This is a flawed argument. With e-book sales, no warehouse is needed at all. Publishers could simply reduce the amount of warehouse space they lease as they increased the number of e-books they sold, as with all incremental costs associated with printing traditional books.
Also, the more e-books that are sold, the less the costs will be per book associated with creating those e-books. Since the marginal cost of an e-book is 0, the costs can only go down.
Publisher's have a vested interest in their distributors and retailers. But if the e-book model proves successful, and it WILL be, we're going to see bookstores go the way of music stores and die. (Sorry, it's inevitable.)
E-books are more profitable and the publishers know this. But publishers think that the average consumer is willing to pay more. Don't let them try to tell you otherwise.
That's oversimplifying the issue. You can't simply lease less and less of a building, and that's assuming the publishers don't own their own, which would make it even more difficult.
And where do you get the "pay more". I see the numbers as "pay less".
First, study some basic economics. PROFIT is what's left over AFTER you pay all of your expenses. Or didn't you figure that out after running your corner lemonade stand?...
This is really just rude. And it's totally false.
The analysis *includes* all the major costs and talks about "profit."
The only costs they don't mention are the random ancillary costs that any paper book produces which are figured into the cost of the paper edition. Making an electronic edition on top of that incurs no new costs (other than the $1.28 mentioned), and all those hypothetical costs are already budgeted into the paper copy anyway.
Why don't you read a bit and figure out what you're talking about before you crap all over someone else?
Most movies are "unprofitable", too, yet somehow the film studios just keep on making them!
I believe publishers have an unrealistic idea of how much consumers are willing to pay for an e-book, given the new limitations the typical e-book DRM brings with it. And I believe publishers haven't a clue how many people would like to build considerable e-book collections, but only if e-books are discounted significantly relative to print editions, and not if the e-books look terrible or if the e-books are unavailable for the Mac (hint, hint Amazon!)
IMHO If someone buys the hard bound version of a book, the electronic version should be discounted even more to them--and especially so for technical e-books which are currently way, way, way overpriced.
They do, because the ones that make big money, make really BIG money. That goes to finance other movies, and the hope is that the average will end up as a profit.
whatever the hardcover is the digital should be way cheaper. They say apple grabs 30% - well what about a book store? They probably grab like 50%. Add to that no existant print and inventory fees and you got yourself a free unlimited copies that only need a tiny amount of server space and a lot of bandwidth. $10 bucks is perfect (considering I can't resell this thing like I can a physical book). $15 is pushing it and it would have to be an incredible best seller.
After you re-read the numbers in the article, if you still disagree with them, show us some other numbers you found at a reputable source.
Clearly, the book publishing industry is facing the same challenges that are driving the music industry nuts.
1. For years the music industry kept profit from the musician and charged high prices for vinyl, tape, CD, whatever. They want that to continue. But artists are more frequently refusing to give up profits to Sony/BMG, et al and are using their own labels.
2. Now some artists are finding ways to make a profit on their work while bypassing the "traditional" distribution systems.
3. The average (and in this case I mean under 30 years old) music consumer sees no reason to pay for the older, traditional, more expensive system.
4. THEREFORE THINGS ARE CHANGING RAPIDLY.
5. The sooner the book publishing industry starts to deal with the new reality the less money they will lose to a bunch of people who WILL find ways to share books no matter what kind of laws either the music or book publishing industries try to get enacted.
WAKE UP EVERYONE...THIS IS A NEW WORLD...CHANGE!
This.
The print publishers are trying to hold on to their old school style of distribution just like the big music labels are. Imagine if authors could find a way to get their work out without having to rely on the big publishers?
More and more musicians are self releasing ... and I think the book/mag/newspaper publishers are shitting themselves at the thought of authors doing the same.
The only thing is that it will take longer on the print side than it is on the music side. Audio transfers well to digital via the iPod/iPhone, mp3 players in general. eReaders seem to be a harder sell. People like paper. I know so may people who were happy to do away with CDs ... but god help anyone who tells them to give up books
Well, books are more expensive in most of Western Europe - hardcover bestsellers costing 30-35 EUR (approx. $48) are nothing special. Book pricing (for current titles) is fixed here, so finding a different shop makes no difference. Amazon offers free shipping, but has the same prices - as I have three book stores in walking distance from my home, why not support smaller retailers?
Ok, so I understand why you don't see a problem with talking about list prices. In general in the USA books, especially NYTIMES best sellers are heavily discounted, typically 40% on a new release.
This just points out another problem with the current ebook model. In the current hard back model, the publisher gets his $13, and the retailer can charge anything they want. In fact the retailer can advertise the book as a loss leader, and sell it for $12. No approval needed from the publisher.
In the ebook model, the publisher gets a percentage of the sales price, so for a book to go on sale, requires both the retailer (Apple) and the publisher to agree on a sales price.
Okay, so using the same numbers, and taking into account the criticism below that it's "revenue" and not profit... The publishers are making approximately twice the revenue for eBooks as opposed to paper.
I've worked in the publishing industry before, for over ten years and I'm being really generous here in saying that they are only making double the profit actually. Most of the publishing industry is an inefficient scam-fest, much like the music industry.
The reality is quite different from even these carefully prepared numbers that they "leaked" to the media today. I can guarantee that this is part of a carefully planned PR push, not "straight-shooting" from the publishers as many seem to automatically assume here. For instance the reality of the difference between the "revenue" and the "profit" is rather spurious given that the eBooks are at this point an afterthought and all the ancillary costs are already budgeted out in the paper editions cost. Not to mention the fact that this breakdown is actually talking about costs and is therefore really "profit" and not revenue at all.
Then, as you refuse to believe these numbers, come up with some others that you can point us to that would show you are right, and that these are wrong. Otherwise, you just blowing smoke, as are the others here who just don't want to believe it without showing anything different. I was in the publishing industry as well, and these numbers look ok to me.
And the article certainly isn't B.S. I read the Times article, and they don't publish that kind of info for a lark. They are also a major publisher, you may realize, so they know the numbers.
Sorry, I didn't notice where he lives. I'm sure he is paying what he says!
If the publisher makes $4.05, less office space and electricity, when a hardcover bestseller is sold at $26, what do they make when it is sold for $10 to $15. They are not losing money!
Sorry, but they neglect to say how the cover design, copy editing and other "overhead" is performed in house by workers making between $8-12/hr. Also, the marketing costs will be next to zero for iPad ebook sales as the adds will be placed on an Apple website for free similar to how iTunes works. As for the charges for converting to digital form and re-copyediting, manuscripts are already in digital form and copyedited before it is even before galley proofs (which are now digital docs that are printed for physical review). And when was the last time authors got 22-32% royalties? It's ore like 4-8% on a good day. (Yes some major authors will get more, but the majority of the titles are not written by them.
Bottom line is: WE DO EXPECT THE PRICES TO BE MUCH LOWER THAN FOR HARD COVER.
WE STILL REMEMBER HOW THE MUSIC INDUSTRY RIPPED EVERYONE OFF (EVEN THE MUSICIANS) WHEN CDs CAME OUT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
After the introduction of the iPad gave publishers leverage to raise e-book prices on the Amazon Kindle, a new report states that consumers have "unrealistic expectations" about how low e-book prices should be.
This week, The New York Times provided a breakdown on the economics of producing a book from the publisher's perspective. It noted that while printing costs go away when a book is reproduced in an electronic format, a number of expenses remain, including royalties and marketing.
The report said that while the average hardcover bestseller is $26, the cost to print, store and ship the book is just $3.25. That cost also includes unsold copies returned to the publisher by booksellers.
Publishers get roughly half -- $13 -- of the selling price of a book. But after factoring in payments to the author and the cost of cover design and copy editing, only about $4.05 is left. And, the report noted, that doesn't even include overhead such as office space and electricity.
Under Apple's agreement with publishers for the iBookstore, the hardware maker will keep 30 percent of each book sale, leaving $9.09 for the publisher on a typical $12.99 e-book.
"Out of that gross revenue, the publisher pays about 50 cents to convert the text to a digital file, typeset it in digital form and copy-edit it," the report said. "Marketing is about 78 cents."
Author's royalty can range from $2.27 to $3.25 on an e-book, leaving the publisher with between $4.56 and $4.54, before paying overhead costs. For comparison, under Amazon's $9.99 e-book model, publishers would take in between $3.51 and $4.26 before overhead.
"At a glance, it appears the e-book is more profitable," the report said. "But publishers point out that e-books still represent a small sliver of total sales, from 3 to 5 percent. If e-book sales start to replace some hardcover sales, the publishers say, they will still have many of the fixed costs associated with print editions, like warehouse space, but they will be spread among fewer print copies."
Publishers are also wary of making e-books too cheap for fear of killing off booksellers like Barnes & Noble.
Apple will serve books for the iPad through its iBookstore, due to be a part of the iBooks application for iPad. The software features a 3D virtual bookshelf displaying a user's personal collection, and allows the purchase of new content from major publishers. Like the Kindle, it will offer content from the New York Times Bestsellers list.
The introduction of the iPad has driven publishers to force Amazon into higher prices for new hardcover bestsellers. While books are currently priced at $9.99 on the Kindle, that is expected to rise to between $12.99 and $14.99 by the time the iPad launches later this month.
The charge was led by Macmillan, which was followed soon after by Hachette Book Group and HarperCollins in renegotiating with Amazon.
Last week it was revealed that Amazon frantically phoned publishers as Apple co-founder Steve Jobs gave his keynote introducing the iPad in July.
While publishers had their way and Amazon reluctantly agreed to higher prices, not every bestseller will carry the new, higher premium price. It has been said that while higher prices are an option for publishers, and most new titles will be between $12.99 and $14.99, publishers can also choose to lower prices on select titles.
Profit isn't what's left over after costs? Who knew?
Quote:
The analysis *includes* all the major costs and talks about "profit."
It sure isn't $13 on a $26 book. That's STILL revenue after which costs are deducted.
The final value is $3.51-$4.26 before overhead in the analysis.
Quote:
The only costs they don't mention are the random ancillary costs that any paper book produces which are figured into the cost of the paper edition. Making an electronic edition on top of that incurs no new costs (other than the $1.28 mentioned), and all those hypothetical costs are already budgeted into the paper copy anyway.
Why don't you read a bit and figure out what you're talking about before you crap all over someone else?
Because you're wrong. The cost of producing an ebook isn't simply the additional $1.28 cost over converting it from paper to ebook. Copy editing, cover design, royalties, etc must still be paid and recovered across all editions, hardback, ebook, paperback, etc.
Why? Because each ebook sale is likely a reduction in paper sale. This is why they worry brick and mortar stores like B&N will go under. If ebooks cost zero paper sales there would be zero danger of that.
Handwaving away the total costs of production is silly and you got dinged for it.
The print publishers are trying to hold on to their old school style of distribution just like the big music labels are. Imagine if authors could find a way to get their work out without having to rely on the big publishers?
More and more musicians are self releasing ... and I think the book/mag/newspaper publishers are shitting themselves at the thought of authors doing the same.
The only thing is that it will take longer on the print side than it is on the music side. Audio transfers well to digital via the iPod/iPhone, mp3 players in general. eReaders seem to be a harder sell. People like paper. I know so may people who were happy to do away with CDs ... but god help anyone who tells them to give up books
Sort of like how a band can get their song onto iTunes without a music publisher.
whatever the hardcover is the digital should be way cheaper. They say apple grabs 30% - well what about a book store? They probably grab like 50%. Add to that no existant print and inventory fees and you got yourself a free unlimited copies that only need a tiny amount of server space and a lot of bandwidth. $10 bucks is perfect (considering I can't resell this thing like I can a physical book). $15 is pushing it and it would have to be an incredible best seller.
The hardcover is about twice the price of the ebook even at $13-15 so your wish is granted?
If it is $15 then Apple takes about $4.50 leaving $10.50. If you net out the print costs minus the digitization costs then the publisher gets about $10.20 from the print version at the same point in the cost model.
At a $9.99 gross price, I doubt the publishers were making anything - probably trying to prime the market with their arms twisted by Amazon who wanted to sell Kindles and create a bulwark in the ebook market.
The analysis *includes* all the major costs and talks about "profit."
The only costs they don't mention are the random ancillary costs that any paper book produces which are figured into the cost of the paper edition. Making an electronic edition on top of that incurs no new costs (other than the $1.28 mentioned), and all those hypothetical costs are already budgeted into the paper copy anyway.
What you aren't taking into account is that every sale has to account for all the costs other than the print costs, which aren't very much. So you take the $3 and change away from the price for the e-book price, and instead add the $1.28. Not much of a difference, is there?
Some are assuming that none of the costs associated with the publishing of a book should go to the price of the e-book version, but that's clearly wrong.
The author still gets the advance. After that's paid off (hopefully), (s)he gets the royalty. All the other costs still have to be accounted for as well. And just like other products, most of those costs are paid off early. Hopefully they are paid off before the hardcover goes out of print. That's why later editions are so much cheaper.
None of those costs are associated with printing, and so e-books must bear their part of what's left of them. Why is that a problem to understand?
The analysis *includes* all the major costs and talks about "profit."
The only costs they don't mention are the random ancillary costs that any paper book produces which are figured into the cost of the paper edition. Making an electronic edition on top of that incurs no new costs (other than the $1.28 mentioned), and all those hypothetical costs are already budgeted into the paper copy anyway.
Why don't you read a bit and figure out what you're talking about before you crap all over someone else?
I would have to ask the question: If you were getting by just fine on $9.99 prior to the iPad rollout, then what is the excuse to claim the additional $4 bucks is needed, except to gouge the customer?
If it wasn't profitable, they wouldn't be selling it, even at $9.99.
Okay, so using the same numbers, and taking into account the criticism below that it's "revenue" and not profit... The publishers are making approximately twice the revenue for eBooks as opposed to paper.
Gee...the $9.09 revenue from ebooks is double the $13 revenue from paper books. Amazing.
Quote:
I've worked in the publishing industry before, for over ten years...
Hopefully not in accounting.
Quote:
For instance the reality of the difference between the "revenue" and the "profit" is rather spurious given that the eBooks are at this point an afterthought and all the ancillary costs are already budgeted out in the paper editions cost. Not to mention the fact that this breakdown is actually talking about costs and is therefore really "profit" and not revenue at all.
Except that publishers do realize that ebook sales take away from paper sales unlike self-proclaimed 10 year veterans of the industry.
Yes, yes, I know Baen says different and for them I believe that to be somewhat true given their client base. Anyone willing to pony up $15 for an advanced reader copy likely wants the hardback in their library as well. That's probably not true for the larger market.
The print publishers are trying to hold on to their old school style of distribution just like the big music labels are. Imagine if authors could find a way to get their work out without having to rely on the big publishers?
More and more musicians are self releasing ... and I think the book/mag/newspaper publishers are shitting themselves at the thought of authors doing the same.
The only thing is that it will take longer on the print side than it is on the music side. Audio transfers well to digital via the iPod/iPhone, mp3 players in general. eReaders seem to be a harder sell. People like paper. I know so may people who were happy to do away with CDs ... but god help anyone who tells them to give up books
And as the music publishers disappear, and the book publishers disappear, the average quality of output will drop to the "crap" level.
Most self published work is that way because it's not good enough for publishers to touch it. Same thing with music. I acknowledge there are the rare exceptions.
Comments
In an e-world, what is the point of a publisher?
If you cant figure that one out, it will be difficult to explain.
This is a flawed argument. With e-book sales, no warehouse is needed at all. Publishers could simply reduce the amount of warehouse space they lease as they increased the number of e-books they sold, as with all incremental costs associated with printing traditional books.
Also, the more e-books that are sold, the less the costs will be per book associated with creating those e-books. Since the marginal cost of an e-book is 0, the costs can only go down.
Publisher's have a vested interest in their distributors and retailers. But if the e-book model proves successful, and it WILL be, we're going to see bookstores go the way of music stores and die. (Sorry, it's inevitable.)
E-books are more profitable and the publishers know this. But publishers think that the average consumer is willing to pay more. Don't let them try to tell you otherwise.
That's oversimplifying the issue. You can't simply lease less and less of a building, and that's assuming the publishers don't own their own, which would make it even more difficult.
And where do you get the "pay more". I see the numbers as "pay less".
First, study some basic economics. PROFIT is what's left over AFTER you pay all of your expenses. Or didn't you figure that out after running your corner lemonade stand?...
This is really just rude. And it's totally false.
The analysis *includes* all the major costs and talks about "profit."
The only costs they don't mention are the random ancillary costs that any paper book produces which are figured into the cost of the paper edition. Making an electronic edition on top of that incurs no new costs (other than the $1.28 mentioned), and all those hypothetical costs are already budgeted into the paper copy anyway.
Why don't you read a bit and figure out what you're talking about before you crap all over someone else?
Most movies are "unprofitable", too, yet somehow the film studios just keep on making them!
I believe publishers have an unrealistic idea of how much consumers are willing to pay for an e-book, given the new limitations the typical e-book DRM brings with it. And I believe publishers haven't a clue how many people would like to build considerable e-book collections, but only if e-books are discounted significantly relative to print editions, and not if the e-books look terrible or if the e-books are unavailable for the Mac (hint, hint Amazon!)
IMHO If someone buys the hard bound version of a book, the electronic version should be discounted even more to them--and especially so for technical e-books which are currently way, way, way overpriced.
They do, because the ones that make big money, make really BIG money. That goes to finance other movies, and the hope is that the average will end up as a profit.
whatever the hardcover is the digital should be way cheaper. They say apple grabs 30% - well what about a book store? They probably grab like 50%. Add to that no existant print and inventory fees and you got yourself a free unlimited copies that only need a tiny amount of server space and a lot of bandwidth. $10 bucks is perfect (considering I can't resell this thing like I can a physical book). $15 is pushing it and it would have to be an incredible best seller.
After you re-read the numbers in the article, if you still disagree with them, show us some other numbers you found at a reputable source.
Clearly, the book publishing industry is facing the same challenges that are driving the music industry nuts.
1. For years the music industry kept profit from the musician and charged high prices for vinyl, tape, CD, whatever. They want that to continue. But artists are more frequently refusing to give up profits to Sony/BMG, et al and are using their own labels.
2. Now some artists are finding ways to make a profit on their work while bypassing the "traditional" distribution systems.
3. The average (and in this case I mean under 30 years old) music consumer sees no reason to pay for the older, traditional, more expensive system.
4. THEREFORE THINGS ARE CHANGING RAPIDLY.
5. The sooner the book publishing industry starts to deal with the new reality the less money they will lose to a bunch of people who WILL find ways to share books no matter what kind of laws either the music or book publishing industries try to get enacted.
WAKE UP EVERYONE...THIS IS A NEW WORLD...CHANGE!
This.
The print publishers are trying to hold on to their old school style of distribution just like the big music labels are. Imagine if authors could find a way to get their work out without having to rely on the big publishers?
More and more musicians are self releasing ... and I think the book/mag/newspaper publishers are shitting themselves at the thought of authors doing the same.
The only thing is that it will take longer on the print side than it is on the music side. Audio transfers well to digital via the iPod/iPhone, mp3 players in general. eReaders seem to be a harder sell. People like paper. I know so may people who were happy to do away with CDs ... but god help anyone who tells them to give up books
Well, books are more expensive in most of Western Europe - hardcover bestsellers costing 30-35 EUR (approx. $48) are nothing special. Book pricing (for current titles) is fixed here, so finding a different shop makes no difference. Amazon offers free shipping, but has the same prices - as I have three book stores in walking distance from my home, why not support smaller retailers?
Ok, so I understand why you don't see a problem with talking about list prices. In general in the USA books, especially NYTIMES best sellers are heavily discounted, typically 40% on a new release.
This just points out another problem with the current ebook model. In the current hard back model, the publisher gets his $13, and the retailer can charge anything they want. In fact the retailer can advertise the book as a loss leader, and sell it for $12. No approval needed from the publisher.
In the ebook model, the publisher gets a percentage of the sales price, so for a book to go on sale, requires both the retailer (Apple) and the publisher to agree on a sales price.
Okay, so using the same numbers, and taking into account the criticism below that it's "revenue" and not profit... The publishers are making approximately twice the revenue for eBooks as opposed to paper.
I've worked in the publishing industry before, for over ten years and I'm being really generous here in saying that they are only making double the profit actually. Most of the publishing industry is an inefficient scam-fest, much like the music industry.
The reality is quite different from even these carefully prepared numbers that they "leaked" to the media today. I can guarantee that this is part of a carefully planned PR push, not "straight-shooting" from the publishers as many seem to automatically assume here. For instance the reality of the difference between the "revenue" and the "profit" is rather spurious given that the eBooks are at this point an afterthought and all the ancillary costs are already budgeted out in the paper editions cost. Not to mention the fact that this breakdown is actually talking about costs and is therefore really "profit" and not revenue at all.
Then, as you refuse to believe these numbers, come up with some others that you can point us to that would show you are right, and that these are wrong. Otherwise, you just blowing smoke, as are the others here who just don't want to believe it without showing anything different. I was in the publishing industry as well, and these numbers look ok to me.
Did you notice where he lives?
And the article certainly isn't B.S. I read the Times article, and they don't publish that kind of info for a lark. They are also a major publisher, you may realize, so they know the numbers.
Sorry, I didn't notice where he lives. I'm sure he is paying what he says!
If the publisher makes $4.05, less office space and electricity, when a hardcover bestseller is sold at $26, what do they make when it is sold for $10 to $15. They are not losing money!
I'll shut up now...
Sorry, but they neglect to say how the cover design, copy editing and other "overhead" is performed in house by workers making between $8-12/hr. Also, the marketing costs will be next to zero for iPad ebook sales as the adds will be placed on an Apple website for free similar to how iTunes works. As for the charges for converting to digital form and re-copyediting, manuscripts are already in digital form and copyedited before it is even before galley proofs (which are now digital docs that are printed for physical review). And when was the last time authors got 22-32% royalties? It's ore like 4-8% on a good day. (Yes some major authors will get more, but the majority of the titles are not written by them.
Bottom line is: WE DO EXPECT THE PRICES TO BE MUCH LOWER THAN FOR HARD COVER.
WE STILL REMEMBER HOW THE MUSIC INDUSTRY RIPPED EVERYONE OFF (EVEN THE MUSICIANS) WHEN CDs CAME OUT.
After the introduction of the iPad gave publishers leverage to raise e-book prices on the Amazon Kindle, a new report states that consumers have "unrealistic expectations" about how low e-book prices should be.
This week, The New York Times provided a breakdown on the economics of producing a book from the publisher's perspective. It noted that while printing costs go away when a book is reproduced in an electronic format, a number of expenses remain, including royalties and marketing.
The report said that while the average hardcover bestseller is $26, the cost to print, store and ship the book is just $3.25. That cost also includes unsold copies returned to the publisher by booksellers.
Publishers get roughly half -- $13 -- of the selling price of a book. But after factoring in payments to the author and the cost of cover design and copy editing, only about $4.05 is left. And, the report noted, that doesn't even include overhead such as office space and electricity.
Under Apple's agreement with publishers for the iBookstore, the hardware maker will keep 30 percent of each book sale, leaving $9.09 for the publisher on a typical $12.99 e-book.
"Out of that gross revenue, the publisher pays about 50 cents to convert the text to a digital file, typeset it in digital form and copy-edit it," the report said. "Marketing is about 78 cents."
Author's royalty can range from $2.27 to $3.25 on an e-book, leaving the publisher with between $4.56 and $4.54, before paying overhead costs. For comparison, under Amazon's $9.99 e-book model, publishers would take in between $3.51 and $4.26 before overhead.
"At a glance, it appears the e-book is more profitable," the report said. "But publishers point out that e-books still represent a small sliver of total sales, from 3 to 5 percent. If e-book sales start to replace some hardcover sales, the publishers say, they will still have many of the fixed costs associated with print editions, like warehouse space, but they will be spread among fewer print copies."
Publishers are also wary of making e-books too cheap for fear of killing off booksellers like Barnes & Noble.
Apple will serve books for the iPad through its iBookstore, due to be a part of the iBooks application for iPad. The software features a 3D virtual bookshelf displaying a user's personal collection, and allows the purchase of new content from major publishers. Like the Kindle, it will offer content from the New York Times Bestsellers list.
The introduction of the iPad has driven publishers to force Amazon into higher prices for new hardcover bestsellers. While books are currently priced at $9.99 on the Kindle, that is expected to rise to between $12.99 and $14.99 by the time the iPad launches later this month.
The charge was led by Macmillan, which was followed soon after by Hachette Book Group and HarperCollins in renegotiating with Amazon.
Last week it was revealed that Amazon frantically phoned publishers as Apple co-founder Steve Jobs gave his keynote introducing the iPad in July.
While publishers had their way and Amazon reluctantly agreed to higher prices, not every bestseller will carry the new, higher premium price. It has been said that while higher prices are an option for publishers, and most new titles will be between $12.99 and $14.99, publishers can also choose to lower prices on select titles.
"Last week it was revealed that Amazon frantically phoned publishers as Apple co-founder Steve Jobs gave his keynote introducing the iPad in July."
umm, it was JANUARY...
This is really just rude. And it's totally false.
Profit isn't what's left over after costs? Who knew?
The analysis *includes* all the major costs and talks about "profit."
It sure isn't $13 on a $26 book. That's STILL revenue after which costs are deducted.
The final value is $3.51-$4.26 before overhead in the analysis.
The only costs they don't mention are the random ancillary costs that any paper book produces which are figured into the cost of the paper edition. Making an electronic edition on top of that incurs no new costs (other than the $1.28 mentioned), and all those hypothetical costs are already budgeted into the paper copy anyway.
Why don't you read a bit and figure out what you're talking about before you crap all over someone else?
Because you're wrong. The cost of producing an ebook isn't simply the additional $1.28 cost over converting it from paper to ebook. Copy editing, cover design, royalties, etc must still be paid and recovered across all editions, hardback, ebook, paperback, etc.
Why? Because each ebook sale is likely a reduction in paper sale. This is why they worry brick and mortar stores like B&N will go under. If ebooks cost zero paper sales there would be zero danger of that.
Handwaving away the total costs of production is silly and you got dinged for it.
This.
The print publishers are trying to hold on to their old school style of distribution just like the big music labels are. Imagine if authors could find a way to get their work out without having to rely on the big publishers?
More and more musicians are self releasing ... and I think the book/mag/newspaper publishers are shitting themselves at the thought of authors doing the same.
The only thing is that it will take longer on the print side than it is on the music side. Audio transfers well to digital via the iPod/iPhone, mp3 players in general. eReaders seem to be a harder sell. People like paper. I know so may people who were happy to do away with CDs ... but god help anyone who tells them to give up books
Sort of like how a band can get their song onto iTunes without a music publisher.
whatever the hardcover is the digital should be way cheaper. They say apple grabs 30% - well what about a book store? They probably grab like 50%. Add to that no existant print and inventory fees and you got yourself a free unlimited copies that only need a tiny amount of server space and a lot of bandwidth. $10 bucks is perfect (considering I can't resell this thing like I can a physical book). $15 is pushing it and it would have to be an incredible best seller.
The hardcover is about twice the price of the ebook even at $13-15 so your wish is granted?
If it is $15 then Apple takes about $4.50 leaving $10.50. If you net out the print costs minus the digitization costs then the publisher gets about $10.20 from the print version at the same point in the cost model.
At a $9.99 gross price, I doubt the publishers were making anything - probably trying to prime the market with their arms twisted by Amazon who wanted to sell Kindles and create a bulwark in the ebook market.
The analysis *includes* all the major costs and talks about "profit."
The only costs they don't mention are the random ancillary costs that any paper book produces which are figured into the cost of the paper edition. Making an electronic edition on top of that incurs no new costs (other than the $1.28 mentioned), and all those hypothetical costs are already budgeted into the paper copy anyway.
What you aren't taking into account is that every sale has to account for all the costs other than the print costs, which aren't very much. So you take the $3 and change away from the price for the e-book price, and instead add the $1.28. Not much of a difference, is there?
Some are assuming that none of the costs associated with the publishing of a book should go to the price of the e-book version, but that's clearly wrong.
The author still gets the advance. After that's paid off (hopefully), (s)he gets the royalty. All the other costs still have to be accounted for as well. And just like other products, most of those costs are paid off early. Hopefully they are paid off before the hardcover goes out of print. That's why later editions are so much cheaper.
None of those costs are associated with printing, and so e-books must bear their part of what's left of them. Why is that a problem to understand?
This is really just rude. And it's totally false.
The analysis *includes* all the major costs and talks about "profit."
The only costs they don't mention are the random ancillary costs that any paper book produces which are figured into the cost of the paper edition. Making an electronic edition on top of that incurs no new costs (other than the $1.28 mentioned), and all those hypothetical costs are already budgeted into the paper copy anyway.
Why don't you read a bit and figure out what you're talking about before you crap all over someone else?
AND THAT $1.28 IS INFLATED or EVEN BOGUS!
If it wasn't profitable, they wouldn't be selling it, even at $9.99.
Okay, so using the same numbers, and taking into account the criticism below that it's "revenue" and not profit... The publishers are making approximately twice the revenue for eBooks as opposed to paper.
Gee...the $9.09 revenue from ebooks is double the $13 revenue from paper books. Amazing.
I've worked in the publishing industry before, for over ten years...
Hopefully not in accounting.
For instance the reality of the difference between the "revenue" and the "profit" is rather spurious given that the eBooks are at this point an afterthought and all the ancillary costs are already budgeted out in the paper editions cost. Not to mention the fact that this breakdown is actually talking about costs and is therefore really "profit" and not revenue at all.
Except that publishers do realize that ebook sales take away from paper sales unlike self-proclaimed 10 year veterans of the industry.
Yes, yes, I know Baen says different and for them I believe that to be somewhat true given their client base. Anyone willing to pony up $15 for an advanced reader copy likely wants the hardback in their library as well. That's probably not true for the larger market.
This.
The print publishers are trying to hold on to their old school style of distribution just like the big music labels are. Imagine if authors could find a way to get their work out without having to rely on the big publishers?
More and more musicians are self releasing ... and I think the book/mag/newspaper publishers are shitting themselves at the thought of authors doing the same.
The only thing is that it will take longer on the print side than it is on the music side. Audio transfers well to digital via the iPod/iPhone, mp3 players in general. eReaders seem to be a harder sell. People like paper. I know so may people who were happy to do away with CDs ... but god help anyone who tells them to give up books
And as the music publishers disappear, and the book publishers disappear, the average quality of output will drop to the "crap" level.
Most self published work is that way because it's not good enough for publishers to touch it. Same thing with music. I acknowledge there are the rare exceptions.