Backlash against Author Douglas Preston

[mcl]

Originally Posted by Barcey

On average I would guess that a typical author spends 6 months to 2 years of effort to write a book. The majority of them do this for no guarantee of income and make nothing. That's the largest financial risk they can make. They are forced into signing bad contracts because they're already risk vested.

I'm tired of hearing about the enormous risks that publishers make. It's their job. The personal risk that an author is taking is huge compared to the risk the publisher is taking to their company.

Likewise, if the author's taking such a huge risk, the author has chosen to make it their job. If the author is in such a precarious financial position, they should either adjust their lifestyle accordingly, or not quit their day job.

I'm tired of seeing authors treated as some combination of angels, saints, and charity cases. They chose to be authors. If they can't make that pay for them, that's their problem, not mine.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by mcl

Likewise, if the author's taking such a huge risk, the author has chosen to make it their job. If the author is in such a precarious financial position, they should either adjust their lifestyle accordingly, or not quit their day job.

I'm tired of seeing authors treated as some combination of angels, saints, and charity cases. They chose to be authors. If they can't make that pay for them, that's their problem, not mine.

But you're ignoring the already successful authors who may see a pay cut.

You'd likely be pissing and moaning and saying your company are dirty rat bastards if they tell you to take a 5% pay cut and keep doing the same high quality work you've been doing for years.

Yet you seem to have no problem telling a successful authors to suck it up, write just as many books of the same quality as they always have and take less money for it.

That's what bothers me about the tone of many in this thread.

But that's just human nature. Companies are dirty rat bastards because they are made up of human beings who are dirty rat bastards that don't care about anything but their own self interests for the most part.

[pricecw]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

It's still rare relative to layoffs, and yes it sucks. And it's taken a near depression in the economy to cause. My points more we all feel terrible when it happens to us. Hell, it happened to me this year as all university employees in my state had to take furlough days this academic year which amount to about a 5% pay cut as well. Next years state budget doesn't look good either, so I expect the same or worse next year.

Actually, I would say it is more common than layoffs. In my company, the number of people hit with pay cuts was orders of magnitude greater than the number layed off (we had both). I would think the California Furlough would have hit way more than layoffs too.

[QUOTE=dmaul1114;805986]Yet will any of us piss and moan when it happens to us, some bash authors for worrying about taking pay cuts on their work just because a book is sold as an e-book rather than a physical book (i.e. nothing to do with the economy, their publisher struggling to stay in business etc.).

I was upset about my furloughs, so it would be pretty hypocritical for me to say the authors should just "suck it up" and do the same work for less pay.[QUOTE]

I would never dare tell someone how they should feel. The posts I have read on this was trying to put forward (to my reading of them at least) a position that authors are unique in this, and we shouldn't want the lower prices because of this. I was responding trying to point out there is nothing unique about having to do the same work for less money.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

The solution is to just scrap DRM (or at the very least make it much less restrictive) and price e-books close to the level of their current print counterpart. Price is higher when on the the hardcover is available, and when the paperback comes out drop the e-book price to at or a little below that price.

Without DRM the e-book should have the same value to a reader as the physical book, so not many should have issues paying the same or a little less for the paperbook like they do now. Some will still of course, but you can't please everyone.

This may be so, but I also think that the publishers are padding trying to convince us that the difference paper to e-book is a lot less than it appears. I read (sorry I can't point to it off the top of my head, but the link was hear on the forums) of an authors account with publishers. From her writing, the expected sell through was 20-40% on a printed book. So when we buy a book, we are paying for the printing, storing, shipping, etc of 2-5 books.

I also agree DRM will be the death of publishers. With the e-book marketplace as it is, it will take one of the big names burning customers (like MicroSoft did with it's DRM) for the whole house of cards to come tumbling down.

I look at anything with DRM as a rental. I won't pay money for it unless I feel it is a value proposition to me as if it is a rental. For a book, I personally put that value at the same as renting a movie, or around $1 currently. This is generous, because a rental of a paper book (library) is around $50/yr (for a family), all you can eat. Typically it is pulling a dime or less per book for the family.

Now for me personally, I don't need the latest author/book. I read for enjoyment, and if I can't read a Douglas Preston book because he (or he through his publisher proxy) deems me an unworthy consumer, I can find plenty of authors (like Randolph Lalonde who posts here) that will respect me as a costumer. I don't think my entertainment level will be reduced at all.

--Carl

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

You'd likely be pissing and moaning and saying your company are dirty rat bastards if they tell you to take a 5% pay cut and keep doing the same high quality work you've been doing for years.

No one owes anyone else a living. What you're failing to equate here is the difference between being paid ahead of time for an expected job, versus being paid afterwards for a job completed.

Salary jobs pay you X amount and expect you to work your @ss off, hopefully netting the governing entity a profit. Hourly wages, you work when there's work to do, and get paid on what you produce.

Authors are not on salary. They complete a job ahead of time, and try to peddle it to the highest bidder. They have no right to an expectation of a lower limit for their work. If they don't like the terms, they can peddle their work elsewhere. If they signed a multiple book contract, well that's the price you pay for the security of money in the future.

If authors collectively said NO to stupid contracts, publishers would change their contracts. "The power is yours!" - Captain Planet

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

Authors are not on salary. They complete a job ahead of time, and try to peddle it to the highest bidder. They have no right to an expectation of a lower limit for their work. If they don't like the terms, they can peddle their work elsewhere. If they signed a multiple book contract, well that's the price you pay for the security of money in the future.

If authors collectively said NO to stupid contracts, publishers would change their contracts. "The power is yours!" - Captain Planet

Again, I'm talking about successful authors who have good contracts--but long-term ones etc.

If they're locked into a % of sales (even a good %) is it fair for them to see less money because people feel e-books should cost significantly less than the print versions.

For up and coming authors, e-books can be a good thing as they can more easily avoid having to sign a bad contract to get their book out, as they have easier ways of self publishing etc.

But it can be a problem for established authors with long term deals to do some many books with a publisher who see their number of copies sold stay up while their take goes down as people expect the e-book to be $9.99 day one of the hardcover release etc.

[ficbot]

Also, being an author is pretty much a sales job and sales jobs have always been variable. For example in my city right now, the hot boutique store sells designer cupcakes. These people are making a fortune. If you had told me five years ago that a cupcake store would be raking it in, I'd have laughed at you. But it's like any other sales thing, you make your money on units sold, and if people want to buy cupcakes, or books, or widgets or whatever, then great. If not, and your sales fall, you diversify. If knowing that you will work X hours and get Y money is important to you, you get a day job that *isn't* a sales thing, and then you moonlight for the passion work.

[dmaul1114]

Yeah, but book sales as an industry seem pretty stable. And a long successful author (the Grisham's, King's etc. as well as some less extreme examples) know everything they put out will sell millions of copies.

In the past the price per copy was stable, only going up slowly with inflation as cover prices rise. They shouldn't expect the price per copy to drop just because people think the cover price for e-books should be significantly less than the print version. Income per copy sold shouldn't drop--income per book will of course be variable as number of sales will vary.

Barring the DRM issues of course, which do put less value on the material as it restricts usage. But even in a DRM free world, people would still bitch that e-books should be cheaper due to not having printing and material costs, shipping costs etc. But that doesn't change the fact the author's work didn't change and that they should get paid the same per copy as they do for print copies sold--now that's not all on the consumer, publishers should just take less and give more to the author for e-book sales where they don't have those costs. So maybe prices can be a bit cheaper for e-books, just not drastically so and at a level that Stephen King gets $X for each hardcover of Under the Dome and $X for each e-book--and when the paperback is out he gets $Y for each paperback sold and $Y for each e-book sold after the paperback is out.

In any case, that is my take on it. And we're starting to go in circles, so I won't bother repeating that take over and over anymore.

[pricecw]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Again, I'm talking about successful authors who have good contracts--but long-term ones etc.

If they're locked into a % of sales (even a good %) is it fair for them to see less money because people feel e-books should cost significantly less than the print versions.

Yes it is fair. It is also fair if that lower price sells more books and they see more money. They are selling an entertainment commodity.

I have been reading some of Eric Flint's writings on copyright, and I think he has it pretty well understood (although I do differ on some points with his length assessments). Copyright is a license for the author to have a temporary monopoly for the sole purpose of enhancing society as a whole (ie the work becomes public domain). This trade off is meant to be temporary, however lobbying has stolen a lot of work from the people. What it boils down to is a trade off, when work is created it belongs to society as a whole, not the author, however the public good is best served by people creating works that the society may take advantage of. So, the artificial concept of copyright grants a license to the creator so they can make money of the creation before the public has full use/control.

Now, we have mega corporations stealing this content from us, bribing our elected official to make a perpetual copyright.

Now back to the point, these established authors decided to gamble on futures in this market. They signed away their rights to future production to a publishing house, who now gets those rights. They were gambling on prices remaining stable, and it appears they may have lost that gamble. Is it fair, sure it is. What they now need to work on is getting a larger population to buy this work, so they can maintain as much or more money.

As an example, a futures trader makes a bet when oil is at $150/bbl that prices will go up, so he buys future barrels at $150 dollars. Then the prices crash to $80/bbl. Is that fair? Yes, he knew when he signed the contract that is what he is signing on for.

So the only way an author would make less money for having the book price drop while costs go down, they signed a poor contract & the lower price doesn't increase sales. The first is their fault, and the second is their fault if they didn't keep some distribution control (mandates against DRM or other things that would make consumers rebel against them). Remember, they are the ones granted the monopoly license, they are the only ones that can trade that away.

--Carl

[Hellmark]

If people feel ebooks should be less than paperback books, sales will show that. If the sales are low, you could be making less than if the sales are good but at a lower price. Volume sales is how so many retailers work (and make so much money), so why not other industries?

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

If people feel ebooks should be less than paperback books, sales will show that. If the sales are low, you could be making less than if the sales are good but at a lower price. Volume sales is how so many retailers work (and make so much money), so why not other industries?

True, and honestly probably having all this discussion for nothing.

Most people are probably fine paying the same price for e-books. It's easy to forget that people posting on a site like this are enthusiasts, and are a very tiny portion of the e-book market.

The bulk of the people with e-readers are buying Kindles or Sony and buying $10 ebooks with no complaints whatsoever. The few people on sites like this will have little to no impact on ebook trends and prices--especially as e-books become more and more a mainstream product.

So it's very likely they'll be able to price e-books about the same (or the same) as print versions and sell them just fine, while people are still on sites like this bitching.

It's like that with anything. People on video game sites bitch about the $50-60 prices, slow price drops for some games etc. But games are still selling millions of copies at $60 because the average person is happy to pay that price They're buying a handful of games a year, not multiple games a week like the enthusiasts so they don't care as much about the price.

Same is true with e-books, those of us buying 1-2 a month don't care as much as those who read 4 or 5 books a week. Much less the more typical buyer of a best seller who probably buys a handful of books a year. Those are the folks who determine prices, not the enthusiasts.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

It's like that with anything. People on video game sites bitch about the $50-60 prices, slow price drops for some games etc. But games are still selling millions of copies at $60...

Yea, but games are in a dangerous situation thanks to spiralling production costs and huge up-front investments: there's a growing wasteland in games between - to use book terms - the "bestsellers" and the "short stories". The midlist is catching it...the book industry needs to take note!

[guyanonymous]

Remember too, there are far fewer games (selection-wise) and production costs, timelines, and person-power involvement is much higher per game.

[dmaul1114]

Yeah, but low cost games are making a resurgance in the forms of downloadable games--Xbox Live Arcade, Sony's PSN Store, Nintendo's Wii and DS ware stores, iPhone games etc., so small games aren't doomed.

They just have to adapt. Not many people are going to pay $50-60 for some simple 2D game when you can get longer, 3D games with HD graphics, online play etc. for that price.

The simple 2D games can be made much quicker and cheaper so they can be sold for $5-15 on these networks as download games.

Just like fledgling authors can use e-books as a way to get their books out when they're not getting a contract from a publishing house.

But that's getting off topic. It was just the first example that popped to mind of people on forums bitching about prices having no impact as Joe Six Pack has no problem paying the asking price and they're the majority of the market.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

Remember too, there are far fewer games (selection-wise) and production costs, timelines, and person-power involvement is much higher per game.

I think you might be surprised how large the games sector is, especially at the lower-end of the budget (iPhone, flash and other "casual games").

And there are institutional reasons (including tools which are...um...poor) that the industry can't leverage much of the advantages say films does. Plus there's a model of full-time employment, not per-production as per films, so there are much higher overheads...

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Paper costs don't include shipping, storage & inventory costs, all of which take a cut out of the profits and therefore are figured into the price.

I think they do, actually. Though storage, inventory and shipping are split between publishers, distributors and retailers.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The agency model is likely to wreak havoc on publishers, as they can't react to consumer trends fast enough.

Why, do retailers have a crystal ball that publishers don't?

I concur they aren't terribly experienced at it, and there may be a learning curve. But it doesn't take a genius to know that one of your authors is going to be on Oprah or that a movie version is coming out next weekend. It also remains to be seen if retailers will have some latitude to discount every now and then, I expect the full details of the contracts will remain obscure for awhile.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I think it does cost 2-3x as much to print. I've heard costs as low as $1 each for printing paperbacks; I'd be surprised if hardcovers cost less than $2.50 to print. But it doesn't cost that much more to ship, store, and track sales of.

I wouldn't. But I doubt most people realize that it only costs $1 (or less) per copy to print a book.

Or perhaps more precisely: Let's say a hardcover has a cover price of $30, the trade $15, the mass market $10. The hardcover does not cost $10 or $15 more per copy to publish etc than the paperbacks. The pricing here is not determined by the cost to print the book; that perception is a veil over the fact that the demand is higher, thus allowing the retailer and publisher to charge more.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Paperbacks have all those, and manage to sell at under $10.

Sure. But a paperback-only release is almost certainly going to have a smaller advance and lower royalty rates, lower marketing costs and so forth. Paperbacks also have thinner margins, so they are making less per copy than they do with the hardcovers.

I would agree that some new ebooks can undoubtedly be sold at a $10 price point -- notably genre works