The $15 Boycott: Will you be participating?

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by scottjl

like anything else, i'll pay a price i'm happy with. if i feel it's too much, i don't buy it, if i feel it's a good deal, then i'm quite happy with my purchase. there's always the option to check it out of my local library (virtually or in the *gasp* real world). and i am not chained to my ebook reader, if i happen to find the physical book for a price i'm willing to pay, i'll pay it. don't understand why so many ebook users feel they have to give up actual physical books.

It's very likely that I will never buy an ebook for $15. But then I virtually never buy a pbook at that price either. I won't rule it out, but to me, few books are worth that price.

The biggest problem, IMO, is that the price will kill the ebook market. The only way I see the market to survive (other than the publishers lowering the price) is if they publishers manage to kill the used pbook market. I know they're trying to do that, but doubt if they can succeed.

Assuming the (new) pbook prices match the ebook prices ($15) then it's quite likely that I will simply stop buying new pbooks. But I won't commit to that. A limitation of the used pbook market is the difficulty of finding exactly what you want. I rarely leave the used book store without buying something-but I often leave without buying the book I went there to look for.

So I'm not going to commit myself to a boycott, but it seems likely that the effect of my buying habits will be similar.

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

This is what Macmillan is aiming for. They were only going to window new releases if Amazon wasn't willing to go along with that model.

Don't get me started on Macmillan. No library books? So if I can't afford a pbook, I'm just out of luck? I thought that is why we had libraries!

As someone who did not buy her first book until college (and no one else in the family bought books either) I find their version of class warfare abhorent. Obviously, Macmillan books were simply not available.

[mcl]

The more I see the particularly poor attitude coming from authors, the more I'm tempted to go with the second option, and/or used books.

And don't try to feed me some line about how, if I do that, ultimately all published works will disappear. You know it's not true, and so do I.

But I'm getting mighty tired of seeing authors time and again parrot what seems to be the party line: "Macmillan's looking out for our best interests! Buy our books, or we'll immediately and spontaneously starve/freeze/explode/be eaten by opossum!"

Authors chose to become authors. If you can't make a living doing it, don't quit your day job. Or learn to negotiate better terms.

[Connallmac]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

PA lot of the these complaints over price are beginning to sound really petty to me. It's like people are saying "Ebooks have no production costs so all we should pay for is the content and that's not worth very much either, so they need to be very cheap."

As someone who's written novels, I find that cheapening of the value of my time, effort, and creativity very disheartening.

In the meantime, I have a book I need to be ghostwriting, so I will try to bow out, but I doubt I'll be able to.

Welcome to the real world pal. I'd like to get paid more too, but there is a concept called supply and demand. When you raise the price of something 50% oddly enough the demand goes down. Imagine what that will mean for suppliers long term financial health? Do you think McDonald's would sell as many Big Macs if they raised the price by 50% over night? No increase in size, quality or availability, just an increase in price. Why do content producers think that they are immune from the basic rules of economics???

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

Don't get me started on Macmillan. No library books? So if I can't afford a pbook, I'm just out of luck? I thought that is why we had libraries!

Don't they have Macmillan paper books at the library? That seems very strange since any library can buy the paper book and lend it out.

[dmikov]

I have to confess I didn't know about library unavailability for books from certain publishers. I thought it's not only immoral, but also illegal in US to discriminate who can buy products once they are on sale. Can somebody point me to relevant info on MacMillan?

[Alisa]

I'd happily pay $15 for an ebook if $5 went to the author. I think part of people's outrage over the price is that we know that the authors are still getting screwed.

[MovieBird]

I'm perfectly willing to pay $15 for an eBook the day it is released.

However, $10 is too much for me to pay for an eBook that has been out for over 12 months. However, it seems most people feel that $10 is a fair price for eternity.

So, the question for the publishers, are they going to make more money with a higher margin on the few books sold initially, or with a lower flat rate and more sales over the life of the server?

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

Don't get me started on Macmillan. No library books? So if I can't afford a pbook, I'm just out of luck? I thought that is why we had libraries!

As someone who did not buy her first book until college (and no one else in the family bought books either) I find their version of class warfare abhorent. Obviously, Macmillan books were simply not available.

If you go to your local library you will find plenty of Macmillan books in the library. What you won't find are their ebooks, which are not currently available in the library.

This is just more FUD.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Connallmac

Welcome to the real world pal. I'd like to get paid more too, but there is a concept called supply and demand. When you raise the price of something 50% oddly enough the demand goes down. Imagine what that will mean for suppliers long term financial health? Do you think McDonald's would sell as many Big Macs if they raised the price by 50% over night? No increase in size, quality or availability, just an increase in price. Why do content producers think that they are immune from the basic rules of economics???

The problem here is not that content producers think that they are immune to the laws of economics - it's that they know that they are NOT immune to the laws of economics. Amazon has been holding bestseller prices artificially low in order to increase Kindle adoption and grab market share.

As ebook market share increases, Amazon will reach the point where they can no longer sell them at a loss and so they are playing hardball so that when that time comes, publishers will have to reduce wholesale prices rather than Amazon having to increase retail prices. Publishing runs on a narrow margin and having to take a 50% cut in revenue from the ebook versions of their most profitable books would kill them - especially as ebook sales start to rise.

This is simple self-defense.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

The problem here is not that content producers think that they are immune to the laws of economics - it's that they know that they are NOT immune to the laws of economics. Amazon has been holding bestseller prices artificially low in order to increase Kindle adoption and grab market share.

As ebook market share increases, Amazon will reach the point where they can no longer sell them at a loss and so they are playing hardball so that when that time comes, publishers will have to reduce wholesale prices rather than Amazon having to increase retail prices. Publishing runs on a narrow margin and having to take a 50% cut in revenue from the ebook versions of their most profitable books would kill them - especially as ebook sales start to rise.

This is simple self-defense.

Exactly. I do not understand why people here think Amazon is the good guy here.

[mcl]

Originally Posted by tompe

Exactly. I do not understand why people here think Amazon is the good guy here.

Because Amazon is the one entity involved here that's not trying to take 50% more money out of our pockets.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by mcl

Because Amazon is the one entity involved here that's not trying to take 50% more money out of our pockets.

But they are in the long run and in the process they will destroy publishing and cause less good books to be published.

I also find it very strange when people here complains about $15. That is what I have to pay for English paper backs when postage is included or when buying locally. And since English paper backs is what I mostly read that is my standard price.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

The problem here is not that content producers think that they are immune to the laws of economics - it's that they know that they are NOT immune to the laws of economics. Amazon has been holding bestseller prices artificially low in order to increase Kindle adoption and grab market share.

As ebook market share increases, Amazon will reach the point where they can no longer sell them at a loss and so they are playing hardball so that when that time comes, publishers will have to reduce wholesale prices rather than Amazon having to increase retail prices. Publishing runs on a narrow margin and having to take a 50% cut in revenue from the ebook versions of their most profitable books would kill them - especially as ebook sales start to rise.

This is simple self-defense.

Boo friggin Hoo.

As technology improves, stuff gets cheaper for the same quality item. This happens because of *gasp* competition in the marketplace and the need for innovation.

You cannot take the cost of producing a widget today, and say those costs will hold constant tomorrow. They won't.

Instead of clinging to an outdated model, Macmillian should be investing in infrastructure to reduce production costs. That would enable them to undercut their competitors, and yet make a larger profit. Hey, competition at work instead of bellyaching about how they can't adapt to the new-fangled whatchamacallit dagnabbit KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!

[mcl]

Originally Posted by tompe

But they are in the long run and in the process they will destroy publishing and cause less good books to be published.

I also find it very strange when people here complains about $15. That is what I have to pay for English paper backs when postage is included or when buying locally. And since English paper backs is what I mostly read that is my standard price.

Sorry, but one does not get to give authors and publishers a pass for only thinking of the short-term gains, and then insist that consumers must focus on the long-term.

/Right now/, Amazon is the only one not trying to take more money out of our pockets. Just like /right now/, Macmillan is raising prices, and /right now/, several outspoken authors are all but demanding we go out and buy books to help feed them and others.

There're many double standards at play here: people let publishers and authors have short-term views, but expect consumers to operate only on the long view. Publishers and authors get to be concerned about money in their pocket, but consumers are evil if they dare speak up about extra money coming out of their pocket. Publishers are allowed to set their own prices, but Amazon is the Devil incarnate when they do it. And so on.