Yet another thumb of the nose from publishers

[Pookeysgirl]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I've used the darknet on occasion, but only in cases where the book wasn't available as an ebook from the publisher, and existed as an ebook only because someone had created one from a paper copy. I already owned the paper volumes.

If the book is available as a legitimate ebook, I may very well buy it again. Books that meet that criteria are favorite books by favorite authors, and I want the author to get additional royalties from a sale.
______
Dennis

I've only used the darknet once and only because the book I wanted wasn't (and may never be) available as an ebook, and I really want to re-read it. I already own them (it was a series).
Unfortuantely for me I wasn't able to use it because it was a huge pdf file and I couldn't break it up. So it just sits on my computer doing nothing
I don't see myself ever using the darknet again for anything.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's because both these books are newly released hardbacks, astra. The price will fall when the paperback is released. Amazon UK price all eBooks at below the cheapest paper price.

I've seen cases already where the paperback has been released and the price has not changed. The Agency 5 are a bunch of lying no good scam artists.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Also high priced here in the U.S. is the new biography George Washington by Ron Chernow. Agency pricing has the ebook at $19.99.

Gotta love the library. It's available there.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I entirely agree. Eg, about a year ago I bought a DVD box set for £34.99 from Amazon. I notice today that same box set costs £14.99. Was I "ripped off"? No, of course not; I made the personal choice to pay the premium price when it was newly released. I knew full well that I could wait a year and then buy it more cheaply.

But you knew the price would drop and chose to buy it at the higher price to get it when it was first released. When a high price eBook is released to go along with the hardcover, we have no guarantee that it will drop in price when the paperback is released. So we could be stuck with a hardcover priced eBook when there is a paperback version out there for a lot less.

Mind you however, some paperbacks are expensive as the publishers have switched to another scam on the public. Those nice larger sized paperbacks. The ones that are larger just so they can charge more. No wonder reading is down and sales are down. You want people to buy your product, you do not raise the price when the price they were paying is a price they were willing to pay. Not now with tough times.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Sharing with friends and reselling is exactly what DRM is supposed to prevent.

With a printed book, it's different. There is one physical copy. If you loan it to a friend, you don't have it. The same holds for resale. Once again, once sold, you no longer have it.

But the result to the publisher is the same: the content is read by another person, and the publisher received no payment for that.

With pbooks, there's a *chance* that if the reader liked it, she'll go buy a copy of her own... but there's also a chance that the buyer will just give it to her, or that she'll buy that copy from eBay or a used book store or a yard sale. Especially given how fast books go out of print.

The used book market--and more, the used book friendly-exchange communities--are every bit as much "threat" to publishers as the torrent networks.

Ultimately, DRM is doomed to failure - it is only slightly effective is at all against copying and sharing. And I don't see resale happening for ebooks. If DRM doesn't exist, there's nothing to prevent someone from simply giving a copy away, so why should anyone bother to buy a used copy?

Publishers (or more likely, innovative indie authors) *need* to find a way to allow used ebook exchanges--or they'll continue the way they're happening now, growing to the level that they occur in the music industry.

Music's less affected by them, because music artists make money from performances, which can't be digitized. Book authors don't have that option. (At least not as a steady revenue stream.) We desperately need a legit way to share ebooks with friends, one that's not contingent on "if this sounds interesting to you, buy a new copy from <website> at full price."

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Barcey

If it's reasonable price windowing and you haven't alienated your consumer yes. When you're pricing too high it's an insult. Especially when it's priced higher then a hard copy physical book. Amazon had the price right. It's higher then most consumers think the ebook should be priced but they obviously had done the market research.

One might equally put forward the alternative viewpoint that retailers like Amazon are devaluing the book market by discounting hardbacks too steeply, and thus taking them below the level of the reasonably-priced eBooks.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

One might equally put forward the alternative viewpoint that retailers like Amazon are devaluing the book market by discounting hardbacks too steeply, and thus taking them below the level of the reasonably-priced eBooks.

Exactly. I do not understand were people get these kind of arbitrary levels of the price that decides of the should buy the book or if it is an insult and so on.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I think you are probably right that they are not generally selling at a loss in the US market, it is a much more established one for them, and they are in a different stage of growth.

I don't believe they were taking losses on sales when they were originally ramping up the Kindle and ebook business in the US. I don't see why they would do so elsewhere.

Yes, the Kindle platform had development costs, and it would have been a while before they recouped those in Kindle sales, but the ebooks intended to be read by the Kindle are another matter.

If they are not selling at or below cost in the UK, but are selling at less than 50% of the price of other stores then either they have a much better deal with the publishers or the other retailers are really ripping people off. I believe that in the UK they are willing to run eBook sales at a loss for 6-12 months to grab marketshare.

Let's drop loaded words like "ripping off". Producers and retailers set prices they think they can get.

Producers will have minimum prices they must charge, simply to cover production costs. They will sell to wholesalers/retailers at a discount, with the amount of discount normally depending on the volume of the sale. The more you buy, the lower your unit cost will be.

The retailer will have a Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price, which will be the cover price in the case of a book. To boost sales and compete with other retailers, a retailer may choose to charge less than MSRP. The difference will come out of their margin. The retailer makes a guess at how many copies they can sell at full price, and makes a bet that they will sell enough additional copies at the lower price to make up for making less money on any individual sale, and make more total revenue and profit overall.

Amazon probably does have a better deal with the publishers. What is paid by Amazon to the publisher for each sale is determined by contract. Amazon is the world's largest catalog retailer, and sells a hell of a lot of books, so you can assume Amazon will get the most favorable terms from publishers.

This sort of cutthroat retail competition has been a factor in US bookselling for decades. Smaller bookstores and "Mom and Pop" operations are dying like flies. They can't get the level of discount someone like Barnes and Noble can get, can't match B&N on pricing, and fold, because buyers shop for the lowest price. Warehouse stores like CostCo and Sam's Club have even greater economies of scale, and put pressure on B&N. Amazon puts pressure on everybody.

But pricing is always "What the market will bear". If the retailer can get enough sales of an item at a particular price to meet their targets and make the desired amount of money, they'll charge that price. The fact that you don't like it is your problem. Enough other folks don't think it's a rip off to keep retailer and producer happy.
______
Dennis

[starrigger]

The failure of publishers to lower ebook prices when books hit paperback is, I think, not so much due to greedy design as to clerical inattention. When my own novel Sunborn came out as a Tor ebook, around the same time that the agency model kicked in, the ebook was at a higher price than the recently published paperback. I brought this to their attention, and they promptly lowered the ebook price to match the paperback. This sort of thing happens in publishing all the time.

I dislike the agency model, not because of higher prices--in general, the prices seem about the same to me--but because it prohibits discounting and kills competition among bookstores (other than choice of platform). It's killing Fictionwise, whose great sales were once a main reason to shop there; now those sales are limited to non-agency publishers (which, to be fair, still includes a lot of great books).

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

But the result to the publisher is the same: the content is read by another person, and the publisher received no payment for that.

True. However, the publisher and everyone else received payment on the initial purchase which may not have occurred if the customer wasn't able to lend, donate or resell.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

One might equally put forward the alternative viewpoint that retailers like Amazon are devaluing the book market by discounting hardbacks too steeply, and thus taking them below the level of the reasonably-priced eBooks.

Amazon's distribution model allows them to sell hardcovers at a cheaper price but I wouldn't agree that operational efficiency is "devaluing the book market". If anything I would argue that it's the stores that only sell bestsellers that have devalued the hardcover. It was the publishers decision to increase distribution through big box stores that have devalued the book market.

[brecklundin]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I don't believe they were taking losses on sales when they were originally ramping up the Kindle and ebook business in the US. I don't see why they would do so elsewhere.

Yes, the Kindle platform had development costs, and it would have been a while before they recouped those in Kindle sales, but the ebooks intended to be read by the Kindle are another matter.


Let's drop loaded words like "ripping off". Producers and retailers set prices they think they can get.

Producers will have minimum prices they must charge, simply to cover production costs. They will sell to wholesalers/retailers at a discount, with the amount of discount normally depending on the volume of the sale. The more you buy, the lower your unit cost will be.

The retailer will have a Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price, which will be the cover price in the case of a book. To boost sales and compete with other retailers, a retailer may choose to charge less than MSRP. The difference will come out of their margin. The retailer makes a guess at how many copies they can sell at full price, and makes a bet that they will sell enough additional copies at the lower price to make up for making less money on any individual sale, and make more total revenue and profit overall.

Amazon probably does have a better deal with the publishers. What is paid by Amazon to the publisher for each sale is determined by contract. Amazon is the world's largest catalog retailer, and sells a hell of a lot of books, so you can assume Amazon will get the most favorable terms from publishers.

This sort of cutthroat retail competition has been a factor in US bookselling for decades. Smaller bookstores and "Mom and Pop" operations are dying like flies. They can't get the level of discount someone like Barnes and Noble can get, can't match B&N on pricing, and fold, because buyers shop for the lowest price. Warehouse stores like CostCo and Sam's Club have even greater economies of scale, and put pressure on B&N. Amazon puts pressure on everybody.

But pricing is always "What the market will bear". If the retailer can get enough sales of an item at a particular price to meet their targets and make the desired amount of money, they'll charge that price. The fact that you don't like it is your problem. Enough other folks don't think it's a rip off to keep retailer and producer happy.
______
Dennis

Dennis:

ABSOLUTELY dead on right...I do not understand the people who feel a product priced at some amount beyond their comfort zone immediately go to the "rip off" card. Having been in the business of buying and selling since I was just 7-yrs old, so 43-yrs ago now...I accept and understand that a product is worth what someone is willing to spend. There is no such thing as a retailer "ripping someone off" when they have a set retail price....EVER.

If you don't like the price don't buy. Sure I understand if you feel it is too high, that is fine, in my area of selling often my price is simply a starting point and a best-case scenario. If someone buys at that price I am happy and they are happy.

I also find irony that 99.999999% of those who decry RIP-OFF will never, and I mean NEVER question a price that is accidentally too low, instead they will buy as many as they can before the seller realizes the mistake. And, for those who do not know, a seller can withdraw an item at ANYTIME even after payment is received online, as long as it's an honest mistake. People are greedy and think it is their right to exploit an error on the part of the seller of items but it's never OK for the seller to expect the right to price items where they want to...people are very duplicitous this way. After 43-yrs of dealing with them, it is a very consistent attitude...

So, nice observations...it goes both ways. I don't care what the prices are as long the pricing is left to the retailer. Of course there is the whole idea of consignment selling...so maybe this is a loophole the Price-Fix-Five are exploiting. I am not sure how the laws actually govern this situation if the deal is positioned as a consignment arrangement.

We are seeing this more and more in many areas. Starting a few years back DSLR camera makers began moving in this direction. Hoya is well known for their price fixing on lense filters by forcing retailers into a MAP agreement (minimum advertised price) preventing retailers from any sort of advertised competition, even online. This has now been extended into the more expensive hardware for several brands of DSLR's and lenses. Pretty much these agreements have all but eliminated the well stocked camera store in all but the biggest cities in the US. Even in those stores the selection has been reduced to only the big two and maybe toss in Sony as well but not so much, it's pretty much only Canon and Nikon...other brands have basically pushed themselves out of the stores with their agreements. The reason for that lengthy observation is I see similar things happening with books. I see there may soon some a time when retailers must sell ONLY at the cover price, what is to stop them if they all have colluded on this agreement already?

Again, it matters not at all to me, I have more than enough books to read on a day for the rest of my life...seriously I do not need to ever buy another book. Still it would be nice to not feel like I need the Astroglide and a dozen people to hold me down in order to buy a new title....or a new lense for that matter....hehehehe....

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by tompe

Exactly. I do not understand were people get these kind of arbitrary levels of the price that decides of the should buy the book or if it is an insult and so on.

If the price is much higher then people expect to pay it's viewed as gouging or an insult. Everyone has their own level but you don't want to alienate the majority of your customers.

If a bakery put a price of $20 on a loaf of bread because it just came out of the oven would you pay? If they told you it would be $8 if you came back in 4 hours and $3 if you came back in 12 hours would you go back? I wouldn't.

Pricing is about understanding the market and what people are willing to pay. It's not about "educating the public that the price has to be higher".

I've just observed a lot of anger against publishers and that's not good for the industry.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Barcey

If the price is much higher then people expect to pay it's viewed as gouging or an insult. Everyone has their own level but you don't want to alienate the majority of your customers.

I do not get this. It is a price I am not willing to pay but why is it an insult?

If a bakery put a price of $20 on a loaf of bread because it just came out of the oven would you pay? If they told you it would be $8 if you came back in 4 hours and $3 if you came back in 12 hours would you go back? I wouldn't.

I might or I might not. But I would probably go to another place that had 12 hours old bread when I was in the shop.

Pricing is about understanding the market and what people are willing to pay. It's not about "educating the public that the price has to be higher".

Educating? I thought pricing was to set a price that maximises the profit. And that point is not necessarily the point where most people is willing to buy.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

The point I wanted to write is following: what makes me really wonder is that fact that it seems the publishers do not take the complete loss of return risk into consideration when it comes to ebooks. I simply don't get it.

They do. Reserve against returns is a standard element in the book budget.

But don't assume ebooks come along for the ride free, with other costs borne by and allocated to print editions. There won't be "returns" on an ebook, but the ebook will still be expected to make a contribution to revenue and profit. A share of the overall cost will be allocated to the ebook version.

It may seem possible to price an ebook lower because returns aren't a factor, but "possible" and "desirable" are different things.

Pricing in a competitive economy is always "What the market will bear", and it's in the producer's interest to charge a higher price if they can get it. The usual argument is "Yeah, but they could sell a lot more if it were cheaper!"

Well, maybe not.

In the case of ebooks, you might legitimately claim that ebooks overall might sell more if they were cheaper. But the buyer isn't looking at all ebooks. They are looking at specific titles they are interested in buying.

When a publisher buys a manuscript, they will make a guess as to how many copies the book will sell, and the advance they give the author will be based on that guess. Sometimes they guess wrong on the high end, and the book doesn't sell enough copies to "earn out" (sell enough to recover their costs and cover what they paid the author.) Most books fall into this category, and the advance is all the author sees. They don't see additional royalties. Far less often, they guess low, have an unexpected hit on their hands, go back for additional printings, and see an unexpected entry on the best seller lists. Champagne is poured and there is joy all around.

But meanwhile, let's say a particular title has a market of perhaps 50,000 copies. This estimate is made based on the author's previous sales of similar books. Everyone will be happy if it does better, but best guess, about 50,000 readers are fans of that author and will buy her new book. Will pricing it cheaper magically induce thousands of new readers to buy that book? It's possible, but it's not likely enough that any sane publisher will make a bet on it. They'll charge what they've already demonstrated they can get. They may play games with pricing if they think the author is poised for breakout to a wider audience, and they think there are tens of thousands of potential new readers for that author out there, but those cases are few and far between.
______
Dennis