Book prices, Ebook prices - Value

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by kjk

An eBook is worth more to me than a hardcopy as well-because I can carry my library wherever I go.

And of course, a non-DRMed eBook is worth even more.

A non-DRMed e-book that is more than an unfinished, virtually unformatted manuscript would be worth even more.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

A non-DRMed e-book that is more than an unfinished, virtually unformatted manuscript would be worth even more.

They definitely need to get the quality up-can you imagine if digital music or movies came with as many reported flaws as eBooks?

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by zacheryjensen

Consumers feel they are entitled to the opportunity to buy new books, as though they are a commodity that can be produced at will regardless of who is on the other end doing the work.

Do you think that this might be that since at least the 1930s some new books have been commodities produced at will regardless of who is on the other end doing the work?

[tnronin]

I think we look at the problem from an egocentric view. Ebooks are just gravy (at the start) for the publishers. If they sell great, if they don't they are not out anything.

IMO the true cost of the ebook for the publisher is reflected in the price. This is a clue to me that they are overcharging. The price is set partially by the motivation of the publisher to sell. They KNOW that if they priced the ebook lower it would sell more. Yet, they are not MOTIVATED to sell.

why?

I know from a personal perspective within the gun business (I sell OEM parts when I'm not teaching) that my motivation to sell a product I make is related to the cost of making my product. If I have a product that doesn't cost me much I am not as motivated to sell it as I would something that cost me a lot. From this perspective we know what the true cost of "publishing" an ebook is IMHO.

Therefore they can charge whatever they want. I think we are in a good old fashion Mexican standoff. We vote with our pocketbooks, but can we hold off until the prices are in line with the "value" of the book?

I also believe there is a balance between price and their cost for bandwidth, IT, etc. I don't know what it is, but I do know that it isn't what it is now.

[djloewen]

I'd like to throw in here that my wife bought her Sony Reader in December of last year, and in the 12 months following she read just over 300 books - yes, almost a book a day. She never puts her reader down. So, if she's paying for all those books and the price goes from $10 to $15 per book, that's an extra $1500/year (total $4500/year) she's spending on books.

The idea that a (new) book has a perceived "value" that should sit at around the $15 mark is, in my opinion, disgusting. It is elitist, and it harms the culture of any country the believes it. Art, and culture is meant to be accessible to people. That's why we have libraries - and with these prices going up, am I ever glad we have them.

Authors want their books to be read, to be accessible to people. Artificially inflating a price to give the product a higher perceived "value" may work in some industries, but when it comes to culture that's just disgusting.

EDIT: and yes, one of the things I love about digital culture is that we have the power to object. If we want culture, and it's being held for ransom, we can just take it anyway. Hell, if it makes you feel guilty, download the book for free and mail the author a $10 bill.

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by djloewen

I'd like to throw in here that my wife bought her Sony Reader in December of last year, and in the 12 months following she read just over 300 books - yes, almost a book a day. She never puts her reader down. So, if she's paying for all those books and the price goes from $10 to $15 per book, that's an extra $1500/year (total $4500/year) she's spending on books.

The idea that a (new) book has a perceived "value" that should sit at around the $15 mark is, in my opinion, disgusting. It is elitist, and it harms the culture of any country the believes it. Art, and culture is meant to be accessible to people. That's why we have libraries - and with these prices going up, am I ever glad we have them.

Authors want their books to be read, to be accessible to people. Artificially inflating a price to give the product a higher perceived "value" may work in some industries, but when it comes to culture that's just disgusting.

could you please inform artists that they must price their paintings at somewhere around cost of materials + enough to pay their mortgage on a small property. Im tired of not being able to buy works of art due to teh ones i like costing Millions! It is elitist and harms culture.

Also could you have a word with musicians, oh and film makers too please

I dont get why you have an issue NOW all of a sudden? a New book has for the last 5 or 6 years had a perceived value of well over $15 why did it not bother you when it was a 60% mark up on hardnacks? but now its a %30 mark up on ebooks by the publisher(those are not actual figures btw but do show taht publishers have always sold books at what they believe they will sell for).

[djloewen]

Originally Posted by stustaff

could you please inform artists that they must price their paintings at somewhere around cost of materials + enough to pay their mortgage on a small property. Im tired of not being able to buy works of art due to teh ones i like costing Millions! It is elitist and harms culture.

Also could you have a word with musicians, oh and film makers too please

I dont get why you have an issue NOW all of a sudden? a New book has for the last 5 or 6 years had a perceived value of well over $15 why did it not bother you when it was a 60% mark up on hardnacks? but now its a %30 mark up on ebooks by the publisher(those are not actual figures btw but do show taht publishers have always sold books at what they believe they will sell for).

Paintings need not apply, they are unique works. Music and movies, however, I feel the same way about. Note that I didn't say "they should only barely be making enough to live", I said, "don't jack up the price just to make culture seem more valuable". Previously I very rarely purchased hardcover books because of thier steep cost - however, I assumed (perhaps incorrectly, perhaps not) that the price of these books was somewhat related to the cost of printing, distributing, advertising, royalties, and a reasonable profit to the middlemen. Now, as people have pointed out, the costs of the "middlemen" such as publishers have dropped considerably, but they still want their products to be seen as "more valuable". That kind of thinking should abolutely never apply to cultire. Again, I'm not talking about unique items here like paintings and sculptures. I'm talking about "there are as many copies out there as people want" items, like books, movies and music (I am a musician btw).

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by djloewen

Paintings need not apply, they are unique works. Music and movies, however, I feel the same way about. Note that I didn't say "they should only barely be making enough to live", I said, "don't jack up the price just to make culture seem more valuable". Previously I very rarely purchased hardcover books because of thier steep cost - however, I assumed (perhaps incorrectly, perhaps not) that the price of these books was somewhat related to the cost of printing, distributing, advertising, royalties, and a reasonable profit to the middlemen. Now, as people have pointed out, the costs of the "middlemen" such as publishers have dropped considerably, but they still want their products to be seen as "more valuable". That kind of thinking should abolutely never apply to cultire. Again, I'm not talking about unique items here like paintings and sculptures. I'm talking about "there are as many copies out there as people want" items, like books, movies and music (I am a musician btw).

Ok but a print of a painting that has been done as a limited edition of 100 to push price up higher?

Books for me are also not even cultural anyway but entertainment. and much like say video games will and should be priced at a point that the market can afford.

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by djloewen

EDIT: and yes, one of the things I love about digital culture is that we have the power to object. If we want culture, and it's being held for ransom, we can just take it anyway. Hell, if it makes you feel guilty, download the book for free and mail the author a $10 bill.

It's tempting sometimes. I almost wish that ebook stores came with a button for "donate money to author and search torrents" or something like that

[djloewen]

Originally Posted by stustaff

Ok but a print of a painting that has been done as a limited edition of 100 to push price up higher?

Books for me are also not even cultural anyway but entertainment. and much like say video games will and should be priced at a point that the market can afford.

Limited editions are a fun idea, and certainly appeal to collectors. There are limited editions of CDs and DVDs as well that are priced at a premium, and there's a market for those things. But for those who can't afford it, there are almost always reasonably priced alternatives. If I released a music album and my label decided to only release a limited-edition, premium-priced version I'd be seriously pissed. I'm not in the market to try to squeeze dollars out of my fans. Yes I'm trying to make money, yes it's a busness, but I'm an artist because I love what I do and I want as many people to hear it as possible.

The "art vs entertainment" issue is a very interesting one. In books, movies and music you'll find examples that are solidly art, or solidly entertainment, or a blend of the two. They appeal to different tastes, of course. But the idea of pricing at "what the market can afford" is awkward for a number of reasons. First, yes books are culture, and yes they should be accessible to as many people as possible. Second: I rent movies regularly, and I buy about three a year. The ones I buy, I love, and I'm willing to pay even $30 on a blu-ray if that's what they're charging. Again, I'm assuming that cost somewhat relates to the factors I listed earlier. Books, on the other hand, I buy and then I read once. That's it. And between my wife and I, we read about 350 a year (300 her, 50 me). If the market price is set by the highest that people are willing to pay if they read say 10 books a year, then aren't we being punished for liking books as much as we do?

[mcl]

* Ebooks do not have to be printed

* Ebooks do not have to be stored in warehouses

* Ebooks do not have to be physically shipped to various locations across the country and world

* Unsold Ebooks do not need to be returned to the publisher

* Ebooks do not need to be destroyed once returned

* Ebooks apparently undergo far less scrutiny than printed material, judging by the number of typos and other such errors present in them.

* Ebooks cannot be lent or resold the way a physical book can be, thus increasing the potential market for both ebooks and paperback books by eliminating the secondary market



These are the reasons I believe an ebook shouldn't cost as much as the physical object, and definitely why I don't believe they should cost more than $9.99.

[Daithi]

Here is the bottom line as I see it. There are cost savings in ebooks over paper based books. An ebook does not have printing, paper, binding, distribution, warehousing, and overstock returns costs (typically 30% of the cost of a book). An ebook also never goes out of print, and used copies can't be resold. This savings in cost had been passed to the consumer. The authors were also benefiting, because regardless of whether a paper or ebook was sold they earned the same dollar amount per book, and since ebooks were cheaper they were selling more books. Now the publishers are requiring Amazon to sell their books at the same price as Amazon sells a typical hardcover -- a quick check Amazon's price for their top 100 books will show you that all their hardcovers are being sold for around $15. So in effect, the publishers are now taking the cost savings that had been going to consumers and authors.

[Boston]

For me, the added value of an ebook was paid for when I purchased an ebook reader.

While I prefer reading an ebook over paper, I refuse to spend more on a product that may have a limited life (due to changing formats/drm/technologies), that I cannot freely pass along/resell/donate and costs less to create/distribute.

I have a few books in my Amazon wishlist that I won't buy because the ebook is the same as paper. Just priniciple. Unless the ebook price drops, chances are that I will either 1) buy it on the used market 2) buy it when paper goes bargain priced or 3) never get around to buying it at all.

So the recent dispute won't change my purchasing behavior but perhaps make others more aware.

[djloewen]

To expand a bit on what Daithi said: Amazon, apparently, was (still is, other than Macmillan) buying the books from the publisher at 50% hardcover price. That right there was the problem - and Amazon had to do it.

See, when ebooks first came along, publishers weren't motivated to switch to ebooks because they don't understand technology, they're terrified of "piracy" (yes those quotes are deliberate, but that's another topic), and they don't like messing with a system that's worked for years. I get it. The same thing has happened (is happening) with music and movies. So they charge an exorbitant price to distributors for ebooks because they don't want to do it anway. It's like an actor asking $20mil to do a movie - he doesn't want to do it so he jacks up his price, and if they're willing to pay him, good for him. Amazon (and others, of course), on the other hand, understands that if they don't start selling ebooks someone else will anyway, and there are huge advantages to marking your territory and establishing a customer base as early as possible. So Amazon (and others) have been getting screwed already, sometimes even selling books at a loss.

Who should be deciding the final price, the publisher or the distributor? The major difference is that if the publisher decides, all distributors are equal, and the publisher can charge whatever they want. That just flat-out won't work. It's not fair to the artists, it's not fair to the readers, and it's not fair to the culture of the country. If the distributor chooses the price then there's competition, which is a good thing.

That said, while the consumers get (got?) the benefit of that competition, the distributors are/were still getting screwed because they were still paying an artificially jacked up price for the ebooks in the first place. The distributors should again drop Macmillan's catalogue (just ebooks this time), but all do it together, not just Amazon. They need to tell the publishing industry "now that you see the benefit of ebooks, now that you actually want a piece of technology, stop screwing us, or you'll be stuck selling paperbacks while the other publishers sell ebooks".

-The old system was fantastic for publishers, good for artists, good for consumers, bad for distributors.
-Macmillan/Apple's system is fantastic for publishers, bad for artists, bad for consumers, and good(profit)/bad(fewer customers) for distributors.
-Keeping Amazon's old business model but lowering the price they pay to publishers would be good for publishers, good for artists, good for consumers, good for distributors.

Just a thought

[djloewen]

Originally Posted by Boston

For me, the added value of an ebook was paid for when I purchased an ebook reader.

That's another excellent point. The "perceived value" of a physical book is its cover price. The "perceived value" of an ebook is in not just its price, but also the cost of a reading device. It's seen by people as a high-end, premium option for reading, made worth it by the convenience factor. So Macmillan, seriously, shove it.