How much would you pay?

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by RHWright

But to have that be the regular price of a book seems to make a statement about its value. I think a price of, say, $3.99 makes a stronger statement about how the author/publisher sees the value of the work.

While I'm sure you're correct in terms of the message it sends, in reality it seems to have no bearing on actual quality whatsoever. I've picked up around 20-25 indie books so far, ranging in price from $0.00 to $4.99 (I think, maybe $5.99), and in my opinion at least there's no correlation at all between price and quality. I've happened across both absolute stinkers and a few excellent efforts at either end. Also both abysmal and excellent formatting/proofreading. 20-25 books obviously doesn't amount to statistical significance, but I see no reason why it would, and don't expect it to, change as I buy and read more.

Consequently, had I cared about prices I'd be far more likely to shop for indie books at the lower end of the price ladder. I'm sure most people assume that higher price=higher quality, but as they read more they'll eventually cotton onto the fact that there is no such correlation. At least not as it stands today, as far as I can discern.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

While I'm sure you're correct in terms of the message it sends, in reality it seems to have no bearing on actual quality whatsoever. I've picked up around 20-25 indie books so far, ranging in price from $0.00 to $4.99 (I think, maybe $5.99), and in my opinion at least there's no correlation at all between price and quality. I've happened across both absolute stinkers and a few excellent efforts at either end. Also both abysmal and excellent formatting/proofreading. 20-25 books obviously doesn't amount to statistical significance, but I see no reason why it would, and don't expect it to, change as I buy and read more.

Consequently, had I cared about prices I'd be far more likely to shop for indie books at the lower end of the price ladder. I'm sure most people assume that higher price=higher quality, but as they read more they'll eventually cotton onto the fact that there is no such correlation. At least not as it stands today, as far as I can discern.

Sadly, I'd have to agree with this. If ONLY price were an indicator. I read a lot of books (both indie and trad published.) There's stinkers in both camps, gems and a LOT of 3 star average books.

As an author, I've priced my books at various prices, up to $4.95. Like it or not, they sell better when they are on sale for 99 cents. There is even a difference in sales when priced at $3.99 versus $2.99. Everyone has a price-point where they will take a chance. The lower you price it, the more people take that chance, at least in my experience. No matter how much I feel my books are worth. That simply doesn't enter the equation.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I'll say it again--the major publishing houses do exactly this: weed out the crap.

They also weed out a lot of the good. I think I must have posted this somewhere else, but Lord of the Flies and Harry Potter were both rejected by publishing corporatons.

[BearMountainBooks]

IN response to Catlady: Yes, they do weed out the lower echelons, there is no denying it. And I completely understand readers not wanting to waste time sampling or bothering with self-published. There are times when I just will not pick up another one for a while. It's time-consuming.

But I did read a couple of trad books lately that I'm still having a hard time believing were trad books. There are times where one man's trash is another man's treasure, no matter what *I* think. :>)

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

They also weed out a lot of the good. I think I must have posted this somewhere else, but Lord of the Flies and Harry Potter were both rejected by publishing corporatons.

And obviously were eventually published by major publishing houses.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

IN response to Catlady: Yes, they do weed out the lower echelons, there is no denying it. And I completely understand readers not wanting to waste time sampling or bothering with self-published. There are times when I just will not pick up another one for a while. It's time-consuming.

But I did read a couple of trad books lately that I'm still having a hard time believing were trad books. There are times where one man's trash is another man's treasure, no matter what *I* think. :>)

Yes, there's no denying that the major publishing houses do put out some horrible books, but the odds are better that they've weeded out a lot of the dreck, and that when dreck gets through, at least it will adhere to minimum standards of spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Whereas there's absolutely no way to know if someone's self-published work will even be coherent.

I just think it's ironic that people apparently want a way to separate the wheat from the chaff when that's exactly what the traditional publishers attempt to do. Frankly, I think the traditional publishers are more relevant than ever nowadays when every person who can use a computer thinks he or she can be a published author. Sure, some can really write something worth reading. But most can't.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Catlady

And obviously were eventually published by major publishing houses.

Exactly.

And I heard it claimed by Tor (which still read the slush) at EasterCon that there is no surplus of good books that they get sent. Which to me indicates that reading indie published books without very strong recommendations is futile.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

And obviously were eventually published by major publishing houses.

There was an interesting BBC Radio programme on a while ago in which the editor who eventually took on "Lord of the Flies" was explaining what a huge job it was (essentially a complete re-write) to make it publishable. The initial manuscript version of the book was, apparently, virtually unreadable, which is why so many publishers rejected it before one decided to take it on.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Catlady

And obviously were eventually published by major publishing houses.

Only because their writers didn't give up. There's no knowing what else we lost though.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Yes, there's no denying that the major publishing houses do put out some horrible books, but the odds are better that they've weeded out a lot of the dreck, and that when dreck gets through, at least it will adhere to minimum standards of spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Whereas there's absolutely no way to know if someone's self-published work will even be coherent.

I just think it's ironic that people apparently want a way to separate the wheat from the chaff when that's exactly what the traditional publishers attempt to do. Frankly, I think the traditional publishers are more relevant than ever nowadays when every person who can use a computer thinks he or she can be a published author. Sure, some can really write something worth reading. But most can't.

I agree with everything but the last part about "most." I've actually been pretty surprised that at *least* half of what I try that is self-published is 3 star or better. I used to review books and reviewed/read 3 self-published at that time (years ago, before kindle, etc). Only one was good. One was unreadable and the other was ... Oh, it might have been 3 star, but I didn't finish it (bored.) So my impression was that there were no 5 stars at all.

Being in the game now, I do filter through a lot of self-published books and am actually shocked at how many are at least 3 stars. I don't read those that have obvious grammar/spelling issues out the gate, so that could be coloring my results. The ones that are HUGE, HUGE disappointments are ones that really seem to be going along at 3 and 4 star...and then suddenly go into the weeds near the end. Oh, those make me mad. I read almost an entire one that was decent enough until the last 1/5 or so--it was a cozy mystery (with more foul language than usual, but followed the general tropes) that suddenly included an orgy or three, wild sex that wasn't part of the orgy, possession and a lame wrap-up of the plot. I'm *still* mad about having wasted my time.

I'll let you know when I get over it.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There was an interesting BBC Radio programme on a while ago in which the editor who eventually took on "Lord of the Flies" was explaining what a huge job it was (essentially a complete re-write) to make it publishable. The initial manuscript version of the book was, apparently, virtually unreadable, which is why so many publishers rejected it before one decided to take it on.

Interestingly, I've heard similar things about Frank Herbert's scifi classic Dune. I doubt many publishers these days would be willing to take on a book that needs that kind of work.

[RHWright]

I've read good and bad books across the pricing spectrum.

My point is that the perception persists that, in general, you get what you pay for.

When trying to successfully market a self-published work, I would think, you have to balance many factors, including that perception.

While I know many people are willing to wade through and take the risk on super-cheap books, I know others rarely waste their time. There's just too much slush in that pile.

I think a moderate price ($2.99-$4.99) hits a certain spot. It places enough value on the work to say, "I think I can provide the quality of the big boys," but it also says, "as an independent, I can do things at a lower cost, not demand rapacious profit, and provide a reasonably priced alternative."

True "quality" will be judged by individual readers. Again, gems are to be found out there for free, stinkers can make you feel seriously cheated out of $12.99.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Only because their writers didn't give up. There's no knowing what else we lost though.

If the claim of editing is true the work would have been lost if it had been published independently also.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Interestingly, I've heard similar things about Frank Herbert's scifi classic Dune. I doubt many publishers these days would be willing to take on a book that needs that kind of work.

They will take it on if the author can tell a story. Technicalities like spelling and grammar can always be fixed by the editor. What is rare is to find the people that really can tell a story.

Also it is not uncommon that writers under contract have to re-write big parts of a book (the last exemple I heard about was throwing away 85%) due to the input of the editors.

[benham]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I agree with everything but the last part about "most." I've actually been pretty surprised that at *least* half of what I try that is self-published is 3 star or better. I used to review books and reviewed/read 3 self-published at that time (years ago, before kindle, etc). Only one was good. One was unreadable and the other was ... Oh, it might have been 3 star, but I didn't finish it (bored.) So my impression was that there were no 5 stars at all.

Being in the game now, I do filter through a lot of self-published books and am actually shocked at how many are at least 3 stars. I don't read those that have obvious grammar/spelling issues out the gate, so that could be coloring my results. The ones that are HUGE, HUGE disappointments are ones that really seem to be going along at 3 and 4 star...and then suddenly go into the weeds near the end. Oh, those make me mad. I read almost an entire one that was decent enough until the last 1/5 or so--it was a cozy mystery (with more foul language than usual, but followed the general tropes) that suddenly included an orgy or three, wild sex that wasn't part of the orgy, possession and a lame wrap-up of the plot. I'm *still* mad about having wasted my time.

I'll let you know when I get over it.

I'm sure there's at least one trad book out there that has done something similar, but I can't think of one *I've* read. I have certainly read some that wasted my time. Hmm. Actually I can think of one that I hated as much as Aunt Tillie. It was Embers by Laura Bickle and was trad published? I'm still mad about that book too.

I have read many books I would rate 5 stars. Price isn't the issue (unless it is way high). Of course all of these authors were recommended so they already have the advantage to writing in the genre I like.