Publishers still missing the point on e-book prices

[John F]

Originally Posted by stonetools

From the point of view of an economist, there is simply zero evidence that agency pricing is hurting Ebook sales, ...

This sounds very interesting. Could you provide a link to the economist's analysis?

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

Hmm... it seems to me that each publisher has a monopoly on each book that they publish. There are not different publishers competing to provide different versions of the same book by the same author.

True, but then few authors write different versions of the same book for publication (not talking about prepublication writing and rewriting ).

But different publishers do publish books on the same topic by different authors. Even the same publisher will publish, for example, several biographies of Abraham Lincoln, each with a different perspective and by different authors.

I suspect that if you could get an author to write the same book but from different perspectives you could get two publishers to publish them. The bottleneck is not the publisher but the author.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

There's the added value publishers are talking about.

Since eBooks don't take any space, they're worth paying more for.

Space on the hard drive, space for the backup(s). Yep, no space at all.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by komugi

Apple's reality distortion field anyone?

Remember when the iPhone 4 came out and Jobs told us that it was the thinnest smartphone? My iPhone 3G is thinner then the iPhone 4.

And then there was Jobs telling us that we were holding the iPhone 4 incorrectly and that caused the signal drops.

And my last point, Jobs telling us that nobody reads and then Apple helps screw with eBooks big time.

Some people are really affected by that Apple reality distortion field to believe all that garbage Apple is known for spewing.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by rhadin

True, but then few authors write different versions of the same book for publication (not talking about prepublication writing and rewriting ).

But different publishers do publish books on the same topic by different authors. Even the same publisher will publish, for example, several biographies of Abraham Lincoln, each with a different perspective and by different authors.

I suspect that if you could get an author to write the same book but from different perspectives you could get two publishers to publish them. The bottleneck is not the publisher but the author.

And then we have authors switching publishers mid-series so you have to buy from say Simon & Schuster and switch to Random House.

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by rhadin

True, but then few authors write different versions of the same book for publication (not talking about prepublication writing and rewriting ).

But different publishers do publish books on the same topic by different authors. Even the same publisher will publish, for example, several biographies of Abraham Lincoln, each with a different perspective and by different authors.

I suspect that if you could get an author to write the same book but from different perspectives you could get two publishers to publish them. The bottleneck is not the publisher but the author.

Not my point, it was that the publishers don't compete over the price of
the same book. Their competition is more as the manufacturers than as
wholesalers or retailers, while MSRPs are probably set for each product with
some regard for gaining a competitive position, the actual price paid by the
consumer is -best- set at the retail level. But, they are not the
actual manufacturers - the authors are. It is the author's efforts and talent
that create the product, readers seldom even care who published a book just
who wrote it. The author is part of the buying equation but not the
publisher.

If the publishing houses were in actual product competition instead of just a
marketing competition, we would have efforts to be known as the house that
provides the highest quality products not just the most marketable.

If the authors could have an open market for their manuscripts and the
publishing houses compete for providing the best book, in the marketplace,
with the authors getting an agreed upon return for each sale, no mater who
is publishing then there would be some competition to create books that are
published better than the competition.

I believe that the publishers will, soon if not already, come to realize that
the marketing of their books is best handled by the retailer, who has a more
direct connection to the consumer. If not, then the authors may end up
coming to grips with the idea that they can make a direct connection to
their readers and be able to market their production independent of the
publishing houses. In any case, the agency publishers now are having to
deal with setting prices, for the real marketplace, they may be finding that
their visions of being able to sell their books at any price they want to be a
pipe dream. Or at least counter productive.

Luck;
Ken

[HansTWN]

I think all this talk about a "monopoly" for each book makes little sense. Except for a few bestsellers or non-fiction books that may be needed by some people for their studies there really is no "need" to buy a particular book.

Different books from the same genre from different authors compete with each other for the same book buyers. It is just that we are in the early stages of the ebook market. Many people just received their first devices and haven't realized yet how bad the quality of some ebooks is. Quality issues will be fixed as production methods are being streamlined.

The problem for consumers is that the agency agreement has eliminated competition on price.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by elcreative

What trees are we saving??? Trees for pulp, to make paper, are planted specifically for that purpose... chop 'em down and plant again (usually more as paper use still increasing) but reducing paper use means less trees planted as there will be no point in planting for unwanted paper production. The endangered trees are NOT used for paper, nobody uses tropical rain forest hardwoods for paper production...

Point One: Not all paper comes from tree "farms." Worldwide, entire virgin forests are being clearcut, and many of them left that way, for paper production. (The cleared land is very popular with cattle ranchers, raising more beef for your dinner table and fast-food franchises.)

Point Two: You can chop down a tree in five minutes. Growing one to completely replace it, and to recover the loss to environment and animal habitats, takes decades.

Point Three: The amount of chemicals, bleaches, oils, energy and clean water used by the average pulp mill is staggering, and those wastes are dumped back into the environment when used up; so the paper-making process is very ecologically damaging.

Point Four: The only reason tropical hardwoods are not used for paper production is that tree harvesters make a higher profit when used as furniture. They are being chopped down all the same.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The problem for consumers is that the agency agreement has eliminated competition on price.

Not completely: Competition has simply shifted from within the major publishers, to the major publishers against the independents. Indie authors like myself are perfectly happy to see the major publishers charge $8, $10, $13, whatever for their books. It makes my $3 books look that much more attractive.

[ProfCrash]

I can say that I do not trust the independent authors. I have not tried a ton but the ones I have, based on peoples recommendations, I have not found to be as enjoyable as the books I buy from the Publishers. It is clear that there is a huge benefit to having an editor and a proof reader. I can see potential in some of the books that I read but they all needed some degree of help.

I am not willing to troll through the thousands of independent authors books to take a guess and hope that the book is good and that it was proof read. I have a feeling that I am not the only one out there. I might be missing out on some gems but the but the recommended ones I read where not what I want to spend my time reading.

To be fair, there are many main stream authors who are large enough names that their editors seem to become afraid of dealing with their works honestly, GRR Martin is one, and so the works grow to become unwieldy and are no where near as good as their original works. Never mind trying to deal with deadlines.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I think all this talk about a "monopoly" for each book makes little sense. Except for a few bestsellers or non-fiction books that may be needed by some people for their studies there really is no "need" to buy a particular book.

This is right. The manufacturer of the particular shoe I'm wearing at the moment has a "monopoly" on that particular model. If I want to buy a shoe made by Giesswein, I have to deal with that manufacturer.

Monopoly means having control over a market, not one product in the market.

The problem for consumers is that the agency agreement has eliminated competition on price.

Actually, I would say that the problem for consumers is that the agency agreement has eliminated competition on price *and raised the price over what it used to be.*

ITunes also uses an agency model where the prices are set by publishers, but you tend not to hear the same kind of complaints about lack of competition on price with respect to song tracks because people generally accept that these prices are reasonable. Similarly, if the publishers introduced agency pricing a priced new bestsellers at $9, no one would complain about lack of price competition; people would complain about how Amazon has ripped them off for years with its $10 pricing.

So I don't think that most people who complain about agency pricing are actually complaining about the agency part of the price. They are complaining about the price part of the price.

[FuzzyPuffin]

(haven't read this entire thread, so apologies if I repeat anyone)

To echo a bit what Andrew H. is saying, I believe the publishing industry would do well to try to emulate the success of iTunes (given we have Apple to blame for the high eBook prices, this is slightly ironic). How? Make the experience as pleasant:
--"impulse buy" level prices. Something like 9.99 for new releases, 4.99 otherwise.
--DRM-free, watermarking only.
--iTunes makes no distinction between what I have bought on CD, on Amazon, or from them. It's just one library, anywhere I go. I like that. Consumers like that. It's harder to achieve a similar "all digital" library without rebuying or resorting to piracy (although personally, I have no qualms pirating a book that I've bought on paper.) To fix this, publishers should:
--include codes for the digital version with all physical books, similar to what the movie industry does.
--In cooperation with Amazon, introduce "Amazon Match," ala iTunes Match, for books. (Maybe call it Whispersync Pro). Users pay Amazon $24.99 a year, a large portion of which goes to the publishers. Your entire eBook library (pirated or not) gets scanned. Now, you have Kindle versions of all your books that sync automatically to all your devices.

Irrespective of what the publishers do, Amazon (and other eReader companies) should:
--Polish the hell out of their e-ink readers so they are as pleasant to use as iPods. Hardware is getting there, but the software could use work. Hire some UI talent.
--Make Mac & PC software similar to iTunes. I should be able to buy Kindle books from the app, create Collections effortlessly, and sync my local library over wifi. The app should make no distinction between non-Kindle and Kindle books.

However, simply emulating iTunes is not enough. Books are closer to movies in that we usually consume them only once. Owning is not as compelling. A Netflix-esque subscription service would fix this problem. (Apple doesn't have this for their movies, which is why it's not nearly as a success as music. That, and the prices are too high.)

[raac]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Space on the hard drive, space for the backup(s). Yep, no space at all.

It's not "no space at all" but the space they consume is, effectively, insignificant. The average epub must be about 500kb. 5000 of them should take up under 3 gigs. Even on a small laptop hard-drive that's negligible and it easily fits on a USB stick. In comparison, 5000 physical books would present storage challenge.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

I can say that I do not trust the independent authors. I have not tried a ton but the ones I have, based on peoples recommendations, I have not found to be as enjoyable as the books I buy from the Publishers. It is clear that there is a huge benefit to having an editor and a proof reader. I can see potential in some of the books that I read but they all needed some degree of help.

I am not willing to troll through the thousands of independent authors books to take a guess and hope that the book is good and that it was proof read. I have a feeling that I am not the only one out there. I might be missing out on some gems but the but the recommended ones I read where not what I want to spend my time reading.

Reading samples may cut down on the lower quality offerings. Annoying, I know. I also look at the author's bio. If the book's subject corresponds to their day job or previous career then I may take a look at it.

[transmitthis]

"Added Value"?

Can you resell an ebook... like you can a physical, no so their value is greatly diminished.

Strictly speaking, they are selling you licences to read.