Do some publishers have any idea?

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by leebase

People who wait for lower prices support the art less. It’s those folks who pay the new book price during the new book window that bring in the most money that any book is ever going to earn

Actually they support the big publisher's price gouging less. Not a huge concern of mine.

[John F]

Originally Posted by leebase

People who wait for lower prices support the art less. It’s those folks who pay the new book price during the new book window that bring in the most money that any book is ever going to earn

Actually, they support the art more. The people who buy at higher prices can afford fewer books, so they use the library more, borrow from other people, ... Those who buy at lower prices buy more books, so they support more authors with more money.

Just an idea, no idea if it is true or not, but since we seem to just throw stuff against the wall and see if it sticks, ...

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by John F

Actually, they support the art more. The people who buy at higher prices can afford fewer books, so they use the library more, borrow from other people, ... Those who buy at lower prices buy more books, so they support more authors with more money.

Just an idea, no idea if it is true or not, but since we seem to just throw stuff against the wall and see if it sticks, ...

You are assuming that everyone has the same amount of money and the same priorities. That is not a valid assumption at all. It's much more likely that people who buy at higher prices are simply willing to spend more money on books.

One of the issues with debating an issue with very little real data and the data that we have tends to be an very high level is that it's hard to prove anything. Even the statement that hard back books accounts for X percent of the revenue has two issues. First, it's from a source removed from the actual data and thus no one really knows the accuracy and second, it doesn't real mean what people think it does. You have to look at things like profit and most important what are the numbers for the books that drive the industry?

Mid-tier author A sells 15,000 paper back books and barely earns out. Now multiply that times the thousands of mid-tier authors. Does that earn as much profit as best seller author who sells 200,000 hard back copies of his or her new book? We really don't know that level of detail, nor are we likely to find out anytime soon.

I tend to compare book publishers to stock pickers, 1 good pick pays for 100 picks that don't pan out or are average. The average joe index investor sees good returns (think mid-tier authors), but the guy who gets in on the ground floor on a company that pans out is the one who makes millions (think best seller).

[John F]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

You are assuming that everyone has the same amount of money and the same priorities. That is not a valid assumption at all. It's much more likely that people who buy at higher prices are simply willing to spend more money on books.

...

Saying it is "not a valid assumption", and than say "it is much more likely" is an invalid statement?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by John F

Saying it is "not a valid assumption", and than say "it is much more likely" is an invalid statement?

Likely and valid are two different words with different meanings. Your statement is invalid since it's easy to show that it's based on a false assumption. I spend a lot of money on books, frequently at hard back prices. I haven't gotten a book from a library in almost 40 years. Since the limiting factor in my book buying is time and books that interest me rather than money, I am an example that invalidates your assumption. If you had limited your assertion to people who have limited discretionary funds, that would have been different. Saying something is likely doesn't say anything about if it's actually valid or not, just that it's, IMPO, more likely.

If someone were to say that all posters with a handle of John F are fans of JFK, then that's easily falsifiable. If I were to say that it's more likely that the handle John F has nothing to do with JFK, then that says nothing about if it's actually true, just that the odds of it being true are higher.

[John F]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Likely and valid are two different words with different meanings. Your statement is invalid since it's easy to show that it's based on a false assumption. ...

My assumption is that people would see that my statement was talking about lower price buyers as a whole, your anecdotal and likely don't make an assumption false.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by John F

My assumption is that people would see that my statement was talking about lower price buyers as a whole, your anecdotal and likely don't make an assumption false.

You made an absolute statement with no qualifiers. In the context of what we are talking about, maximizing publisher profits, I really don't follow why you would assume everyone understood you were only talking about low price buyers. Are you assuming that low price buyers drives book publishers bottom line? I doubt that assumption is true. It's been reported many, many times that best sellers drive the publishers bottom line and best sellers rarely are cheap books.

Any way you look at it, cheap books are very difficult to make money at. It takes a fixed amount of money to publish a book. The figure that I've seen is $50K. Given that the average book sells perhaps 10K-20K copies, then you know how much the average book has to cost to make that back. Add in the author's advance or author's cut, the sellers cut and one quickly sees that cheap books as more likely to lose money than make money.

[John F]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

You made an absolute statement with no qualifiers. In the context of what we are talking about, maximizing publisher profits, I really don't follow why you would assume everyone understood you were only talking about low price buyers. Are you assuming that low price buyers drives book publishers bottom line? I doubt that assumption is true. It's been reported many, many times that best sellers drive the publishers bottom line and best sellers rarely are cheap books.

Any way you look at it, cheap books are very difficult to make money at. It takes a fixed amount of money to publish a book. The figure that I've seen is $50K. Given that the average book sells perhaps 10K-20K copies, then you know how much the average book has to cost to make that back. Add in the author's advance or author's cut, the sellers cut and one quickly sees that cheap books as more likely to lose money than make money.

And what I quoted:

People who wait for lower prices support the art less. It’s those folks who pay the new book price during the new book window that bring in the most money that any book is ever going to earn

No one seemed to point that leebase's statement was an absolute statement with no qualifiers. It is the internet, it is not some legal statement or mathematical proof: if we had to fully qualify every statement, opinion, post, ... it would be a very tedious forum and participation would quickly decline*.

* sorry for not fully qualifying this statement.

[leebase]

It’s a correct opinion too. It’s not really so hard to figure. A person who buys a hard back book during the new release price window puts more money into the pocket of the author (and yes, the complete pipeline) than the person who pays a nickel for a used paperback at a garage sale.

If you want your favorite authors to be able to support themselves creating the books you want to read...then maybe you consider being on the former end of the fan spectrum instead of the latter.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by leebase

It’s a correct opinion too. It’s not really so hard to figure.

Well, no.

A person who buys a hard back book during the new release price window puts more money into the pocket of the author (and yes, the complete pipeline) than the person who pays a nickel for a used paperback at a garage sale.

But that's not what we talking about. First, let's get rid of the nickel buyer of the used copy as irrelevant. Heck, he could even pay ten bucks for it, it would still be bupkes for the author and no one's claiming differently.

But on new copies, it's aggregates that matter, not individuals. One person who buys the hardback is going to put much less money into the author's pocket than a thousand who buy the paperback. I'm not really claiming that there's a thousand to one ratio, but more people are going to buy at a cheaper price, and that's a given. It's the tradeoff between the two, and managing the price so as to maximize income at every possible gradation, that maximizes profits and payoff to the author as well. And in fact, it's the hoi polloi who subsidize the elite.

[leebase]

Nope...what I am talking about is the individual. YOU support the art YOU pay for IN the amount you pay.

Now, I have been and can be still...that nickel paperback buyer. Someone along for the ride gratis of the largess of OTHERS. BUT I don’t kid myself.

Some of us...we do all that we can do and that’s fine. I don’t regret my childhood of reading used books and library books. I don’t care that I buy some author's books for a buck. It’s god marketing on their part. But the point is to build a fan base of people who matter...those that pay. Those that keep the author in the green needed to be able to continue to write.

So many fans of reading. This whole forum...filled with folks passionate about reading. But MY GOD....so many skin flints who think a book and a cup of coffee should be the same price.

If you enjoy the art....support the art. Vote with your dollars. Stop trying so hard to devalue that which you are passionate about.

If you can’t pay....I’m not talking to you.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by leebase

If you enjoy the art....support the art. Vote with your dollars. Stop trying so hard to devalue that which you are passionate about.

No can do. If I have the choice of buying a book for $20 or four books for the same amount, each $5, I will always choose the latter. I like to try new authors. Why should I limit myself to only a handful of authors in the name of "supporting the art"? The new and unknown authors need someone to buy their books too. And as I'm not a millionaire, I can't afford to pay two-digit prices for every author I read. Because I read books from hundreds of different authors.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

No can do. If I have the choice of buying a book for $20 or four books for the same amount, each $5, I will always choose the latter. I like to try new authors. Why should I limit myself to only a handful of authors in the name of "supporting the art"? The new and unknown authors need someone to buy their books too. And as I'm not a millionaire, I can't afford to pay two-digit prices for every author I read. Because I read books from hundreds of different authors.

Absolutely correct. Based on the very wealthy people I know I'd say they certainly don't throw their money around either. I don't class myself as wealthy but I certainly don't either. The logic of leebase's argument seems to be that we owe a duty to pay as much as we possibly can for any "artistic" purchase so as to encourage publishers, promoters etc. to produce more and if lucky put a few extra cents in a creators pocket. If of course the author is in fact getting anything, which in traditional publishing is no foregone conclusion. Also, of course, in the case of books, we are being asked to pay this premium before we have ever read or listened to the book. Like you, I want value for money and will support more authors charging less money. Preferably self-published ebooks so the authors get to keep 70%. Great incentive.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by leebase

So many fans of reading. This whole forum...filled with folks passionate about reading. But MY GOD....so many skin flints who think a book and a cup of coffee should be the same price.

Interesting. You are resorting to name calling now. It is a sure sign that you have run out of valid arguments.

You used Audible for a while, right? Why are you such a cheapskate? Don't you want to support the art? Pay the full price, not the discount. For music, I suppose, you never listen to the radio or streaming service. To support the art you have to buy it. Movies or TV shows? Buy them. Support the art. Buy. Buy. Buy. Full price. Right at release.

Unless you do that for every entertainment you consume, than you are nothing but a hypocrite. And that is my opinion.

[darryl]

+1 to Duckie.