell billions with no depletion in supply. But to sell huge amounts must make the price attractive to buyers. Really, is one million sales at 9.99 a better deal for the publisher than one billion sales at 1.99? or one billion at 99 cents?

Vic

You are not looking at pricing correctly.

While selling a billion books at $1 or $2 is definitely better than selling a million at $10, there is absolutely no reason to assume that sales will go up a thousandfold if you drop the price. A million books at $10 is better than 5 million books at $1. And there's no guarantee that dropping the price would increase the number of purchasers by even a factor of 5. It's not like freebies are downloaded by infinite people.

But the best pricing strategy is to do something like publishers have already done - drop book prices gradually over time. That way, you get people willing to pay $10 for the book...and you get $10 from them. Later you get $8 and later still maybe $5.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by apbschmitz

I wonder if the idea of "fair" misses the point. From the producer's end it's more a question of where you can make the most money. Lower prices, more volume, or higher prices, lower volume?

In many ways an eBook is a premium product. Instant delivery, no trek to a book store, no hunting around in a musty used book store, immediate access to an imponderable number of books, convenient storage that doesn't gobble up your living space. You could just as well argue that an eBook ought to cost more.

I wasn't interested in the view from the publishers point, only the consumers. The consumer decides what they think is a fair discrepancy.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

To do it right, a backlist book that has no electronic copy would cost more to make then a current book. There's scanning & OCRing to add in that you should not have to do with a new book.

I think that most authors and publishers have transformed the original manuscript into electronic form for at least 20 years. Don't know about the US but from my experience manuscripts were sent to printers as PDF files by the early '90s.

[elemenoP]

I find the pricing of backlist books very frustrating. Here is a book I would love to have as an ebook, Watership Down:

http://www.amazon.com/Watership-Down...4323731&sr=8-1

Kindle edition costs $13.99. I could get a trade paperback, new, for $11.56, or I could get a mass market paperback (the same edition I read as a kid!), used, for $3.99 (including shipping).

Yes, this is a case that JSWolf is talking about, where they most likely did not have digital files so they had to do some work to create the ebook edition, but still.... $13.99 is just TOO MUCH.

Contrast this with Rosetta Books which puts out classics that are still under copyright. In addition to production costs, I am assuming they had to pay something to the copyright holder (actually I don't really understand how this works). Brave New World, for example, costs $6.49, and Slaughterhouse Five costs $5.24.

Oh actually I see that Rosetta Books is not part of any agency publisher, so these lower prices reflect Amazon's discounting. It's hard to say if Amazon is selling these at a loss or not.

eP

[Synamon]

That Simon & Schuster ebook version of Watership Down is $19.89 for Canada on Amazon.

Interestingly, there is also a Puffin Books (sub of Penguin) ebook version that can be had here for $7.39, discounted only from a listed Digital price of $9.24 (to price match Kobo I assume).

[Yapyap]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

To do it right, a backlist book that has no electronic copy would cost more to make then a current book. There's scanning & OCRing to add in that you should not have to do with a new book.

On the other hand, a new book still has to earn back all the other costs - the author's advance, the editing, the marketing. For an older backlist book, haven't all those costs been covered years or decades ago?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

I wasn't interested in the view from the publishers point, only the consumers. The consumer decides what they think is a fair discrepancy.

But if each consumer uses different criteria the concept of fairness is useless here. I as a consumer agree with the view that things like instant delivery increase the value for me and motivates a higher price. Some people just compare to a paperback book and do not agree.

[TimW]

Originally Posted by elemenoP

I find the pricing of backlist books very frustrating. Here is a book I would love to have as an ebook, Watership Down:

http://www.amazon.com/Watership-Down...4323731&sr=8-1

Kindle edition costs $13.99. I could get a trade paperback, new, for $11.56, or I could get a mass market paperback (the same edition I read as a kid!), used, for $3.99 (including shipping).

Yes, this is a case that JSWolf is talking about, where they most likely did not have digital files so they had to do some work to create the ebook edition, but still.... $13.99 is just TOO MUCH.

Contrast this with Rosetta Books which puts out classics that are still under copyright. In addition to production costs, I am assuming they had to pay something to the copyright holder (actually I don't really understand how this works). Brave New World, for example, costs $6.49, and Slaughterhouse Five costs $5.24.

Oh actually I see that Rosetta Books is not part of any agency publisher, so these lower prices reflect Amazon's discounting. It's hard to say if Amazon is selling these at a loss or not.

eP

Since S & S decided to settle the Agency lawsuit, this book would be a good one to watch on ereaderiq. Hopefully, the price will dip in the next few months.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

I think that most authors and publishers have transformed the original manuscript into electronic form for at least 20 years. Don't know about the US but from my experience manuscripts were sent to printers as PDF files by the early '90s.

But printer pdf files are not reading pdf files, they have lots of other material in them for controlling the printing process... and they're are a real pain to convert to a comfortable reading form, time consuming and needing editing so it isn't just grab the file and release it. The author's/editors' versions have, for the most part been deleted until recently when storage became much, much cheaper so it isn't as cut and dried as you make out...

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by elcreative

But printer pdf files are not reading pdf files, they have lots of other material in them for controlling the printing process... and they're are a real pain to convert to a comfortable reading form, time consuming and needing editing so it isn't just grab the file and release it. The author's/editors' versions have, for the most part been deleted until recently when storage became much, much cheaper so it isn't as cut and dried as you make out...

While that is true, I still believe that an author will keep a copy of the manuscript as it is made up for publishing, it could be in Word or PDF, but I sincerely doubt he or she would erase it from the computer. It has taken too long to produce and there might be future editions forthcoming.

I can actually say for sure that writers like Vince Flynn and Brad Thor does this, because in newer books there are direct quotes from earlier works, sometimes a passage or two. It was so easy to check thanks to reading it as e-books.

[elemenoP]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

While that is true, I still believe that an author will keep a copy of the manuscript as it is made up for publishing, it could be in Word or PDF, but I sincerely doubt he or she would erase it from the computer. It has taken too long to produce and there might be future editions forthcoming.

I can actually say for sure that writers like Vince Flynn and Brad Thor does this, because in newer books there are direct quotes from earlier works, sometimes a passage or two. It was so easy to check thanks to reading it as e-books.

You are leaving out the process that the book goes through after the manuscript leaves the author's hands. First, the manuscript is edited, probably in Word format. The author will probably get that version back. Then the manuscript is copy-edited, probably in Word format. The author may or may not get that version back. Then the book is laid out, probably in InDesign format. The author does not get that version, it is property of the publisher. Then that version is proofread, and the corrections are made in InDesign. Again, the author doesn't get that. THEN a PDF is created and sent to the printer (or else the original InDesign files are sent to the printer). So the author does not have the final, print version of the text.

If the author wishes to get large passages from previous books to put in new books, he or she could simply ask the publisher to put them in, if it's the same publisher. Or for short passages, it probably doesn't make much difference which version is used.

eP

[elemenoP]

And in today's publishing, a manuscript may be marked up with XML during the production process, to facilitate a later conversion to another format. At least I know that some textbook publishers (such as Pearson) are doing this.

eP

[LuvReadin]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

While that is true, I still believe that an author will keep a copy of the manuscript as it is made up for publishing, it could be in Word or PDF, but I sincerely doubt he or she would erase it from the computer. It has taken too long to produce and there might be future editions forthcoming.

Even if they did, they probably still woudln't be able to make it available. Most publishing contracts (especially for newer authors - established ones have a bit more clout) are very wide-ranging, so it's likely that it's the publisher who owns the book, not the author. The author can't, for instance, just distribute the copy on their PC or the final PDF they get from the publisher to anyone who asks for it - it's not theirs to distribute.

Originally Posted by elemenoP

And in today's publishing, a manuscript may be marked up with XML during the production process, to facilitate a later conversion to another format. At least I know that some textbook publishers (such as Pearson) are doing this.

eP

In fact, for any publisher that produces electronic versions (publishers of academic journals, for instance), the XML/HTML file is the primary format, and all the other formats (PDF files, print journals) are subsidiary to that.