Ebook prices

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

But don't forget: Other than those of us who hang around sites like this, most of the public doesn't know what DRM is, much less why they should care. No publisher is going to lower prices because of a technical aspect most people don't even see.

This is very true. However, even the most technologically illiterate person will quickly grasp that they can't lend an e-book to someone else like they can a paper book.

[Pinecone]

I was not trying to address the overall pricing for ebooks versus pbooks.

But just the question of why would the OP think that a book that is currently in print, at a current pbook pricing, would be availble as an ebook for a substantially reduced price?

If it is a book that has not been in print for say 20 years, and is brought out in ebooks only, I can see the ebooks being priced well below current ebooks pricing. But the book in question IS in print and seems to be selling in pbook form for standard pbook price. So the ebook price would likely be set at current ebook pricing.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

But just the question of why would the OP think that a book that is currently in print, at a current pbook pricing, would be availble as an ebook for a substantially reduced price?

Because
1) The ebook costs substantially less to produce and distribute; pricing it the same as the pbook is an open declaration that production costs are irrelevant.

It doesn't matter how much people insist that the "real" price is "whatever the market will bear;" traditionally, what the market will bear is strongly influenced by material costs and scarcity. Cubic zirconia are only distinguishable from diamonds with a microscope; there's no reason for them to be cheaper--but they are.

2) Publishers insist that ebooks aren't sold with the same rights as pbooks--that, actually, they're not sold at all; they're licensed. Movie rentals cost less than movie purchases; why shouldn't book rentals--with an open-ended due date of "whenever we think you shouldn't have it anymore, or when your OS gets upgraded to something that can't read it"--cost less?

3) Ebooks are often lower-quality than pbooks: they often lack high-resolution cover art, functional tables of contents, or *proofread text.*

4) No resale market. No hand-it-to-a-friend-when-I'm-done. No sharing it with the local book club. No donating it to a library. (How many people treat pbooks as "when I'm done reading this for the last time, I'll just throw it in the shredder?" Which is apparently how we're most publishers expect us to treat ebooks.)

5) Limited research uses... hard to photocopy a few pages and use them for classwork; annotation ability strictly limited by software & hardware.

6) No guarantee that, if the buyer is reasonably careful, it'll still be readable in a generation.

Hardcover books last decades, sometimes centuries. Ebooks can't make that claim. Ebooks are marketed as limited-use disposable entertainment; it's not unreasonable to expect them to be priced equivalent to mass-market paperbacks--or less, because the production costs are lower.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Because
1) The ebook costs substantially less to produce and distribute; pricing it the same as the pbook is an open declaration that production costs are irrelevant.

It doesn't matter how much people insist that the "real" price is "whatever the market will bear;" traditionally, what the market will bear is strongly influenced by material costs and scarcity. Cubic zirconia are only distinguishable from diamonds with a microscope; there's no reason for them to be cheaper--but they are.

2) Publishers insist that ebooks aren't sold with the same rights as pbooks--that, actually, they're not sold at all; they're licensed. Movie rentals cost less than movie purchases; why shouldn't book rentals--with an open-ended due date of "whenever we think you shouldn't have it anymore, or when your OS gets upgraded to something that can't read it"--cost less?

3) Ebooks are often lower-quality than pbooks: they often lack high-resolution cover art, functional tables of contents, or *proofread text.*

4) No resale market. No hand-it-to-a-friend-when-I'm-done. No sharing it with the local book club. No donating it to a library. (How many people treat pbooks as "when I'm done reading this for the last time, I'll just throw it in the shredder?" Which is apparently how we're most publishers expect us to treat ebooks.)

5) Limited research uses... hard to photocopy a few pages and use them for classwork; annotation ability strictly limited by software & hardware.

6) No guarantee that, if the buyer is reasonably careful, it'll still be readable in a generation.

Hardcover books last decades, sometimes centuries. Ebooks can't make that claim. Ebooks are marketed as limited-use disposable entertainment; it's not unreasonable to expect them to be priced equivalent to mass-market paperbacks--or less, because the production costs are lower.

THe problem with your argument, EW, is that they would make sense if there was an ebook market seperate from a Pbook market. But there isn't really, there's just a book market. Publishers typically put out books in hardcover, paperback, and ebook models-and MUST spread the costs of production across all three models of reproduction. Sure there's a sliver of the market that's ebooks only. But 80 per cent of all books put out this year will be print books. The vast majority of all profits made in the book industry are on HARDCOVER sales.
You seem to live on a planet where ebooks are already the dominant form of reading and where the pricing model should be determined as if ebooks are the primary source of profit. That's not Earth Prime, where the rest of us live.
THe publishing industry must price books in the world we live in now, not the world as we want it to be. In five years time, i think your arguments may actually have merit.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

THe problem with your argument, EW, is that they would make sense if there was an ebook market seperate from a Pbook market. But there isn't really, there's just a book market.

There are multiple book markets, some of which are invisible to most publishers. They're assuming that any dollars that get spent on ebooks (1) are dollars removed from hardcovers, or possibly trade paperback sales, and (2) will drop if prices drop, because they assume that people buy a fixed *number* of books, rather than having a fairly fixed budget that can go toward any number of books, which might or might not go towards publishers.

I'm going to read dozens of books a year. Hundreds, in some years. I'm going to read that many whether I pay for them or not; if I can afford new books, I buy some of those; if money's tighter than that, I buy used (which gives publishers nothing); tighter than that, I borrow or get freebies.

I am invisible to most publishers. I'm not part of their demographic statistics; they don't consider me part of the book-buying public.

Books are my #1 entertainment expense. Baen gets a slice of it. Samhain Press gets a slice of it. Several individual authors at Smashwords get a slice of it. Steve Jackson Games gets a slice of it. Wildside Press gets a slice of it.

Harper-Collins gets none of it; they don't sell books in formats I'm interested in buying.

Publishers who convince themselves the "book market" is of a fixed size and shape are deluding themselves.

Publishers typically put out books in hardcover, paperback, and ebook models-and MUST spread the costs of production across all three models of reproduction.

Of course they must. But they need to consider how quickly they need to recover those costs, and whether selling more units at less profit is better for them.

For high-production-cost units, it's not. Overhead costs mean that they're better off selling fewer units at more profit. But overhead on ebooks is minuscule; they can afford to set costs low--and not only count on higher sales numbers to make up the difference, but use those sales as leverage for future sales. Publishers aren't doing themselves any favors by implying, "we only want customers above a certain income level."

Sure there's a sliver of the market that's ebooks only. But 80 per cent of all books put out this year will be print books.

I think that depends on your definition of "book." Amazon offers a lot of ebooks that have no print edition. Between Kindle books, PubIt, Lulu and Smashwords, I question whether new print books available outnumber new ebooks. (I'm not making any firm statement here; I'm curious. What's your source for the claim that 80% of new books will be print?)

The vast majority of all profits made in the book industry are on HARDCOVER sales.
You seem to live on a planet where ebooks are already the dominant form of reading and where the pricing model should be determined as if ebooks are the primary source of profit. That's not Earth Prime, where the rest of us live.

You seem to be saying that every ebook sold is a lost hardcover sale, instead of assuming that most ebook sales are coming from a demographic that wasn't going to buy hardcovers anyway. You're assuming that publishers are going to sell a fixed number of a given title, and those sales can be in any of four formats, and of course they'd prefer them to be hardcover.

I'll grant that publishers, being oblivious to the demographic I'm in, have no idea how to *market* ebooks to people who were never considering hardcovers. But that's not the same as agreeing that the market doesn't exist.

THe publishing industry must price books in the world we live in now, not the world as we want it to be. In five years time, i think your arguments may actually have merit.

In the world we live in now, I'm not buying Macmillan or Harper-Collins books.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone. I have no shortage of books to read. I think it'd be kinda nice for the publishers who provided the books I loved as a child to continue existing, but as they're no longer providing the books I want to read, I'm not supporting them.

Waldenbooks is long gone. Borders went under, and B&N's physical stores aren't doing well. Those three drove out most of the little book stores.

Who, exactly, do they think will be buying the hardcovers they expect to bring in profits? Are those people so numerous and so generous that they can afford to ignore a huge market of millions hungry for $5-and-under books, which is now a very profitable price range?

[xg4bx]

i finally realized today that i could go the entire rest of my reading career without buying another "agency" published book. i've been reading indie stuff that is just as good, if not better, than the major publisher stuff.

i really used to like permuted press. however i really don't need to pay $9.99 for their brand of zombie fiction when there are so many lower cost alternatives out there. even small presses like that aren't immune to overcharging. i have no author loyalty either lol. if they overcharge, oh well i just miss out. no skin off my butt.

one day the industry will get the hint, they simply haven't hit bottom like the music industry did yet.

the massive indie market has made me feel like a kid again,back when i shunned corporate music and scoured the underground lol.

[Fbone]

[QUOTE=Elfwreck;1736488
Hardcover books last decades, sometimes centuries. Ebooks can't make that claim. Ebooks are marketed as limited-use disposable entertainment; it's not unreasonable to expect them to be priced equivalent to mass-market paperbacks--or less, because the production costs are lower.[/QUOTE]

Except when your print books are lost in a flood, fire, misplaced or stolen. In a recent hurricane my few ebooks survived while my hardcovers did not.

[Pinecone]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Because
1) The ebook costs substantially less to produce and distribute; pricing it the same as the pbook is an open declaration that production costs are irrelevant.

It doesn't matter how much people insist that the "real" price is "whatever the market will bear;" traditionally, what the market will bear is strongly influenced by material costs and scarcity. Cubic zirconia are only distinguishable from diamonds with a microscope; there's no reason for them to be cheaper--but they are.

2) Publishers insist that ebooks aren't sold with the same rights as pbooks--that, actually, they're not sold at all; they're licensed. Movie rentals cost less than movie purchases; why shouldn't book rentals--with an open-ended due date of "whenever we think you shouldn't have it anymore, or when your OS gets upgraded to something that can't read it"--cost less?

3) Ebooks are often lower-quality than pbooks: they often lack high-resolution cover art, functional tables of contents, or *proofread text.*

4) No resale market. No hand-it-to-a-friend-when-I'm-done. No sharing it with the local book club. No donating it to a library. (How many people treat pbooks as "when I'm done reading this for the last time, I'll just throw it in the shredder?" Which is apparently how we're most publishers expect us to treat ebooks.)

5) Limited research uses... hard to photocopy a few pages and use them for classwork; annotation ability strictly limited by software & hardware.

6) No guarantee that, if the buyer is reasonably careful, it'll still be readable in a generation.

Hardcover books last decades, sometimes centuries. Ebooks can't make that claim. Ebooks are marketed as limited-use disposable entertainment; it's not unreasonable to expect them to be priced equivalent to mass-market paperbacks--or less, because the production costs are lower.

AGAIN, I am not arguing the overall ebook pricing.

BUT if a new paperback sells for $9.99 both in ebook and pbook format, WHY would you expect any book that is currently in print as a pbook, to be sold for substantially less as an ebook than the pbook?

The post I am discussing is based on the idea that the book was written a long time ago, therefore should sell for less as an ebook, even though it is currently in print as a pbook. Even though all other ebooks that have a current printing in pbook, sell for about the same price as the pbook.

Different arguement for different circumstances.

I am not disagreeing that ebooks SHOULD sell for less, but they DON'T.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

This is very true. However, even the most technologically illiterate person will quickly grasp that they can't lend an e-book to someone else like they can a paper book.

That, too, is only important to some. As a person who has never lent a book to a friend or relative (nor been lent a book), I can honestly say that the lending situation means absolutely nothing to me. I have always been content to simply tell someone, or let them tell me: "You should go get this book."

[cHex]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

BUT if a new paperback sells for $9.99 both in ebook and pbook format, WHY would you expect any book that is currently in print as a pbook, to be sold for substantially less as an ebook than the pbook?

Why? The same reason I expect that same book still in hardcover to cost MORE--production costs and the I-like-the-smell-of-ink market.

There is a portion of a book's cost that goes to support the author, provide a profit to the publisher, pay editors and marketers and administrative assistants etc.; fine, spread that over all versions of the book, regardless of format. But there is also a portion of the cost that goes to support loggers, paper manufacturers, the development of printing presses, printers, ink suppliers, truckers, delivery services, warehousing, etc.--subtract that from the price of an eBook (and add on the portion needed to support the development of ereaders, internet providers, data warehouses, etc., why not).

If you're worried about cutting into sales of hardcovers and paperbacks, I can understand that. So how about releasing the eBook after the dead tree formats have had their day (or perhaps drop the price below their cost after some length of time). But to charge MORE for the eBook than for a new paperback (other than to clear inventory)?! I don't get it.

Up until this discussion thread, I've been pretty lazy about checking out independent authors/publishers; but this has motivated me to "vote with my dollars" (nod to another thread somewhere on these forums) and see if I can't find some of them I enjoy as much as (or more than) the mass-market giants I've been buying. Just as Amazon helped put Borders out of business, and Borders helped put mom-and-pop bookstores out of business, and books helped put scribes out of business, I'm wondering if independent publishers might someday put the Agencies out of business.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

BUT if a new paperback sells for $9.99 both in ebook and pbook format, WHY would you expect any book that is currently in print as a pbook, to be sold for substantially less as an ebook than the pbook?

If the same book is available as an audiobook and a print book, why would we expect the prices to be different?

Because:
1) Production costs and requirements are drastically different, and
2) They're being sold to different markets, so a $9.99 paperback sale is not a lost $24.99 audiobook sale.

A $4.99 ebook sale is not a lost $23.99 hardcover sale, nor a lost $9.99 paperback sale. It's a $5 sale to someone who wouldn't have bought either of the others. Or possibly, to someone who *has* bought one of the others and also wants to read it on their Kindle--but isn't going to pay the price of two paper books for that ability.

Some books are available in hardcover and paperback, and yet the paperbacks are priced much cheaper. Why is that? If the hardcover is $25, why not sell the mass-market paperback at $20 (nod to the materials differences) for as long as the hardcover's in print?

Because they're being marketed to different people. Because paperbacks are intended to be sold to people who weren't going to buy a $25 book, no matter how durable or pretty it is.

Publishers have the opportunity to sell ebooks to people who aren't going to buy $10 books, no matter how portable they are. Instead, they're trying to pretend that every sale in one medium is a loss in another.

[stonetools]

This whole thread seems surrealistic in light of the fact that just a couple of forums over, there are thousands of ebooks on offer for free or for the less than $5. Quite a few of those are on offer from those very same publishers that Elfwreck is attacking for ignoring the cheap ebook market.
It appears to me that the publishers do finally get that there is a cheap ebook market. However, the publishers and major authors aren't interested in appealing to that market by pricing potential bestsellers below market value. Can't say as I blame them.
I'll also point out once again that most of the price of a book is not in printing and distributing cost, but in paying the author, the editor, the proofreader, the cover artist, etc. Those costs didn't magically go away because someone invented the Internet. It's lot more expensive to pay James Patterson or nora Roberts than someone unknown starting out.
I'm not sure what the point of those arguments are, really. It's kind of like me arguing that BMWs should cost only 20,000 even thought I have never built a car. In the end, everybody always thinks that every price should be lower except the price of their labor.
Bottomline, if you think a particular ebook is too dear, don't buy it. Maybe the price will go down in the future. But quit the bellyaching about stuff you don't know about and don't control. My $0.02.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

That, too, is only important to some. As a person who has never lent a book to a friend or relative (nor been lent a book), I can honestly say that the lending situation means absolutely nothing to me. I have always been content to simply tell someone, or let them tell me: "You should go get this book."

It's not that important to me either, really - although I have occasionally loaned and been loaned books. But people for whom it is important will notice it.

However, I do know a family in which the grandmother, mother, and adult daughter have always shared books; as they now all have Kindles on the same account, lending works far better than they could ever have imagined, particularly as they live in separate cities about 60 miles apart. Not a solution for everyone, of course...but pretty awesome for them.

[anamardoll]

I'm always rather astonished at the idea that paper/mass-market/e-Books cut into hardcover sales. Maybe they do, but I agree with Elfwreck that in most cases, it's a different market. I've never, EVER bought a hardcover new. Wouldn't want one even if it was offered to me. I can't stand hardcovers, and that's just me, but I'm very rarely a unique special butterfly and I doubt this is one of those rare cases.

[Freeshadow]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

One thing I have been curious about, is when a book is under contract to a publisher, but the author is dead, what happens to the money if there is no clear cut heir to the copyright? Could that be part of why some of the older book series are no longer in print? I know there are some classics that could easily make money if reprinted, but are unavailable.

If the book in question (not yet PD but possible heir unknown) is orphaned I think, they're avoided like all biblical plagues taken together - muddy waters in legal POV.