Why should authors not have some control over the price their books are sold for?

[DMSmillie]

I'm interested to know what people think about authors having a direct say in the price their books sell for, and whether or not their books are discounted by retailers (note: I'm talking here about indie authors who publish independently, not those who publish via a "mainstream" publishing house).

The thread in the "News" forum about Smashwords switching to an agency pricing model indicates that even when it's the authors themselves seeking greater control over the price of their own books, not everyone here is in favour. I'm interested to know why that is?

It seems to me that it doesn't preclude any possibility of books being discounted by one retailer or another - just that they'll have to come up with a reasonable deal for the author to persuade them to agree. There would, surely, still be possibilities for competition between retailers, with resulting benefits for consumers? There's also the fact that indie authors, to a large extent, compete with each other on price, and, if I understand it correctly, compared to those signed up with mainstream publishers, there's a much more direct correlation between book price and the income it generates for the author.

But I'm bound to be missing things that others have thought of, so I'd be really interested to hear what others think.

- Donna

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by DMSmillie

I'm interested to know what people think about authors having a direct say in the price their books sell for, and whether or not their books are discounted by retailers (note: I'm talking here about indie authors who publish independently, not those who publish via a "mainstream" publishing house).

I'm all in favor of authors having control. If they have an exaggerated opinion of the value of their work, they won't sell. The challenge for any author is producing work people will value enough to pay a decent amount for it.

The thread in the "News" forum about Smashwords switching to an agency pricing model indicates that even when it's the authors themselves seeking greater control over the price of their own books, not everyone here is in favour. I'm interested to know why that is?

Two reasons I can think of:

1) The words "agency pricing" produce a gut level negative response that precludes further rational thought.

2) Lots of folks simply want their ebooks cheap, and are deaf to any explanations of why that may not be possible (like, authors who would like to make at least minimum wage for the hours they put into the work, never mind publishers that would like to stay in business.)

Yes, some indie and self-published authors price very cheap. For many, writing appears to be a hobby, and if they can get their work out there and make enough to cover their expenses, they're happy. Other folks would like to make some actual money writing, and you don't do that with low ball prices.

As a rule, you get what you're willing to pay for. If what you can get for really low prices satisfies you, fine. Personally, the stuff I prefer to read is by authors trying to make part or all of their living doing it. That costs more, but I pay it because it's worth it to me. The authors are providing value I'm willing to pay for.

Donna

______
Dennis

[J. Strnad]

It's all a dog and pony show. There's no quality standard that determines the price of a book. It's just whatever the market will bear.

The author can set whatever price he/she thinks is reasonable, and then it's up to the public to decide to buy, to pirate, or to skip the book completely. God knows there's plenty to read out there.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by DMSmillie

... that even when it's the authors themselves seeking greater control over the price of their own books, not everyone here is in favour. I'm interested to know why that is?

It's bad for consumers, usually considered anti-competitive and clearly forbidden with most other products (where you'll commonly find a manufacture-suggested (!) retail price). In Europe we've had that model for decades (the publisher setting a price that nobody must undersell), with the clear understanding that it stifles competition (but they found that special treatment was warranted for books).

There would, surely, still be possibilities for competition between retailers, with resulting benefits for consumers?

Not based on price, though, which is what matters to most people and is most easily compared (the product being the same).

[JeremyR]

Sure. But at the same time, when they all collude to artificially inflate prices (which is what we've basically seen), it's not really a good thing for consumers.

Especially when e-books basically have no second hand market. People are either just going to turn to piracy, or more likely in the case of indie authors, just not bother at all.

Right now e-books are a burgeoning market, really, at least in terms of mass market adoption. It's just going to drive new people to pirated books, and they are likely going to stay pirating.

[TallMomof2]

As long as the retailers/outlets can discount the books through the use of sales/coupons I have no problem with the authors or setting the price. But when any entity won't allow a product to be sold at any other price than what they set then I have a problem.

[DMSmillie]

Originally Posted by JeremyR

Sure. But at the same time, when they all collude to artificially inflate prices (which is what we've basically seen), it's not really a good thing for consumers.

Indie authors collude to artificially inflate prices?

[Worldwalker]

Why shouldn't the makers of, let's say, ball-point pens be able to determine their selling price? No more competition (remember, competition is bad ... right?). If you want a Bic pen, you pay what the company tells you. Wal-Mart can't sell pens cheaper than Staples, and neither one can sell them cheaper than Peter's Precious Pen Palace.

It's part of the free enterprise system: manufacturers, whether of pens or books, set the wholesale price; retailers pay the wholesale price and set the retail price.

If the authors are selling books -- or pens -- from their website, they're acting as retailers and they can charge whatever they feel like. But when they're selling through a third party, who then resells the items to the public, they're wholesalers, and they should, like any wholesaler, be determining the wholesale price (what they sell the book to Amazon for), but not the retail price (what Amazon sells the book to you for).

It scares me that so many people who laud the free market have no understanding of how it works.

[rhadin]

Interestingly, the floor pricing is now being set by Amazon. Remember when it was the ceiling price of $9.99? Now it is the floor price of $2.99 as a result of the royalty scheme. I expect that we will see a large number of Smashwords' authors raise their prices to the $2.99 floor. I wonder if we should send thank you notes to Bezos

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DMSmillie

I'm interested to know what people think about authors having a direct say in the price their books sell for, and whether or not their books are discounted by retailers (note: I'm talking here about indie authors who publish independently, not those who publish via a "mainstream" publishing house).

I honestly don't see that it makes the slightest difference whether the author is independent, or being published by a publisher.

The argument against it is generally said to be that price fixing is not in the interests of the consumer. Provided that the retailer pays the author (or publisher) a fixed amount, it should be entirely down to the retailer to decide what price to offer the product at. That's the way that the retail market works; why should books be any exception to the normal retail model?

[Jellby]

Substitute farmers for authors, and vegetables for books, and you get an equally valid question, and the answers should be pretty much the same.[*]

The answer is not simple, though. On the one hand, if they sell their products (books or vegetables) to someone else (a publisher or whatever), they sell it and they should not expect to have any particular control on it. On the other hand, it is only sensible that they get angry if something outrageous is done with their products. In principle, both could sell the products to someone else if they are not satisfied with the conditions of some buyer; in practice, the conditions tend to be quite similar anywhere.

[*] Authors get the additional "protection" of copyright and intelectual property, which farmers don't, but that's about the only difference I see now.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Jellby

Substitute farmers for authors, and vegetables for books, and you get an equally valid question, and the answers should be pretty much the same.[*]

The answer is not simple, though. On the one hand, if they sell their products (books or vegetables) to someone else (a publisher or whatever), they sell it and they should not expect to have any particular control on it. On the other hand, it is only sensible that they get angry if something outrageous is done with their products.

I honestly don't see why, I'm afraid. All that should concern an author is being able to fix a WHOLESALE price. What the retailer subsequently chooses to sell the product for is absolutely no concern of the author. The author has been paid his fixed wholesale price, and that's all that should concern him.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I honestly don't see why, I'm afraid. All that should concern an author is being able to fix a WHOLESALE price. What the retailer subsequently chooses to sell the product for is absolutely no concern of the author. The author has been paid his fixed wholesale price, and that's all that should concern him.

+1

I agree with this completely. The authors should be paid a fixed wholesale price, and the retailer should be able to sell it for whatever price they want, even at a loss if they want.

Ultimately though, the consumer sets the price. If it is overpriced, don't purchase it. Once the price becomes reasonable, purchase. This sets the the actual value of the product...

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I honestly don't see why, I'm afraid. All that should concern an author is being able to fix a WHOLESALE price. What the retailer subsequently chooses to sell the product for is absolutely no concern of the author. The author has been paid his fixed wholesale price, and that's all that should concern him.

I was thinking of cases where there is a huge price difference. And then there's legality, there's morality, and there's feelings.

If a publisher sells a book much more expensive than what the author thought, the author could think that he/she didn't get a fair share of the benefits, or he/she could think the book will not reach as many people as he/she would like.

If a publisher sells a book much cheaper or gives it away, the author could think that his/her creation is being "devaluated", especially if the lower price is a consequence of lower quality.

In any case, as you've stated (I believe) many times before, a creator is free to do whatever he/she sees fit with his/her work, and sell it or not for as much money as he/she wants. So, if an author wants to have control on the price a book is sold to the purchasers, he/she can include that in the contract with the publisher (if the publisher can be convinced). Of course, demanding further control after a contract has been signed is a different thing.

[tompe]

I think that if you accept and do not see any problem with authors setting the price you have to do the same for publishers setting the price since ultimately it is the author that give his right to the publisher to set the price.