Do some publishers have any idea?

[theducks]

Hardcover sales seems to fall into the "I make N$ if I sell one"

Many Booksellers from from a fixed discount wholesale list, so they end up with the same cash at the end of the day if they sell 1 $20 HB or 2 $10 PB.

Personally, I would (and did) see my customers leave with 2 good books, rather than 1 of the expensive (same total $).
I don't know the Publishers Payout schedule, so I can't respond to whether the Author make more for that $20 sale for 1 HB sold or 2 PB sold.

I do know a few folk who managed to get 'published'. It was a loooong time before they saw a royalty check.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Who are you to suggest that I don't vote with my wallet? Guess what? I don't support big publishers, because I rather spend it on books I like to read and don't mind paying for.

Get off your high horse, I said no such thing. Geeze, for a forum about reading, there sure are a lot of people who have trouble doing it. If you vote with your dollars by not buying books from publishers, then why should they care what you think? You aren't a customer to them and quite likely will never be.

When I buy a car, I look for the best car I can find at a certain price point. A car is something that gets me from point A to point B and as long as I have a car that can do that reliably and has the small number of features I care about, I don't care about the model. Nothing wrong with that, I'm just not a car person. I have zero loyalty to a specific car manufacturer.

The flip side of that is that I don't expect high end car manufactures to play the slightest amount of attention to what I want and I don't go on and on about how over priced that cars are and how they are ripping off their customers just because I'm not willing to shell out the money to buy a high end car.

There are a lot of people out there quite willing to spend big bucks for a Tesla, or a BMW and they quite likely get good value out of their dollar. It's a choice. They probably get a better quality car than I get in a number of measurable areas - faster, quieter, more features. I'm fine with that. I don't feel the need to tear down Tesla or BMW just because I drive a Honda.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Get off your high horse, I said no such thing. Geeze, for a forum about reading, there sure are a lot of people who have trouble doing it. If you vote with your dollars by not buying books from publishers, then why should they care what you think? You aren't a customer to them and quite likely will never be.

When I buy a car, I look for the best car I can find at a certain price point. A car is something that gets me from point A to point B and as long as I have a car that can do that reliably and has the small number of features I care about, I don't care about the model. Nothing wrong with that, I'm just not a car person. I have zero loyalty to a specific car manufacturer.

The flip side of that is that I don't expect high end car manufactures to play the slightest amount of attention to what I want and I don't go on and on about how over priced that cars are and how they are ripping off their customers just because I'm not willing to shell out the money to buy a high end car.

There are a lot of people out there quite willing to spend big bucks for a Tesla, or a BMW and they quite likely get good value out of their dollar. It's a choice. They probably get a better quality car than I get in a number of measurable areas - faster, quieter, more features. I'm fine with that. I don't feel the need to tear down Tesla or BMW just because I drive a Honda.

Well, no one is insulting you because you don't buy expensive cars. But in this thread people who don't buy books at hardcover prices were called cheapskates and skinflints. And you wonder why people are upset?

And no, it's not a question of priority. If a person buys over a hundred books a year, then they generally cannot afford to buy those books at the highest price point, unless they're wealthy (and few people are). And why should they buy fewer books for higher prices?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by crossi

I support authors by buying a LOT of books not just a few high priced ones. I'm a fast reader. I have frequently bought 10 books in a single week and read them all. One a day is quite common for me. At that rate paying hardback prices is not possible except for the very rare book I have to have Right Now. Anyway what would an author prefer, that I should buy one of their books for $15 or all thirty or forty of their books for $5 each? If they are a one book wonder, yeah maybe they should go for the $15, but if they write a lot go for the maximum number of sales to better spread word about their books and get even more customers.

Also there is the point that back when I was buying paper books, perhaps one in ten of those I bought turned out to be keepers. The rest were just chaff I had to go through to find the books I really liked. Wasted money. No way was I going to waste hardback money on the one in ten odds of getting a keeper. And now I can't even trade in or donate the chaff. I'm just stuck with them.

How many authors out there have published 30 or 40 books? Not many that's for sure. Most name authors have trouble writing more than one or two a year, year in, year out. Really successful authors might have that much in the back list from writing a couple of books a year over the space of 20 or 30 years.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. You buy 500 books a year, so you want to minimize your cost. But if we are talking paper book, how many of those 500 books are the same author? It doesn't help Rick Riordan in the slightest if you buy 500 books in a year if he's only put out two books in the same period. He cares about people buying his books, either as hard backs, paper backs, audio books or ebooks.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It doesn't help Rick Riordan in the slightest if you buy 500 books in a year if he's only put out two books in the same period. He cares about people buying his books, either as hard backs, paper backs, audio books or ebooks.

But I don't care about keeping Rick Riordan or any other specific author in business. I care about there being as many different authors as possible. So I buy accordingly, from many different authors. Does that make me a skinflint?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

But in this thread people who don't buy books at hardcover prices were called cheapskates and skinflints. And you wonder why people are upset?

I believe I was the first to mention the word "cheapskate" in this thread. But I can assure you it wasn't used to refer to people who weren't willing to pay the highest price for books (in any format). I was refuting one particular poster's presumption that those who ARE willing were weak, pathetic and sad. I have no delusions that my willingness to pay retail, new-release prices for ebooks somehow makes me a better fan and/or more of a supporter of "the arts" in general (or authors in particular).

If my "cheapskate" comment is being used in an attempt to support that ridiculous notion, then I apologize. It is my opinion that being willing to pay more for books makes someone willing to pay more for books and nothing more. It says nothing about people who aren't willing to pay current retail new-release prices (and are willing to wait for prices to come down, or for sales/promotions, or simply choose to get their reading material from a library wherever possible).

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I believe I was the first to mention the word "cheapskate" in this thread. But I can assure you it wasn't used to refer to people who weren't willing to pay the highest price for books (in any format). I was refuting one particular poster's presumption that those who ARE willing were weak, pathetic and sad. I have no delusions that my willingness to pay retail, new-release prices for ebooks somehow makes me a better fan and/or more of a supporter of "the arts" in general (or authors in particular).

If my "cheapskate" comment is being used in an attempt to support that ridiculous notion, then I apologize. It is my opinion that being willing to pay more for books makes someone willing to pay more for books and nothing more. It says nothing about people who aren't willing to pay current retail new-release prices (and are willing to wait for prices to come down, or for sales/promotions, or simply choose to get their reading material from a library wherever possible).

You have no reason to apologize. And you're right, calling people who do pay release prices pathetic and weak is of course just as bad and insulting.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

How many authors out there have published 30 or 40 books? Not many that's for sure. Most name authors have trouble writing more than one or two a year, year in, year out. Really successful authors might have that much in the back list from writing a couple of books a year over the space of 20 or 30 years.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. You buy 500 books a year, so you want to minimize your cost. But if we are talking paper book, how many of those 500 books are the same author? It doesn't help Rick Riordan in the slightest if you buy 500 books in a year if he's only put out two books in the same period. He cares about people buying his books, either as hard backs, paper backs, audio books or ebooks.

Why should people limit themselves to a small set of authors?

A lot of people spending a little per book on lots of books are putting more money in more authors pockets than a few people buying a few books at high prices. (I am a slow reader and only buy a few (for this crowd) books a year, a very few expensive, some cheap, and some middling.)

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Well, no one is insulting you because you don't buy expensive cars. But in this thread people who don't buy books at hardcover prices were called cheapskates and skinflints. And you wonder why people are upset?

And no, it's not a question of priority. If a person buys over a hundred books a year, then they generally cannot afford to buy those books at the highest price point, unless they're wealthy (and few people are). And why should they buy fewer books for higher prices?

No, they are not. If that's what they think and are upset about it, then perhaps they should take a deep breath and go back and read what is actually been said. Frankly I'm talking more about people who buy used books, or only get free books rather than people who buy hardbacks verses paperbacks. Most authors are quite happy with fans who buy their books period - Hardback, paperback, audiobook or ebook, it's all good and they get their money.

I'm not considered particularly wealthy, but I tend to buy somewhere around 200 to 300 books a year. A few months ago, I posted how many books per year I've purchased over the last 5+ years and the average price per book. As I recall it was a bit in excess of $10 per book, but not a whole lot. I buy roughly a third of my books at hard back prices.

I have a list of favorite authors whom I buy as they come out. Unfortunately, not many of them are particularly prolific and it's not uncommon for an author to take a year or two off after finishing a series, so if I'm lucky, I get 20 books a year from that group. The rest are either non fiction books on subjects that interest me, or authors that I'm giving a try. In a good year, I might pick up one or two new favored authors.

Once again, go back and look at what I actually said, not strawmen thrown up by other posters. Robert Heinlien has been quoted as saying that authors compete for people's beer money. I suspect that's how most authors view it. They want your beer money, not your rent money.

Back when I was a student, I didn't have much in the way of discretionary funds. I had some, because I've had paying jobs all my life since I started as a paper boy when I was 11, but most of that went to the family income pot and I had a couple of bucks a week to spend as I wished. I would buy a couple of paper backs rather than spend that money at the snack bar. At that time, SF rarely came out in hardback and paper back books cost less than a dollar. That was maybe 4 candy bars. I didn't buy my first hard back until I was over 16 and working fast food. Once again, most of my paycheck went to the college fund, but I had enough to buy some books every week. I just didn't go to a lot of movies or the like.

Even now, it's the same dynamic. $3000 a year may sound like a lot of money, but it's maybe 5 months of car payments. Keep my car 8 years rather than 5 and I've paid for all those books.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Why should people limit themselves to a small set of authors?

A lot of people spending a little per book on lots of books are putting more money in more authors pockets than a few people buying a few books at high prices. (I am a slow reader and only buy a few (for this crowd) books a year, a very few expensive, some cheap, and some middling.)

If you don't have any favorite authors and don't care if a specific author writes another book or not, then you shouldn't. If you do care, then buying hardback books gets the author more dollars to keep writing than buying paper books and gets the author a whole lot more than going to the library, or buying used books.

Supply and demand have two components. You have to have customers who buy and you have to have authors who write. Most authors write with the expectation that they are going to make money. Few actually do, but most want to make money.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

No, they are not. If that's what they think and are upset about it, then perhaps they should take a deep breath and go back and read what is actually been said. Frankly I'm talking more about people who buy used books, or only get free books rather than people who buy hardbacks verses paperbacks. Most authors are quite happy with fans who buy their books period - Hardback, paperback, audiobook or ebook, it's all good and they get their money.

...and so the goalposts have been moved. This was originally about lowering prices on ebooks across the board, and then some posters started talking about how they just waited for books to go on sale, then others started implying that if people didn't pay full price for books, they were free-loaders and were contributing to the upcoming apocalypse of the publishing industry and taking food out of the mouths of authors. There was even a statement made comparing people who don't pay full price for books to people who don't put enough (or any) money into the collection plate at church (????)

Now, it's all being pushed back. Apparently the problem isn't people who wait for sales, or those who buy low priced new books/ebooks, it's the people who buy *used* books.

...and the beat goes on...

Shari

[leebase]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Get off your high horse, I said no such thing. Geeze, for a forum about reading, there sure are a lot of people who have trouble doing it. If you vote with your dollars by not buying books from publishers, then why should they care what you think? You aren't a customer to them and quite likely will never be.

+1

I've heard some express such appreciation for Calibre that they send the developer money....even when they don't have to. It is far more likely the developer will keep improving Calibre if he keeps making money from it. It MAY be the case that he just likes to do the work and will continue anyway. It's MORE likely that -- if he made enough money -- he could give full time effort into making improvements, and doing so quicker.

You know...just like an author writing books.

Me....I'm a free rider...taking what he makes for free and what others support with their money. But I don't kid myself. I'm not supporting him just because I use his product. I'm no more value to him than those who don't use his product. Really, I'm morally worse.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

When I buy a car, I look for the best car I can find at a certain price point. A car is something that gets me from point A to point B and as long as I have a car that can do that reliably and has the small number of features I care about, I don't care about the model. Nothing wrong with that, I'm just not a car person. I have zero loyalty to a specific car manufacturer.

I've tried to help people reconsider books as SEPARATE from meaningless commodities like milk or cars. They are works of art, created by an artist. Thus, if I appreciate the art and would like MORE from the artist, I SHOULD (if I can) support the art with my money.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The flip side of that is that I don't expect high end car manufactures to play the slightest amount of attention to what I want and I don't go on and on about how over priced that cars are and how they are ripping off their customers just because I'm not willing to shell out the money to buy a high end car.

In other words: you don't matter (to them) and you never did

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

No, they are not. If that's what they think and are upset about it, then perhaps they should take a deep breath and go back and read what is actually been said. Frankly I'm talking more about people who buy used books, or only get free books rather than people who buy hardbacks verses paperbacks. Most authors are quite happy with fans who buy their books period - Hardback, paperback, audiobook or ebook, it's all good and they get their money.

I'm not considered particularly wealthy, but I tend to buy somewhere around 200 to 300 books a year. A few months ago, I posted how many books per year I've purchased over the last 5+ years and the average price per book. As I recall it was a bit in excess of $10 per book, but not a whole lot. I buy roughly a third of my books at hard back prices.

I have a list of favorite authors whom I buy as they come out. Unfortunately, not many of them are particularly prolific and it's not uncommon for an author to take a year or two off after finishing a series, so if I'm lucky, I get 20 books a year from that group. The rest are either non fiction books on subjects that interest me, or authors that I'm giving a try. In a good year, I might pick up one or two new favored authors.

Once again, go back and look at what I actually said, not strawmen thrown up by other posters. Robert Heinlien has been quoted as saying that authors compete for people's beer money. I suspect that's how most authors view it. They want your beer money, not your rent money.

Back when I was a student, I didn't have much in the way of discretionary funds. I had some, because I've had paying jobs all my life since I started as a paper boy when I was 11, but most of that went to the family income pot and I had a couple of bucks a week to spend as I wished. I would buy a couple of paper backs rather than spend that money at the snack bar. At that time, SF rarely came out in hardback and paper back books cost less than a dollar. That was maybe 4 candy bars. I didn't buy my first hard back until I was over 16 and working fast food. Once again, most of my paycheck went to the college fund, but I had enough to buy some books every week. I just didn't go to a lot of movies or the like.

Even now, it's the same dynamic. $3000 a year may sound like a lot of money, but it's maybe 5 months of car payments. Keep my car 8 years rather than 5 and I've paid for all those books.

I didn't actually mean your posts by saying people were insulted, but another poster's, who said right out that he's never met so many skinflints as on this forum. As most people here buy far more books than an average reader does, it's only natural they're not willing to pay hardcover prices.

But hinting that all and sundry could easily pay two-digit prices for their hundreds of books because they waste most of their discretionary income on insignificant minor things is close to an insult. I spend most of my discretionary income on books, but I could never afford to pay $15-20 for each of them. I just don't earn that much money, period.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I didn't actually mean your posts by saying people were insulted, but another poster's, who said right out that he's never met so many skinflints as on this forum. As most people here buy far more books than an average reader does, it's only natural they're not willing to pay hardcover prices.

That's me. And it shouldn't be hard to accept. For a forum that's populated almost solely by book lovers....a huge amount of the talk is about books costing too much or how to find them for free or the glories of cheap Indie books.

It just doesn't SOUND like a forum of people who love AUTHORS, who create the books.

And I excluded from my "skinflint" list, those who can do no better. The are still free riders...but, you can't do what you can't do. And I've admitted how I too am a free rider on some/many things.

And while it's obviously an opinion, it sprang from the odious claim that people buying new release books at new release prices were dupes and idiots (paraphrased because I'm too lazy to search)

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

But I don't care about keeping Rick Riordan or any other specific author in business. I care about there being as many different authors as possible. So I buy accordingly, from many different authors. Does that make me a skinflint?

No, but it does mean that you aren't really a target customer for any specific author, which means they don't really care if what prices you prefer.

That's really the point of what I'm saying. Major publishers have a specific business model. If you are only willing to pay $3 a book, then you aren't a customer they care about. Other posters carry on about how evil publishers are for not putting out books at super cheap prices, but really book prices have nothing to do with publishers being evil or consumers being cheap. It has to do with sustainable business models.

In the indie ebook world, one sustainable business model is to churn out cheap books as fast as possible. It's very similar to the old pulp writer business model. It's sustainable as long as an author can keep churning out books and as long as customers continue to buy those books. For authors who can't get enough customers to buy their books or who can't churn out books fast enough to make ends meet, it's not a sustainable business model.

There are certain paper book genres that use a similar model, though their price point is higher than the indie ebook only model. Perry Rhodan, is an example, though there are less extreme example in other genres. It frequently requires multiple authors writing under the same banner to achieve the necessary output.

If you are a writer that writes one, two or maybe even three books a year, then that model won't work for you. It certainly doesn't work for authors who take more than a year to write a single book. Those authors depend on a different business model and a different price point. If you want publishers to keep publishing your books, then you have to at least come close to earning out.

Best selling authors, with their build in customer base, tend to be very profitable for publishers and make lots of money for the authors. It's what most authors aspire to. These authors frequently give the publishers the margin they need to stay in business. Sometimes, best sellers make huge amounts on money in hard back sales and paper back sells is simply gravy. (it would be interesting to compare the sales figures for book 7 of the Harry Potter series as hard backs verses the sales for paper backs in the first year each format came out. I wouldn't be shocked to find out that they sold more hard backs than paper backs, though I have zero data to support that idea.)

As a customer, you get to decide what business model suits your buying needs. The thing is, there is nothing moral involved. Publishers aren't evil because they want to charge more than a given book buyer wants to pay, and book buyers aren't cheapskates because they are only willing to pay a certain price for any book. It's a choice and like most choices it has certain ramifications. I would say that it is disingenuous to have a specific buying model and complain because it doesn't produce the books you want.