Ex-CEO of Random House on ebook pricing and the future of publishing

[Xenophon]

There is one great big advantage that writers-who-get-paid have over those who do it for love -- time to write in. The folks who earn enough money to live off of their writing are able to produce more output, simply by virtue of having more time to spend writing.

For any writer whose product I actually like, I'd much rather they participate in the traditional paid market. They'll be able to produce more of what I like. And that's a good thing.

Xenophon

[Toshanda]

Well, could it be just as simple as basic math when it comes to prices of ebooks... Could it be that there is no reason for publishers to lower prices on ebooks based on profit per book per unit of time. With ebook market being a new frontier they will make more money selling books for 15$ than they will if the price is 10 and more people buy it. let look at math, with ebooks just starting to gain popularity we only have limited amount of devices and limited demand, lets say ebook cost 5.00 to produce, if they sell 1000 books at 15 dollars it is 10000.00 profit, if they would sell it for 10.00 and only 150 extra people want to buy it at that price it only puts 5750 in thier pocket. So i think, and i hate to be devils advocate on this one because I do buy ebooks, untill they will see that they can make more money at cheaper prices based on volume, we will not see `cheap books`.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

You proved my point. Anyone can HOPE to make a living, that's fine, but to EXPECT or DEMAND that living is another kettle of boiled monkeys altogether. And who am I to rant and rave, well, I'm that guy who writes for love, you know, the one who doesn't expect to make money and has no intentions of writing for any reason other than I love to write. I'm that guy who's looking at the future and seeing that writers better start shifting their expectations or they're in for a massive shock. I'm the guy arguing for love and not dollar bills. That's who I am.

Who ever said anyone DEMANDED to make a living from writing? Many have said they would like to or that they want to be paid for their writing rather than give it away for free. No one that I have read on here is arguing that they have the right to DEMAND to make enough money from writing to earn a living from it.

As for the rest of what you said there, that's all your opinion and your values and gives you no right to preach to others about how they should do things.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Well both Twitter and Google were started with very little investment at all, by people just as interested then in the coding/intellectual aspects of their respective technologies as they ever were in the monetary gain. Google continues to show that same pioneering/inquistive spirit even now after earning ridiculous amounts of money with projects such as Google Summer of Code and the open-sourcing of API's to do with a lot of their respective IP. I'd actually defy you to find any of these startups that weren't initially thought of by people who wanted to push boundaries, who wanted to break with old traditional models and prove a point. That they can or can't make money means little to the end user on the web.

Neither one of them wanted to do it just for the respect of some annonymous web users though. Both groups wanted to make money. The best way to do that was to come up with something innovative, that pushed boundries, yadda yadda yadda.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Yes, I do believe that the web is the place for honest intent.

Then you better wisen up a little.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

The scams you talk about are seen through immediately by anybody with a brain, and by this I include most people who don't regularly watch American Idol. IDIOTS fall for these scams. I can't do anything to cure IDIOTS or argue that there aren't a lot of them. But by that token I would say that most people who like to read books are generally speaking not drooling-morons.

Easy to write off everyone who was ever hooked as an idiot. Isn't really rational though or supported by any fact.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I don't know about fan fiction, never read any and never been tempted so I can't comment on the quality or lack thereof. But I have read a lot of independently published material this year and all of it, at a higher ratio than actual pay-for-books, has been very good. In fact, Boyd Morrison's thriller 'The Ark' was better than all of the thrillers I read last year from the best seller list, and by a vast margin.

My point was just because it is independantly published on the net doesn't mean it is going to be any good. In fact the vast majority of independantly published stuff on the web is pure shite. Just as you are claiming that the vast majority of published stuff is.

Maybe the fact that only the "lucky few" make money from their writing has more to do with only the "lucky few" being good enough to do so and less to do with how it is published??

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I don't recall ever saying I don't want 'escapist fun', but I certainly don't want drivel, and anybody who wants to make a living producing drivel, well, I'm not going to stop them. Have at it, I say. Produce your shite and let the idiots lap it up. If I wanted drivel I can turn on the TV at any time of the night and watch US imported dramas or some of our home-grown crap that plagues the box. If all you want is drivel then I can't argue with you. Although I can recommend a novel by a writer called Dan Brown.

Nice attempt at twisting my words. I never said that is what I prefer.
[/QUOTE=Moejoe]Sometimes, yes.[/QUOTE]
And that really is the crux of your argument. You see yourself as somehow more creative and pure and good than anyone who dares to admit that they would like to make money from their writing. That's nice for you, probably makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but it's just your opinion.

I'm off for a week so I wont be replying.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Xenophon]

Earlier in this thread, Moejoe wrote:

Well both Twitter and Google were started with very little investment at all, by people just as interested then in the coding/intellectual aspects of their respective technologies as they ever were in the monetary gain.

Hmm... Wikipedia on the founding of Google says:

The first funding for Google as a company was secured in August 1998 in the form of a $100,000USD contribution from Andy Bechtolsheim, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, given to a corporation which did not yet exist.[22]

On June 7th, 1999, a round of equity funding totalling $25 million was announced[23]; the major investors being rival venture capital firms Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital.[22]

I guess that $25Million counts as very little money. As for Twitter:

Twitter has raised US$57 million from venture capitalists. CEO Evan Williams raised about $22 million in venture capital.[8] Twitter is backed by Union Square Ventures, Digital Garage, Spark Capital, and Bezos Expeditions (led by Jeff Bezos of Amazon).[9] Institutional Venture Partners and Benchmark Capital backed Twitter in 2009, investing an additional $35 million.The Industry Standard has pointed to its lack of revenue as limiting its long-term viability.[10] On February 13, 2009, Twitter announced on its official blog[11] that it had closed a third round of funding in which it secured more than $35 million.[12]

Actually, I think that the math in the article is suspect; I get $95 million there.

Again, very little money.

I note that most tech ventures begin with very little money... right up until the close that first round of venture capital. After all, if they had more than a little bit, they might not have needed the VCs.

Xenophon
(Who's been there and done that, on both sides of the transaction. But not as spectacularly as either Twitter or Google, darn it.)

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I'd have to respectfully disagree. Just take Boyd Morrison, who you seem to reference a lot. I've read his novel 'The Ark' and I can say, hand on heart that it's better than most of the best-selling Thrillers I read last year (including the ridiculously hyped Dan Brown).

Yes, now take a look at 99.9% of the other stuff on the Internet. It's the exception that proves the rule.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

This is patently laughable. Selling has nothing to do with good writing.

Sorry, but unless you believe in an infallible God, and we can go ask him which book is really better than another, we can never know, objectively, the difference between "good" writing and not. All we know is what is popular. Yes, we sometimes see writing that is "bad" sell better than writing that is "good", but the majority of the time, writing has to reach a sufficient level before it will sell at all, and the good generally outsells the bad if all other factors are equal. But the other factors (genre, marketing, etc.) are usually NOT equal.

It's a lot like business. Good business ideas are more likely to succeed than bad ones. But you still have to execute, and plenty of good ideas have failed, and plenty of bad ideas have succeeded. So yes, maybe you're that rare good writer who simply can't get published, like Boyd Morrison. Again, the point is IF YOU COULD GET PUBLISHED, YOU'D STILL MAKE MORE MONEY. You keep letting your personal feeling distract you from that simple fact.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And yet again you bring up the NOW of all this, when as writers we should at least be looking toward the FUTURE of our creative endeavors.

Irrelevant, since your idea of the future may not be the correct one. You're drifting FAR from the original point you disputed, which is whether or not successful authors should expect to make a living off writing.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

He did make that point, not overall, but he made that point exactly in the sentence that I quoted. That was a great deal of his argument, that writers don't make much money. The rest of his argument, as you pointed out, is solid, but he most certainly did say that the majority of writers don't make enough to earn a living. And if you think that's going to get any better over the next few years, well, I don't know what I can say to you.

That's because the majority of writers ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH to make enough to earn a living, or DO NOT WRITE ENOUGH to do so, etc. There's nothing wrong with that. I might even venture to say that the majority of writers DO NOT TRY TO EARN A LIVING FROM WRITING, and so it's no wonder that they do not. The majority of actors do not make a living from acting; that doesn't mean that the top actors should not or that all those aspiring actors should start acting for free.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Actually I believe that writers will cease to be paid in traditional methods, and that all creative products will be free in the first instance (supported possibly by donation or value-added products in the near-term) And I very much doubt anybody (except DIE HARD fans) would pay Eric Flint when they get their reading material free elsewhere, especially newer, web-savvy audiences that are growing up now on FREE and ZERO COST culture.

Yeah, well, we'll wait 5 years and see if Eric is still getting paid.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Your assumption is always leaning toward the PAID writer, as though that's what a modern writer wants or needs from his writing. As though payment is THE BE ALL AND END ALL of writing. It's not, it never was.

Your assumption is always leaning toward the UNPAID writer, as thought that's what all a modern writer should want or need from his writing. As though writing for free was THE BE ALL AND END ALL of writing. It's not, it never was.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

But yet again you bring up Boyd, who can write the pants off most stuff in the best-seller charts. Do you honestly think Boyd had any more or less fun writing his thrillers than someone who's paid to do the same?

It's not just about "fun". It's about the fact there's 24 hours in a day, and unless you live on a hippie commune you need to spend some of those hours making money. Any ability to have fun doing something during those working hours is a bonus. Beyond those working hours, there are LOTS of fun things to do, so just because writing may be one of them does not mean that's all writers should expect from their time writing. Instead, I'd rather have some of my writing count as "work" time, and do other fun stuff in the "fun" time.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I have no doubt that he'd love to get paid and make an income for his writing, but you know what, by offering up his work and that work being good enough, now he has fans - like me - who WILL buy his work, who will follow what he's doing on his blog and his webpage.

Again, Boyd would still be better off if he was actually published, which is why he's TRYING to get published.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And the vast majority, pardon my french, is unutterable shite. Bland, insipid, paint-by-numbers, bottom-line, dull mass-produced crap. If money is the measure of success, then I don't want any success at all thanks very much.

And that's your preference. STOP PROJECTING YOUR PREFERENCE ON OTHER WRITERS AS IF WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS WRONG.

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

And that's your preference. STOP PROJECTING YOUR PREFERENCE ON OTHER WRITERS AS IF WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS WRONG.

May be as an author he should stop, but as a reader he has the full right to do so. I am not advocating writing for free, but when an author tells on this board I should be paid enough to support my lifestyle so I should continue to write it grates me. First of all what is enough for you?
Big boat and a house in Maldives in addition to Ney York flat or you would be ok with what average American worker makes? If your expectation high- write more and write better, nobody should pay $25 for an averagish or derivative work, just so the author who produces 1 book a year without having any talent, will live of it. You know the saying "Don't quit your day job"? Well for some authors out there it is very valid suggestion.
If you are good and can sell 50K copies, not a big number by the way for decent author, then $2 from book should earn you $100K first year and whatever demand will be for years after that , to the limit set by current copyright law.
Not enough for YOU, write a second book, if you cannot don't complain that your lifestyle doesn't go up.

[ahi]

Some of the replies to Moejoe are getting to be a bit aggressive... not to mention pretty damn surreal in parts.

- Ahi

[CallOfCth'reader]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Back onto the price of books, and I've been thinking a lot about this recently, I reckon a price of £2 - 2.50 is reasonable for a brand new novel, £0.99 for any back-catalogue stuff, and around 10p for a short story.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

The net is more open to scams than anything else. It's biggest advantage is exactly what you are proclaiming as the biggest advantage to writers. The FREE or LOW COST scam! So easy to convince someone to part with a little bit of money, to give something a try, to take a punt on the unknown.

Those two unconnected paragraphs pretty much summed up a thought that popped into my head as I was reading this thread: smaller prices can mean more sales, because there is often less thought put into purchases that don't cost much.

My sister and niece regularly buy ringtones and screensavers for their mobile/cell phones. The price is about £2 ($3-ish), and most of the time the attraction lasts a very short time, before the next is purchased. The costs are small enough that it is seen by them as an acceptable impulse buy.

I would view e-books in the same vein: if the cost was low enough, then I'd happily snap up copies of books (whether they are ones I have already read, or new ones) with the feeling that I could read them whenever I chose to, and I hadn't really lost much if I never got round to reading them at all.

I would expect to pay a higher premium for a newly released e-book, but I would then (as now, with paper books) decide whether I want it badly enough to pay the higher price or wait until it drops.

The aesthetic value of an item also affects how much I would pay for an item: I'd happily pay £100 for a specially bound edition of Lord of the Rings, but I'm not going to pay £15 for what is essentially a text file just so I can stick it on my e-reader. I'd rather buy a paper copy of the book (which would also be cheaper than £15), and *gulp* destroy it to produce an e-book from it. At least that way there is a larger chain of people that have benefited from me buying the paper book.

As for books that I don't value as highly as LotR, I wouldn't bother buying them again in e-book format unless it was at the lower 'throwaway' price.

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by CallOfCth'reader

Those two unconnected paragraphs pretty much summed up a thought that popped into my head as I was reading this thread: smaller prices can mean more sales, because there is often less thought put into purchases that don't cost much.

My sister and niece regularly buy ringtones and screensavers for their mobile/cell phones. The price is about £2 ($3-ish), and most of the time the attraction lasts a very short time, before the next is purchased. The costs are small enough that it is seen by them as an acceptable impulse buy.

I would view e-books in the same vein: if the cost was low enough, then I'd happily snap up copies of books (whether they are ones I have already read, or new ones) with the feeling that I could read them whenever I chose to, and I hadn't really lost much if I never got round to reading them at all.

I would expect to pay a higher premium for a newly released e-book, but I would then (as now, with paper books) decide whether I want it badly enough to pay the higher price or wait until it drops.

The aesthetic value of an item also affects how much I would pay for an item: I'd happily pay £100 for a specially bound edition of Lord of the Rings, but I'm not going to pay £15 for what is essentially a text file just so I can stick it on my e-reader. I'd rather buy a paper copy of the book (which would also be cheaper than £15), and *gulp* destroy it to produce an e-book from it. At least that way there is a larger chain of people that have benefited from me buying the paper book.

As for books that I don't value as highly as LotR, I wouldn't bother buying them again in e-book format unless it was at the lower 'throwaway' price.

A good example of this is the app store on iphone, i buy lots of apps for 70p $.99 or even £1.79 or $2.99 etc but have never bought anything costing £30 or $40 and probably wouldnt but I easily pend £30 a mont on apps sometimes.

look at the only ebook on the appstore hot section(not made up by sales this but by apple) it is supposed to come with awful software to actually read the book, Lee Childs - Nothing to lose costs £7.49!!! over $10 its ridiculously more than the paperback.

And currently has 2!! reviews both of 1 star, now if random house released this for £2.99 with decent reading software they would in my opinion easily sell more than x2.5 copies more and potentially create a lot of new lee child readers.

But no they wouldnt do that, why would they.

It does make you wonder who they have working in marketing...

[DrDln]

Originally Posted by David Munch

10$ for a new ebook is fine by me. Everything above I would never pay.
But the real push for the eBOok market is definately going to be, when the readers fall in price and become available everywhere (Like in my country! :P)

Well ereaders are available and you have to pay. But most of the soft ware for ebook reading on your computer is provided free by Amazon, B&N etc...

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by DrDln

Well ereaders are available and you have to pay. But most of the soft ware for ebook reading on your computer is provided free by Amazon, B&N etc...

Please pay attention to the dates. This thread last saw activity when ebook readers were $250-300, and software wasn't widespread yet. B&N wasn't in the game yet, Kindle didn't have apps on any system, etc. Things have changed in the past 2 years.

[DrDln]

Originally Posted by MerLock

In my opinion, when we talk about lower cost for digital books we are talking about passing that savings by going digital on to the consumer. What ever that difference happens to be.
So in most cases, the writer could still be compensated the same because the cost is deducted from production and distribution. Depends on the publisher I guess.
As a consumer, I would still pay a premium for new releases as long as it's reasonable. Market that 15 dollar book at 10 dollars and the publishers could still make money if it in fact cheaper to produce and distrubute digital books.

I think in digital books every body wins due to lower production cost. Because there is no printing, binding, shipping. The only losers will be traditional big publishing houses whose business will go down.

For example, the author on $5 digital makes $3.50 because the royalty is 70% and on $20 printed he makes $1.60 because the royalty is 8%. And the consumer saves $15 on the price of book. And the publisher makes rest with almost no overhead cost. This is my own real example.

[Ravensknight]

how many threads does DrDin have to gravedig before there are some consequences? they are not doing this by accident...

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by DrDln

I think in digital books every body wins due to lower production cost. Because there is no printing, binding, shipping. The only losers will be traditional big publishing houses whose business will go down.

For example, the author on $5 digital makes $3.50 because the royalty is 70% and on $20 printed he makes $1.60 because the royalty is 8%. And the consumer saves $15 on the price of book. And the publisher makes rest with almost no overhead cost. This is my own real example.

But there is still proofreading, editing, layout, graphic design, advertising, etc. Those are still costs you have to account for. And for the books that the authors skimp, or skip, that sort of thing, it really shows.

And in your examples, you need to realize, you only get those rates because you're cutting out the publishers, who normally would do all that I mentioned.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Ravensknight

how many threads does DrDin have to gravedig before there are some consequences? they are not doing this by accident...

One of the things that I like about the network is that it makes the concept of time obsolete, granted DrDin could be considered by many a spammer, but I don't see the relevance of dates in forum threads which are meant for discussion.