Do some publishers have any idea?

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I'm not sure of your logic here. Authors get paid a percentage of the price of the book (either of list or the net depending on the contract). Fairly obviously, they get more for an initial release hard back than they do for a paper back since the hard back cost more. Of course, the exact percentages vary according to the contract.

We are talking about paper books here since the ebook side is agency, right? I was under the impression that paper books always costs the same to the retailer and the different prices come out of the retailers cut. This is certainly true at the same time. Maybe the price that the publisher charges for a certain type of book (e.g. hard cover) go down over time?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I'm not sure of your logic here. Authors get paid a percentage of the price of the book (either of list or the net depending on the contract). Fairly obviously, they get more for an initial release hard back than they do for a paper back since the hard back cost more. Of course, the exact percentages vary according to the contract.

Again... please try to stay on point. My argument with Lee is the notion that customers paying a higher price for books always equates to giving authors more support. And it's not true. Not at all. Not even close.

Was I supporting my favorite authors less when new-release best-sellers were selling for $9.99 on Amazon than someone who's now paying the current higher price set by publishers? Or were the authors always getting the same cut (ignoring normal inflationary factors)?

Am I supporting my favorite author less if I buy a new-release ebook for a lesser promotional price than someone who didn't buy the new-release book during that promotion? Or did the author get the same cut?

Am I supporting my favorite author more if I buy their new-release hardcover at list price than someone who buys it at the same time at a discounted price somewhere else? Or did the author get payed the same?

My point has always been that the price payed by the customer is NOT the factor that some were insisting was the most important when determining how much someone might be "supporting the arts" (before they reversed course and tried to make the argument about paying vs borrowing).

The most important factor in determining how much you're supporting your favorite author (if such things concern you at all, quite frankly) is--and always has been--WHEN you bought their book. Not how much you paid for it.

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I'm impressed by the persistence shown on both sides in keeping the same argument going for 50 pages.

I've lost track of what the argument is.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Again... please try to stay on point. My argument with Lee is the notion that customers paying a higher price for books always equates to giving authors more support. And it's not true. Not at all. Not even close.

Was I supporting my favorite authors less when new-release best-sellers were selling for $9.99 on Amazon than someone who's now paying the current higher price set by publishers? Or were the authors always getting the same cut (ignoring normal inflationary factors)?

Am I supporting my favorite author less if I buy a new-release ebook for a lesser promotional price than someone who didn't buy the new-release book during that promotion? Or did the author get the same cut?

Am I supporting my favorite author more if I buy their new-release hardcover at list price than someone who buys it at the same time at a discounted price somewhere else? Or did the author get payed the same?

My point has always been that the price payed by the customer is NOT the factor that some were insisting was the most important when determining how much someone might be "supporting the arts" (before they reversed course and tried to make the argument about paying vs borrowing).

The most important factor in determining how much you're supporting your favorite author (if such things concern you at all, quite frankly) is--and always has been--WHEN you bought their book. Not how much you paid for it.

I don't think that is what he is saying, or trying to say, though I could be wrong. Certainly when you buy the book has it's own influences on the author and publisher. But that wasn't my point and isn't what I thought we were talking about.

The whole hard back, trade back, paper back thing is mostly about paying a premium to get the book earlier. Since book contracts tend to give the author a percentage of either the list price or the price that the whole seller pays the publisher, a higher price puts more money in the author's pocket (or does more to pay down the advance).

If you buy the hard back at the list price verses buying the hard back at a discounted price has no influence on the publisher or author. The price difference is strictly how much profit the book seller makes, or how much loss if the bookseller is selling it at a loss. I suppose that there are special circumstances where that might not be true, since there are few absolutes in the book industry, but I think it's on the whole accurate.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I don't think that is what he is saying, or trying to say, though I could be wrong.

That is what he started out saying. Yes. The more you paid, the more of a patron you were.

Originally Posted by leebase

The fans paying the highest price at release are WHY the exists outside of patronage from the wealthy.

Originally Posted by leebase

at least show some respect and gratitude for those who's buying habits are paying for the art you enjoy to exist.

Originally Posted by leebase

People who wait for lower prices support the art less.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

If you buy the hard back at the list price verses buying the hard back at a discounted price has no influence on the publisher or author.

Exactly. But that seems to be in direct conflict with Lee's opinion:

Originally Posted by leebase

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

That last seems pretty crystal-clear to me: the more money you pay, the more the author gets. About then, he began his transition to paying at all vs not paying at all (when you could afford to).

If he wants to conflate purchase window with purchase price in determining what benefits an author more, that's up to him. But I know better. You (rhetorical) want to do the author the absolute most good? Pre-order. Whether it turns out to be cheap or expensive, you've done the most good you can for an author (not that I think people are obligated in any way to support an author's freely chosen vocation). But that still doesn't entitle anyone to believe the rest of the reading world are slackers for trying to save a few bucks on the things they spend hundreds of dollars or more a year on.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That is what he started out saying. Yes. The more you paid, the more of a patron you were.









Exactly. But that seems to be in direct conflict with Lee's opinion:



That last seems pretty crystal-clear to me: the more money you pay, the more the author gets. About then, he began his transition to paying at all vs not paying at all (when you could afford to).

If he wants to conflate purchase window with purchase price in determining what benefits an author more, that's up to him. But I know better. You (rhetorical) want to do the author the absolute most good? Pre-order. Whether it turns out to be cheap or expensive, you've done the most good you can for an author (not that I think people are obligated in any way to support an author's freely chosen vocation). But that still doesn't entitle anyone to believe the rest of the reading world are slackers for trying to save a few bucks on the things they spend hundreds of dollars or more a year on.

I suspect that I'm a bit closer to what he actually means than you are, but I'll let leebase clarify his own statements.

Moral judgements aside, I think that anyone who is focused on minimizes the price they pay for an item, tends to enable a race to the bottom on that item. Of course, one person generally doesn't make that much of a difference, but if the mindset is wide spread, then you end up with cheap, low quality items rather than high quality items that are a bit more expensive. The point isn't that such a person is bad, the point is that actions have consequences.

There are those on this forum who consider books a commodity and interchangeable. For them just buying a generic book because it's in a price range they prefer makes sense. That's fine. It's a choice. I choose to do differently because I prefer specific authors when it comes to books, so I act in a manner which is more likely to result in more books that I like. If enough people agree with me about an individual author that I like, that author is more likely to keep writing. I think it counter productive to express this idea in moral terms rather than in terms of simple cause and effect. Now, one can debate if one's actions are more likely or less likely to result in the outcome they desire.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

There are those on this forum who consider books a commodity and interchangeable. For them just buying a generic book because it's in a price range they prefer makes sense. That's fine. It's a choice. I choose to do differently because I prefer specific authors when it comes to books, so I act in a manner which is more likely to result in more books that I like. If enough people agree with me about an individual author that I like, that author is more likely to keep writing. I think it counter productive to express this idea in moral terms rather than in terms of simple cause and effect. .

You hit the nail on the head here. If it had been expressed in those terms since the beginning, hardly anyone would have disagreed.

I'm certainly in the first group by my buying habits and preferences.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I suspect that I'm a bit closer to what he actually means than you are, but I'll let leebase clarify his own statements.

His statements weren't vague. They don't need clarified. Much like the thread's OP pitying the weak-minded readers who were paying full-retail, the statements didn't need to be made at all. Both extremes were condescending, unnecessarily provocative, and largely wrong-headed.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by meeera

I'd like to live in a world where food pantries have no need to exist, but I don't want to exist in a world without libraries.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by meeera

It's not an "insult", it's just wrong. Libraries are not charity. Libraries are for everyone.

https://bookriot.com/2017/02/23/open...-for-everyone/

I'd like to live in a world where food pantries have no need to exist, but I don't want to exist in a world without libraries.

...

Gee, I would like live in a world without libraries because everyone had instant access to every book ever written. Plenty of SF stories that assume that. Of course, it's about as likely as food pantries (or soup kitchens as we call them in the US) don't exist. Unless human nature somehow changes, there will always be people who need help putting food on their table.

Just because the government dispenses charity, doesn't mean it isn't charity. In the US, things like schools and libraries are provided without charge typically by the community as a whole. Charity is defined as voluntarily giving to those in need. Libraries fit that definition. While many soup kitchens are run out of churches and the like, most get at least some aid from the various governments.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Of course, it's about as likely as food pantries (or soup kitchens as we call them in the US) don't exist.

Two different things and we've got 'em both in the US. A food pantry supplies food to be cooked and consumed at home; a soup kitchen dispenses meals.

A library is no more a charity than public schools are. Or police departments. Or fire departments. Or public parks. Or.... You catch my drift.

[leebase]

Opting out at this point. A fifteenth retelling of “support the art you enjoy” isn’t going to move this discussion any further.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by issybird

Two different things and we've got 'em both in the US. A food pantry supplies food to be cooked and consumed at home; a soup kitchen dispenses meals.

A library is no more a charity than public schools are. Or police departments. Or fire departments. Or public parks. Or.... You catch my drift.

Yet, by the definition of charity, libraries are a charity. Parks actually are as well, at least when you donate to them it's considered a charity by the government. Not so much with regards to the police department and fire department. Schools can be. You may not personally consider such things charities, but they are legitimately considered charities by the definition of the word.

As far as soup kitchens verses food panties - tomayto, tomahto. The main point is donations of food to those who need it. There will always be those in need of food.

[Deskisamess]

Libraries are a charity?

For 2017, $6,959,222 in county property taxes went to fund our county library system. It makes up not quite half of the monies received for the year.

Another $6,856,245 came from the PLF:

The primary source of revenue for Ohio public libraries is the Public Library Fund (PLF). The PLF was enacted by the State of Ohio as the funding mechanism for Ohio public libraries in January 2008 and is a fixed 2.22 percent of the total General Revenue Fund (GRF) tax receipts.

Doesn't sound like a charity to me.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Gee, I would like live in a world without libraries because everyone had instant access to every book ever written.

A public library is not just a collection of books. It's far more than that.