Ebooks: Scarcity, abundance and economy

[Rhialto]

Personally I don't really care about a potential reduction in new books being written. My to read e-book pile is in the hundreds, including many classics I never got round to, and will likely have to wait for my retirement before I can make serious inroads. Reduction in author revenues due to saturation of the market should eventually lead to fewer new bad e-books being written.

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

That glee is short lived euphoria (then again, in the long run, we're all dead) once we start to realize that nothing new is written. Look at what happened in the music industry, lots and lots of covers, not a so much new and innovative scores coming out. If you can't make money off it there is really no impetus other than to indulge your personal ego. Most readers get tired fast of pamphleteering.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I wouldn't.
Unless you're targetting Bollywood.

Compared to writing a book in a market of abundance the advantage of writing movie scripts is that you are ensured payment if you can sell it. It is entirely possible to write a hugely popular book today and not receive much pecuniary return for it. I'm not saying it is happening, just that it is possible. Not possible with a movie script that is accepted.

I belive that something like this happned on Reddit. Someone started to write about what would happen if a battalion of Marines suddenly were transformed to Roman times and had to fight Ceasar's army. What started out as a free book, encouraged by the Reddit community, ended up as a movie script in the making. The simple reason being that it was the easiest way for the writer to ensure payment. Redditors were willing to pay the guy to continue his publication on Reddit, but they simply weren't enough to sustain his writing.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by Rhialto

Personally I don't really care about a potential reduction in new books being written. My to read e-book pile is in the hundreds, including many classics I never got round to, and will likely have to wait for my retirement before I can make serious inroads. Reduction in author revenues due to saturation of the market should eventually lead to fewer new bad e-books being written.

What you say is a perfect example on the downward pressure to a price line of zero. You are satisified with the existent abundance and not concerned with future entries into the market, hence your stand is entirely rational and it will be the primary reason we will have very little new literature in 50 - 70 years.

[abookreader]

I would argue that there is an abundance of e-books, but perhaps a shortage of differentiated ebooks.

For instance, if you want to write a sparkly vampire book clone go ahead, but don't expect me to be willing to pay $7.99/$12.99/$14.99 for it. In fact, don't expect me to be willing to pay for it at all because I already have enough unread sparkly vampire clone books to last me the rest of my life and there are thousands more sitting out there at 99cents or less in various sources.

But if you want to write something that genre that is new and refreshing AND you grab the attention of the gatekeepers I trust - I few blogs, a few Goodreads groups etc - then I have a paypal account and I'm willing to consider.

I think that authors looking to break out of the pack need to do something to break out of the pack. So many authors and publishers today are just regurgitating past successes and hoping to catch the tale end of a trend. If you liked x, then you are going to LOVE y.

I realize that marketing is a tough task for most authors now. You are one in a million screaming for attention. Finding a way out of that difficulty is probably just as hard, if not harder, than writing a good book to begin with.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The more voracious the reader, the more likely they are to treat books as commodities, the more likely that they want to be reading *something* rather than "this particular thing." The "Big 6" publishers seem to miss that point entirely. Of course, they also seem to think that "voracious reader" means "15 books/year," so their conclusions are understandably skewed.

I hadn't thought of the subject in these terms, but now that you state it, it is clear to me that this is right on target.

I tend to think of fiction books as commodities and I read 1 to 3 novels a week (on average). Nonfiction, for me, fills a different role and I do not think of nonfiction books in the same terms as fiction.

In the case of fiction, I do have authors I prefer, but if they are not available, someone else will do just as well. I do not think -- or read or buy -- in terms of "either its Stephen King or no one" in the horror genre.

In viewing the overall theme of this thread -- scarcity vs. abundance -- the idea that abundance affects price (lowering it) can only be true, I think, if one accepts that the item in abundance is a commodity (or substitutable); otherwise it would fall in the scarcity column and not be subject to price whims.

In this argument, I firmly come down on the commodity side of the equation (and, yes, I realize we are not/I am not using commodity in the true economic sense of the term) as regards ebooks. If an author A ebook isn't available, I'll find an ebook by some other author and be just as satisfied. So for me, price is an important, albeit not dominating, consideration.

A good example occurred just yesterday. I started a book by Megg Jensen, Anathema, that I "bought" sometime in recent months for free. I bought it because it looked interesting and it was free; I probably would have passed over it at $2.99. I found the book so good that I immediately returned to Smashwords and bought the other two books in the trilogy, Oubliette and Severed, for $3.99 and $4.49, respectively.

My point is this: The first book, Anathema, was a commodity, so price mattered. The other two books were no longer commodities but fit in the scarce column, even though technically not scarce, because I had a reason for wanting them and not substitutes. Price mattered significantly less, although there was a threshold over which I would not go to buy the books.

eBooks are a mix in the equation and can change their status based on whether they are causal or must-have reads.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by abookreader

I would argue that there is an abundance of e-books, but perhaps a shortage of differentiated ebooks...

It may just seem that way, since there are so many books out there in all genres that clone books would naturally be more numerous.

Originally Posted by abookreader

I think that authors looking to break out of the pack need to do something to break out of the pack. So many authors and publishers today are just regurgitating past successes and hoping to catch the tale end of a trend. If you liked x, then you are going to LOVE y.

I realize that marketing is a tough task for most authors now. You are one in a million screaming for attention. Finding a way out of that difficulty is probably just as hard, if not harder, than writing a good book to begin with.

Unfortunately, it seems most of the content sellers (like Amazon) use that "If you liked x, then you are going to LOVE y" system exclusively, even if it's only based on purchases by others.

I agree about getting noticed: I often feel like an individual independent author is like a kernel of corn in a stew: Not only does he need to get noticed among all the other corns and vegetables that float to the surface; but he needs to be noticed among the huge pieces of meat and potatoes that are the famous writers and major publishers. And for every corn you see on the surface of the stew, there are many more kernels just below the surface that are completely obscured.

I feel like most of my works are fairly unique... but being too unique might make it harder to be found, and therefore counter-productive. At least sparkly vampire books have the advantage of being in right now, and so they get some notice.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by rhadin

A good example occurred just yesterday. I started a book by Megg Jensen, Anathema, that I "bought" sometime in recent months for free. I bought it because it looked interesting and it was free; I probably would have passed over it at $2.99. I found the book so good that I immediately returned to Smashwords and bought the other two books in the trilogy, Oubliette and Severed, for $3.99 and $4.49, respectively.

My point is this: The first book, Anathema, was a commodity, so price mattered. The other two books were no longer commodities but fit in the scarce column, even though technically not scarce, because I had a reason for wanting them and not substitutes. Price mattered significantly less, although there was a threshold over which I would not go to buy the books.

The books really weren't scarce, then: They were at first unknown to you, until you found and read Anathema; then they became known quantities, and desired by you based on the similar book. Being known could be considered a subset of abundance/scarcity: Without it, it doesn't matter whether it is scarce or abundant; but in either case, it is the key to rising above the scarce and abundant.

[speakingtohe]

I stopped buying new books a long time ago. Not that I didn't want them or that I would not pay for them but as a fast reader who seldom reread, the books started costing more in storage/shipping than I wanted to invest. I packed up my books to move once and there were 18 large boxes.

Ebooks are a financial boon to the author in that in that those 18 boxes can be put on a thumb drive. Despite DRM concerns etc. people can afford to keep them space-wise and carry them around in their pocket.

Unfortunately (for the author) I am mentally locked into the library system and rarely buy books, but newer or more affluent readers are more apt to continue to buy books regularly when they don't have to worry about storing or moving them. And I have bought several ebooks recently so there is even a small market from people like me who have been going the second hand/library route.

Possibly I have started to buy books again because I want to pay authors for the enjoyment I get and have gotten from their books. And if there are publishers involved they should get compensation as well as they helped make the enjoyment received possible.

Helen

[Penforhire]

Mike, when I said we'd make it up in volume I was thinking of the worldwide English-reading market and being perpetually available, more than the price reduction.

I agree with you that my reading is time-limited not wallet-limited. Most paper books are only marketed regionally. E-books can be easily sold globally. I realize we're still seeing regional issues (e-stores that won't sell to you because you live 'there') but there is less barrier to overcome on-line than there is in paper. So our pool of prospective readers is larger.

My local major bookstores would not always stock the books I wanted to read since I was following a particular author or series. If it isn't fast-moving inventory a physical store has to drop it off the shelves for something that is. On-line the most obscure texts remain indexed and available essentially forever. That has to net more sales over an author's life than their several weeks of shelf exposure.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Compared to writing a book in a market of abundance the advantage of writing movie scripts is that you are ensured payment if you can sell it. It is entirely possible to write a hugely popular book today and not receive much pecuniary return for it. I'm not saying it is happening, just that it is possible. Not possible with a movie script that is accepted.

Big caveat that last one.

Getting a movie script "accepted" is the video equivalent of getting a traditional publishing contract with a big enough advance that sales don't matter.
It's winning the gatekeeper's lottery.
For every movie script that gets "accepted" there are a thousand that languish in a drawer, generating zero interest and zero reward for the writer.

Screenplays are all-or-nothing propositions.
And Hollywood movies are moving that way; either the movie gets a big turnout on opening weekend or it is doomed to failure, regardless of the movie's quality. Get the right "buzz" and even a crap movie wins the jackpot; fail to stroke the fancy of the right reviewers and even a good movie could be gone in two weeks.
Not a business to be in if you're looking for steady employment.
Not right now.

[BeccaPrice]

Books to me are not fungible. If I'm in the mood for Nora Roberts, and there aren't any new ones available, I'm not going to go read Fern Michaels, even though they both write romance, because i couldn't get through the one Fern Michaels book I tried, and have no intention of trying any others of hers. I'm more likely to re-read a favorite NR - or switch genres entirely and read Lois Bujold.

Is this scarcity thinking or abundance thinking? I'm not sure it's either.

[carpetmojo]

I don't think it has been mentioned, but surely the relative ease, nowadays, with which you can get an ebook out to the public, as against the "old ways", is bound to lead to an even greater over-abundance .

(Not always of the most original, "well written" , or, well, worth the effort of wading through.)

[carpetmojo]

I don't think it has been mentioned, but surely the relative ease, nowadays, with which you can get an ebook out to the public, as against the "old ways", is bound to lead to an even greater over-abundance .

(Not always of the most original, "well written" , or, well, worth the effort of wading through.)

[Greg Anos]

Steve, if you think the abundance model is limited to the digital creative arts, you haven't seen anything yet....

Trend 1 - ever cheaper solar power. What happens when everybody starts dropping off the grid? And they do it because it's become far cheaper, long term, that being on the grid. (What do power companies do?)

Trend 2 - digital printers. What happens when it's cheaper and easier to (re)build your gadget with your digital printer. (Will gadgets become Heathkits all over again?) Maybe not, but...a completely customized gadget done to your taste? A real possiblilty.

Trend 3 - Cheap robotics. Robotics is about where PC's were in 1974. It'll take longer to progress than PC's did, but if you think they'll be limited to factories and big corporations, you'll be wrong. (Coming someday - Robocook, who cooks just as fine of meals as a resturant. Or a robot that can repair a car. Or a group of 3-4 that can build a house.)

Trend 4 - (This one's almost here) Robotic controlled tranportation. (Look ma, no driver!) This one's being worked on by Google and it's already being tested on the roads of California and Nevada. They expect to have it released to the public in 5 years.

All these trends have one thing in common, they lead away from the mass consumption paradym. Buy and throw away may be scandalous 30 years from now. You see than (in a sense) in the digital media today. People who buy (as opposed to those who rent) don't throw their digital goods away. It'll come in handy someday, doesn't cost anything further, and takes up a tiny amount of space...

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Steve, if you think the abundance model is limited to the digital creative arts, you haven't seen anything yet....

All of the trends you listed are good indications of technological advances that will change the paradigm in one way or another. They are similar to the abundance model in that way, but they are all still limited to physical objects that must be built at some cost, and take up space. The trends you listed would fit these models:

Trends 1 and 2: Decentralized production (of power and goods)

Trends 3 and 4: Personalized physical automation (to go with the personalized electronic automation we already have)

In decentralized production, companies will still be able to sell consumers the equipment and materials needed to produce. It should save consumers money, unless some government/organization enacts some draconian controls over the equipment or materials access. Personalized physical automation will hopefully save time and lives.

Abundance has the potential to save consumers money... or it could become a money sink, taking your money in tiny bits for each thing you buy. Hard to tell which way that will go, and it depends on how products are paid for (an advertising model over abundance could make digital products essentially free, and encourage buying of other products, like the ad model of television).