Do some publishers have any idea?

[leebase]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I suppose so.

Writing is an art. And when you buy a book, you are supporting the arts. Does that sound pretentious? I guess it does, because we don't think of it that way. But it is still so.

As for the name calling, if that's the issue, that's what should be addressed instead of ridiculous assertions about only children being able to morally check out books from the library or that you are only virtuous if you pay full list price for all books purchased. Yeah, they might be funny to read, but they are arguing points that were never made in the first place.

But you only see the absurdity of those “points” because....

Well...because apparently you can reason.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by leebase

But you only see the absurdity of those “points” because....

Well...because apparently you can reason.

It took those absurd points for you to see reason and tone down on the patronizing. You may not have intended to do so, but it got misinterpreted. And not just by me. As seen below:

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Now it's just "buy the book". Before it was "buy it at the highest price level possible". I have no objection whatsoever to the first one, but I do mind being called cheap because I'm not willing to do the second.

And, yes, I agree with you. Those that use the library for favourite authors when they could buy those books without causing hardship are not doing the best they can.

Using the library is still a lot better than succumbing to piracy. At least it pays some.

[darryl]

Re-read fjtorres post above. It sets things out the way that they are. Particularly:

Very few books earn out.
That is what blows out the theory of "pay more for the author's sake".
(Even when a book exceeds publisher expectations and does earn out, royalties are based on number of sales, not sale price.)

[darryl]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I suppose so.

Writing is an art. And when you buy a book, you are supporting the arts. Does that sound pretentious? I guess it does, because we don't think of it that way. But it is still so.

As for the name calling, if that's the issue, that's what should be addressed instead of ridiculous assertions about only children being able to morally check out books from the library or that you are only virtuous if you pay full list price for all books purchased. Yeah, they might be funny to read, but they are arguing points that were never made in the first place.

Zod. We can discuss the question of what constitutes art ad infinitum, but it takes us nowhere. Personally I would not classify all books as art, though many of them may well be. But it makes no difference. Whether you are supporting a work of art or a simple product makes zero difference. If you are seeking to ensure the future supply of similar art or products the solution is the same. Buy the products (or the art). In the case of some products (or works of art) paying top price will act as an incentive. Clearly in the case of Big 5 books it does not. In the case of Indie books it does.

Of course, the Big 5 could incentivize its authors to write more books in many ways, including a greater share for them of sales at high prices.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

Zod. We can discuss the question of what constitutes art ad infinitum, but it takes us nowhere. Personally I would not classify all books as art, though many of them may well be. But it makes no difference. Whether you are supporting a work of art or a simple product makes zero difference. If you are seeking to ensure the future supply of similar art or products the solution is the same. Buy the products (or the art). In the case of some products (or works of art) paying top price will act as an incentive. Clearly in the case of Big 5 books it does not. In the case of Indie books it does.

Of course, the Big 5 could incentivize its authors to write more books in many ways, including a greater share for them of sales at high prices.

Clearly in the case of Big 5 book _and_ indies buying books at the top price acts as an incentive. You can pretend all you want that because Big 5 publishers pay an advance that a purchase doesn't really count until the advance pays out, but it clearly does count.

Really, I get that you and others here dislike the big 5 publishers for all sorts of real and imagined offenses, but pretending that an author isn't paid because he gets paid up front based on estimated sales rather than have to have to wait for the actual sale is simply a talking point backed by hand waving rather than any basis in reality. Authors don't have to take an advance, they can negotiate a contract that doesn't have an advance, but why would they? It's a benefit, not an evil plot by the publishers to rob them of money. There is zero downside to getting money up front.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Clearly in the case of Big 5 book _and_ indies buying books at the top price acts as an incentive. You can pretend all you want that because Big 5 publishers pay an advance that a purchase doesn't really count until the advance pays out, but it clearly does count.

Really, I get that you and others here dislike the big 5 publishers for all sorts of real and imagined offenses, but pretending that an author isn't paid because he gets paid up front based on estimated sales rather than have to have to wait for the actual sale is simply a talking point backed by hand waving rather than any basis in reality. Authors don't have to take an advance, they can negotiate a contract that doesn't have an advance, but why would they? It's a benefit, not an evil plot by the publishers to rob them of money. There is zero downside to getting money up front.

According to Jane Friedman in 2017, 70% of books never earn out. So in 7 out of 10 cases the advance is all that the author ever sees. And, of course, no part of the advance need be repaid if the book does not earn out. Even though this payment is called an advance, it is far more apt to call it a fee, certainly in 7 out of 10 cases.

Stating that buying e-books at the top price acts as an incentive to the author does not mean it is so. My understanding is that Royalties to tradpub authors are generally calculated on the basis of the cover price rather than any discounted price. Where this is the case it is of course the sale that counts, not the price paid.

And I don't at all suggest that payment of an advance means a sale does not count, as you put it. What I do suggest is that the sale does not act as an incentive for an author who does not earn out to produce more books when the author in fact receives no additional funds. In other words, in 7 out of 10 cases, the author does not receive an extra cent from these sales. Such sales may be of some small non-monetary benefit in some circumstances, but it is difficult to see how there is any real incentive to an author to keep writing where they do not in fact receive any real money from that sale. To repeat, 70% of authors don't earn out their advance. And they do not need to repay one cent if they don't earn out.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by darryl

And I don't at all suggest that payment of an advance means a sale does not count, as you put it. What I do suggest is that the sale does not act as an incentive for an author who does not earn out to produce more books when the author in fact receives no additional funds. In other words, in 7 out of 10 cases, the author does not receive an extra cent from these sales. Such sales may be of some small non-monetary benefit in some circumstances, but it is difficult to see how there is any real incentive to an author to keep writing where they do not in fact receive any real money from that sale. To repeat, 70% of authors don't earn out their advance. And they do not need to repay one cent if they don't earn out.

And the high end sellers like King and Patterson receive advances that cover all expected sales over the entire lifespan. In the millions. Upfront.
Any added sales would be adding sand on a beach.

Big incentive there, right?

Sales matter to an author.
Advance matters.

Price doesn't really matter, but there *are* some that see it as a badge of prestige. It doesn't matter to them that some other author sold a million books at $8.99 as long as *their* readers paid $30 each. Much more important book.

That was the whole argument about Amazon discounting books, that it "devalued" the books. Publishers and authors still got their full payout, but how did Amazon dare settle for a 3% profit on pbooks when others made 20%?

https://the-digital-reader.com/2015/...le-books-case/

Lots of talk but it's smoke and mirrors.
Want to make readers payfull price?
Easy, go to Agency on print.
30% for every retailer, just like ebooks.
Take price out of the equation.

They could do it tomorrow.
They won't because lower prices means *more* sales and they get the same amount regardless of street price. Just as it used to be with ebooks. Perfectly logical. They talk stupid but they still know basic economics.

https://www.reuters.com/article/news...11825320100203

“We don’t like the Amazon model of selling everything at $9.99,” Murdoch said when asked about electronic books during a conference call with analysts on Tuesday [ID:nN01228027].

“They pay us the wholesale price of $14 or whatever we charge,” he said. “But I think it really devalues books and it hurts all the retailers of the hard cover books.”

Same amount to publisher, same amount to the author.
Just less to Amazon (because they need more money, right?) and less or no money to Ingram. Poor Ingram, the only source of books for standalones.

https://www.shelf-awareness.com/issu...ue=3486#m44297

Bookseller comments haven't been sugarcoated, either. On Twitter, for example, Hannah Oliver Depp, owner of Loyalty Bookstore, Washington, D.C., called the change "a f*cking tragedy for our industry. Having one major wholesaler is the loss of competitive pricing and swift customer service that indies depend on to stay ahead."

Subtext Books, St. Paul, Minn., wrote on Twitter: "This is truly terrible news for our industry. Limiting wholesale distribution to one company is bad for the ecosystem of literacy, and bad economics. Immediately, this means that our mid-week special orders will likely not show up on Friday, but on Monday instead."

It's a tough business for middlemen.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

It took those absurd points for you to see reason and tone down on the patronizing. You may not have intended to do so, but it got misinterpreted. And not just by me. As seen below:


And, yes, I agree with you. Those that use the library for favourite authors when they could buy those books without causing hardship are not doing the best they can.

Using the library is still a lot better than succumbing to piracy. At least it pays some.

Patronizing was intentional. Thousands of words written to suggest that it really doesn’t matter if you buy a book. Books don’t write themselves. Support the art, if you can. If you can and don’t, well...I look down my nose at you

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by leebase

Patronizing was intentional. Thousands of words written to suggest that it really doesn’t matter if you buy a book. Books don’t write themselves. Support the art, if you can. If you can and don’t, well...I look down my nose at you

And there I actually thought you cannot sink any lower. I wish your money tries up and you are forced to use the library. With any luck the non support from you will make all your favourite authors give up and stop writing. Your individual support is not as important as you make it sound like.

P.S.: In case you are wondering, I borrowed exactly one book from the library so far this year. And I really could not care less if that author writes another book (if he was still alive that is). Go ahead and do what you have to do to make yourself feel superior and righteous. I have plenty of books in my price range that will entertain me.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

...
And I don't at all suggest that payment of an advance means a sale does not count, as you put it. What I do suggest is that the sale does not act as an incentive for an author who does not earn out to produce more books when the author in fact receives no additional funds. In other words, in 7 out of 10 cases, the author does not receive an extra cent from these sales. Such sales may be of some small non-monetary benefit in some circumstances, but it is difficult to see how there is any real incentive to an author to keep writing where they do not in fact receive any real money from that sale. To repeat, 70% of authors don't earn out their advance. And they do not need to repay one cent if they don't earn out.

Of course it provides incentive. Every sale means the author gets closer to the earning out. The more you sale, the bigger your advance will be on the next book. The less you sale, the less the next advance is and the less likely there will be a next book. It's not hard.

Yes, I know they don't have to pay it back if they don't earn out. So what?

Of course, that 70% figure you quote is a pretty good proof what how one can mislead people with numbers. I'm pretty sure that authors who don't earn out on a regular basis soon become ex-authors. That is how it works. I would guess that only a small percentage of my favorite authors fall into that category. That implies that you assuming that any book that I buy is likely not to earn out is a very bad assumption. So your main talking point is both wrong and a red herring.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by darryl

Zod. We can discuss the question of what constitutes art ad infinitum, but it takes us nowhere.

You are right. I will no longer discuss books as art. If you find people claiming that buying books is supporting the arts to be patronizing though, that is on you, not the speaker.

If there's a writer you particularly love, do not be afraid to pay more for their books than you normally would. It helps them continue to put out books.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by darryl

Re-read fjtorres post above. It sets things out the way that they are. Particularly:

I read the post about books earning out. It's missing the point.

Sticking only with tradpub authors who receive advances:

If an author writes books that molder on the shelves (physical or digital) until they are remaindered/marked way, way down, they will not continue to be able to publish and will therefore no longer receive advances.

The Big 5 takes chances on new authors. But they won't put out flop book after flop book by the same author. If you want your author to continue to be rewarded, buy their books rather than waiting and waiting for the price to fall. This behavior needn't be applied to every author you read. But favorites should be rewarded.

With indie authors:

I think everyone agrees if you pay $3.99 instead of $1.99, more of your money goes to the author.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Of course it provides incentive. Every sale means the author gets closer to the earning out. The more you sale, the bigger your advance will be on the next book. The less you sale, the less the next advance is and the less likely there will be a next book. It's not hard.

Yes, I know they don't have to pay it back if they don't earn out. So what?

Of course, that 70% figure you quote is a pretty good proof what how one can mislead people with numbers. I'm pretty sure that authors who don't earn out on a regular basis soon become ex-authors. That is how it works. I would guess that only a small percentage of my favorite authors fall into that category. That implies that you assuming that any book that I buy is likely not to earn out is a very bad assumption. So your main talking point is both wrong and a red herring.

I make no such assumption about the books you buy. People on Mobileread are, as we have often discussed, not typical of readers generally. My point, yet again, is repeating the point made by fjtorres. That it is a fallacy that paying a higher price for your typical traditionally published book is a worthwhile incentive to an author.

Your assumption that authors who don't earn out on a regular basis soon become ex-authors is a highly doubtful one. It seems to be based on another fallacy, that a publisher makes no profit on books which do not earn out. No profit on 70% of its releases! I suspect Stephen King's new books and those by other mega successful authors are amongst those that never earn out. Yet Stephen King is still publishing. In fact, he just released yet another book a couple of days ago. How can this be?

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I read the post about books earning out. It's missing the point.

Sticking only with tradpub authors who receive advances:

If an author writes books that molder on the shelves (physical or digital) until they are remaindered/marked way, way down, they will not continue to be able to publish and will therefore no longer receive advances.

The Big 5 takes chances on new authors. But they won't put out flop book after flop book by the same author. If you want your author to continue to be rewarded, buy their books rather than waiting and waiting for the price to fall. This behavior needn't be applied to every author you read. But favorites should be rewarded.

With indie authors: until a book earns out. until a book earns out.

I think everyone agrees if you pay $3.99 instead of $1.99, more of your money goes to the author.

But 70% of books don't earn out! It is, as pointed out above, a fallacy to assume that a publisher does not make any profit on all books which don't earn out. The Big 5 did once take chances on new authors, but this seems to be happening less and less frequently. And I echo some of your plea. If you want to reward an author, buy their books. Or at least borrow them from a library. But if you're buying wait until they do come down to a price you are prepared to pay. Paying top price for a new release hard cover gives little incentive to an author. Certainly the extra money does not end up in their pockets. If you feel that you want to give an author a real incentive after you have borrowed or paid a low price for their book, which I seldom do, give a donation directly to them.

I totally agree with you on Indies. On a typical KDP e-book the author is getting 70% of the price the book is sold for. That is a real incentive.

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

You are right. I will no longer discuss books as art. If you find people claiming that buying books is supporting the arts to be patronizing though, that is on you, not the speaker.

If there's a writer you particularly love, do not be afraid to pay more for their books than you normally would. It helps them continue to put out books.

As to the first paragraph, I do not find your claim to be patronizing. I just think the distinction in the case of books is irrelevant.

As to your second paragraph? In the case of Indies, yes, it does. In the case of Big 5 and most tradpub, no, it does not.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

...
Your assumption that authors who don't earn out on a regular basis soon become ex-authors is a highly doubtful one. It seems to be based on another fallacy, that a publisher makes no profit on books which do not earn out. No profit on 70% of its releases! I suspect Stephen King's new books and those by other mega successful authors are amongst those that never earn out. Yet Stephen King is still publishing. In fact, he just released yet another book a couple of days ago. How can this be?
...

No one claimed that publishers don't make money on books that don't earn out, so no it's not a fallacy. You appear to have an idea that the 70% of books not earning out is evenly spread out over all books, including best sellers. I'm sure that there are some best sellers who do get huge advances that might not earn out, but I suspect that's more the famous celebrity whose book is ghost written by someone else, rather than someone like King who has a long track record and a built in fan base. Baen famously lost a bundle on Gettysburg by Gingrich.

I would say that the 70% is heavily weighted towards the mass of first or second time authors who likely sell a few thousand copies at best and who disappear as a writer after that.

[leebase]

I can understand how "buying a book that doesn't earn out doesn't put money in the author's pocket" argument. You know....if making specious arguments was the point.

But if "supporting the artist you enjoy" is the point....then buying his book to HELP him more than earn out....still matters. If he/she doesn't earn out then their chance of getting the next pre-payment goes down.

So we are back to "if you want your favorite authors to write books" then "buy the d@mn book" is still the logical plan of action.

If you can. (none of this has ever been aimed at the poor)