The best thing for books is more power to Amazon

[Apache]

Let the discussion begin. I for one agree with this.
Apache

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/best-t...183232178.html

[Article removed. News articles cannot be quoted in their entirety because of copyright concerns.]

[eschwartz]

After seeing this: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=244078

I am now as wholeheartedly supportive of anything that utterly destroys publishers in any way possible, as I am ever likely to get. </shudder>

Trust me, you don't want to follow that link. It will give you nightmares.

[fjtorres]

http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...te-battle.aspx

The motley Fool agrees on similar finance-driven terms.

Numbers vary, but Amazon generally gives a company 70% of revenue for e-books sold for $9.99 or less. Traditional books are usually sold to retailers at 50%-55% below the cover price. Amazon might pay publishers less for print books in some cases, and it may have a better deal when it comes to returning physical books than most booksellers do, but it's hard to argue that digital sales aren't less risky and more profitable for all involved.

Now, excuse me while I go hide in my fallout shelter before the usual suspects show up.

You're a braver man than I am, Gunga Din.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...te-battle.aspx

The motley Fool agrees on similar finance-driven terms.



Now, excuse me while I go hide in my fallout shelter before the usual suspects show up.

You're a braver man than I am, Gunga Din.

Are you sure you are not going to keep a close watch from your shelter? I usually find most of your posts very informative. Definitely worth reading.

[sirmaru]

Amazon is gaining power in the book industry because they offer value to the customer. That formula works in every industry.

For that very reason I don't use apple but I do use Netflix, Samsung and Dell.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Apache

Let the discussion begin. I for one agree with this.
Apache

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/best-t...183232178.html

[Article removed. News articles cannot be quoted in their entirety because of copyright concerns.]

Let's just say that when an article starts with a gross inaccuracy like that one (hint, agency pricing hasn't been in place for over two years, so Amazon _has_ been setting prices for the past two years), I tend to be rather skeptical of it. After reading through it, it seems to me that the whole article can be summed up with the phrase "Amazon knows best". While I'm sure Amazon knows what's best for Amazon, I'm not so sure that Amazon knows or cares what is best for everyone else in the mix.

[Apache]

Amazon wants to sell more volume through lower prices. I agree with that. Selling 1,000,000 books for less money will make for a larger profit over selling 250,000 books for full price.
Apache

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Let's just say that when an article starts with a gross inaccuracy like that one (hint, agency pricing hasn't been in place for over two years, so Amazon _has_ been setting prices for the past two years), I tend to be rather skeptical of it.

And it ends the same way!

To be fair, however, if a generous reader mentally fixes those errors, the thesis isn't much helped or harmed.

The two scholarly links are worth reading -- the one from 2012 because you don't need a graduate degree to understand the statistics, and the one from 2013 because it has more information, and is as much about the future as the past.

One can find quotes from either to support or oppose claims in the OP article, and in threads like this one.

This idea, from page 4 of the 2013 article, was new to me:

if Kindle price is low, it is better for the publishers to set a high ebook price to recover from the cannibalization loss. If the Kindle price is high, publishers can safely set a relatively low ebook price and still benefit from selling both ebooks and print books.

It is illustrated by a chart on page 35.

The context of the above quotation is lowering Kindle prices during the agency pricing period, but it seems to me likely true going forward.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Apache

Selling 1,000,000 books for less money will make for a larger profit over selling 250,000 books for full price.

But what if you sell 250,000 books for full price and then lower the price the to the point where people will buy another 750,000? Won't that make a larger profit or -- if we are talking about a book with a multi-million dollar advance -- a lesser loss than if the lower price was charged from the start?

However, maybe you weren't thinking that the million books were all the same titles, and were thinking that the lower prices are spread across the entire market life of the books, during which prices change. In that case, lots more variables are going to come into play. You could then be right, but I don't see how we would know it.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

But what if you sell 250,000 books for full price and then lower the price the to the point where people will buy another 750,000? Won't that make a larger profit or -- if we are talking about a book with a multi-million dollar advance -- a lesser loss than if the lower price was charged from the start?

However, maybe you weren't thinking that the million books were all the same titles, and were thinking that the lower prices are spread across the entire market life of the books, during which prices change. In that case, lots more variables are going to come into play. You could then be right, but I don't see how we would know it.

That works too -- if the other 750,000 are eagerly waiting for the book to drop in price, rather than going and buying something else within minutes. There is no guarantee that they will ever so much as recheck the prices.

And if we are speaking only of the two or three books that *everyone* gets, then it is indeed better business to overcharge and reap the benefits of a lot of impatient consumers. But this argument is not and was never about only pricing the top two or three books higher -- it is about doing so as a general policy across the ebook industry. The number of books that is irreplaceable is minuscule, and if it isn't irreplaceable, it's going to get replaced.

[jersysman]

Seems like the same arguments have just moved over to this thread.

[Apache]

I own my own business and I feel that I should be able to set my own retail price for the items I sell. The wholesaler is getting what he wants when I pay him. He should not be able to dictate what I want to sell the items for.
Apache

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Apache

I own my own business and I feel that I should be able to set my own retail price for the items I sell. The wholesaler is getting what he wants when I pay him. He should not be able to dictate what I want to sell the items for.
Apache

Exactly!

[crossi]

Originally Posted by Apache

I own my own business and I feel that I should be able to set my own retail price for the items I sell. The wholesaler is getting what he wants when I pay him. He should not be able to dictate what I want to sell the items for.
Apache

This goes for everything as far as I'm concerned. I bought a house, the seller has no say in what I might turn around and sell it for, wether I double my money or give it away. It's my business not his.

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by crossi

This goes for everything as far as I'm concerned. I bought a house, the seller has no say in what I might turn around and sell it for, wether I double my money or give it away. It's my business not his.

Let me sell your house. I'll give you 70% of the proceeds. You want how much? No, I'm sorry, I don't think houses should cost that much.