If you live where there are just small local bookstores, you might very well pay list, or close to it. They sell few books and can't get the discounts the big booksellers do. And since they sell far fewer books per square foot, they have to charge more to pay for rent, salaries, etc.
Well written summary that should quiet people, but won't.
It won't, because the utility of a real book is worth more than the printing cost. Also, there's no reason to actually pay the full MSRP. The retailers have half the price as a margin to play with, so the price differential is nowhere as large as they say. (See the Harry Potter book releases for example.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woohoo!
Apple and the publishers can go ahead and charge $13-$14 a e-book, however if they included a rental price of half that amount, they would see tremendous amount of activity and Apple's iPad sales would skyrocket.
I don't believe people are going to pay $7 for something that is free at the local library.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2
Well, if I check the bestseller lists in the NYT or Time mag... quite a few people do.
Local prices differ quite a bit, too. Where I am, $26 is a decent price for a paperback. The last hardcovers I bought were closer to $50.
As I said, there's no reason to pay MSRP. I have no idea where you are currently situated, but Amazon ships pretty much everywhere.
If the publishers wanted to meet us halfway on features, I wouldn't be opposed to higher prices. But even $10 was overpriced if I can't lend it or sell it.
Publishers are intimately aware that cost has nothing to do with price, so trying to make a cost-based argument is disingenuous and insulting.
Until they're willing to talk features, I'm going to buy very few ebooks, even at $10.
And it's not like I'm buying hardcover new releases in the meantime, so it's just money on the table, waiting for people who do want to talk.
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!
I know that most people hate the music companies, so a lot of misinformation is out there. But almost no acts ever make money. most lose it. The few big acts must share their income with the new ones just so that the music companies can afford to pay for all of the costs. It's like a pyramid. Only the acts above a small part are profitable, while the large majority are not. I suppose, if we don't want to see new acts all the time, the ones making money could get more. But then people would complain about the dearth of new music.
The same thing is true in publishing. Very few books make any money, and the major authors have to share some of their profits so that new authors can be brought out.
Wow, you need to find a new place to buy books. The article said "the average hardcover bestseller is $26". Not paperbacks were $26. List price on the top 10 NYT bestseller list currently runs 23.95 to 29.95. You might try Amazon, the highest price for the same 10 books was $16.19.
So,as I said, who pays $26 for a hardcover bestseller? Makes the math in the article BS as someone said...
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.
Exactly. Latest Dan Brown book, $29.95 list. I paid $16. Also, after it was read it was passed around to at least 2 additional people, so instead of the publisher getting $39 dollars for three books, the got just $13.
Using the figures the publishers themselves quoted, they make $13.67 profit on a $26.00 ebook. The same $26.00 paper book gets them something like $4.00 profit. So they are making four times the profit per ebook.
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?
Second, read for comprehension. $13 of the $26 for the hardback went to the bookseller (i.e. Borders or Barnes & Noble) and NOT to the publisher. Booksellers, in turn, have costs like... oh... a BUILDING, employees, utilities, and so on.
People need to get past the idea that the physical cost of an item is the only one that counts. Often, it's the least of them...
Wow, you need to find a new place to buy books. The article said "the average hardcover bestseller is $26". Not paperbacks were $26. List price on the top 10 NYT bestseller list currently runs 23.95 to 29.95. You might try Amazon, the highest price for the same 10 books was $16.19.
So,as I said, who pays $26 for a hardcover bestseller? Makes the math in the article BS as someone said...
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?
I do not quite get your logic... you say the current top ten is between $24 and $30 (as I said), and the resultant question is "who pays $26 for a hardcover bestseller"? Almost everybody buying a top ten book, maybe?
If the publishers wanted to meet us halfway on features, I wouldn't be opposed to higher prices. But even $10 was overpriced if I can't lend it or sell it.
Publishers are intimately aware that cost has nothing to do with price, so trying to make a cost-based argument is disingenuous and insulting.
Until they're willing to talk features, I'm going to buy very few ebooks, even at $10.
And it's not like I'm buying hardcover new releases in the meantime, so it's just money on the table, waiting for people who do want to talk.
Of course cost has something to do with price. How could you think otherwise?
We see, in some industries, such as the high end audio industry that prices are often much higher than cost would say they should be. But even if they brought those prices down drastically, there would be a point at which they couldn't go lower.
The pricing of books doesn't follow that boutique pricing model. The high list prices are to enable small booksellers to make a profit, and give the big stores a place to discount from. But costs are costs. They are high in the beginning, because much of what went into the book has to get paid off. Then costs come down with trade paperbacks, which are the most popular format. Then later, and sometimes at the same time, the pocket novel size, at the cheapest price comes out.
Publishers want to follow that model. I don't see a problem with it.
Just like now with hardcover, you don't HAVE to buy a book when it first comes out. You can wait for the cheaper edition.
Maybe publishers are trying to kill off the ebook?
Can't speak to this, but I'm a university professor, and I can tell you that publishers have been incredibly resistant to making electronic versions of textbooks available. A big part of this is that e-textbooks could/would significantly damage the economy of entrenched campus bookstores.
Many campus bookstores rely on textbook sales as the majority of their income, so the loss of too many paper copies of textbooks would threaten the survival of campus bookstores, and in turn the loss of staff and student jobs, and many sales representatives and customer service and support jobs as well. This is particularly true of smaller campuses that contract out their bookstore management to companies like Barnes and Noble; they face the same issue as their general bookstores in terms of being too badly undercut by e-book sales.
I personally would love to have electronic versions of the textbooks I use for my classes, as well as other books I use on a regular basis for reference, programming, etc. It would literally revolutionize my work flow; I would use an iPad as an e-reader alongside my MBP and it would save me from having to carry literally thousands of pages of books back and forth with me from my office to my home. Of course, this is assuming some kind of unified DRM system could be had along with a durable mark-up protocol that would allow me to make notes and annotations within the electronic books I would use.
Regardless, part of the issue is that it's simply easier to stick with the established system, because even though they might net more profit by going electronic, the cost and the potential loss of content control seems currently too great for them to follow that path.
For me, that makes something like an iPad or even a Kindle a device of very low utility.
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?
I do not quite get your logic... you say the current top ten is between $24 and $30 (as I said), and the resultant question is "who pays $26 for a hardcover bestseller"? Almost everybody buying a top ten book, maybe?
In addition, Amazon was sued by the EU for their free shipping. It's considered to be unfair competition there.
"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.
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.
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.
If the consumer pays the asking price and piracy does not become a replacment for $9.99 books, then they are correct in their assumptions. If not then they are wrong. They would not be the first industry to balk at letting the consumer define the market place. It's a new world. Learn to change or lose.
If the content was unlocked, I could definitely justify paying more for an eBook. In fact, with appropriate backups and supported reading platforms, an electronic copy could last much longer than a print version. Add DRM--and the device lock-in and other nastiness that goes along with it--and the whole thing is a much tougher sell, in my opinion.
tzb
Your right on the DRM nasties, but, Last much longer? Maybe I misunderstand you here, but how can an ebook last longer than 100 years or more. Word processors can't even open an documents formatted in the original MS Word or WordPerfect. How can any one expect digital content to be readable in the same format in 10, 20 30 or more years. Sure cross platform standards may help this, but thats not going to be the case here. DRM and other proprietary code will ensure that a digital copy of a book will not outlast its paper version. Can anyone imagine what value the great library of Alexandria, or the dead sea scrolls would be to us today, if they'd been in digital format. We'd never be able to read them.
Some here have mentioned renting books via ipad. For my two cents I see that as a good idea. People who like the rented book may also buy a paper version or the digital, if they wish, but the above still applies.
As for the statistics in this report. Mmmm? lets see the report was written by the New York Times. Which publishers paid them for this article. Sounds like part of a propaganda war to assist the publishers in getting higher prices for ebooks.
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.
That's why they only intend to charge $12-$14 for the ebook, not $26. Where is the BS here?
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.
Comments
So, who pays $26.00 for a hardcover bestseller?
If you live where there are just small local bookstores, you might very well pay list, or close to it. They sell few books and can't get the discounts the big booksellers do. And since they sell far fewer books per square foot, they have to charge more to pay for rent, salaries, etc.
Well written summary that should quiet people, but won't.
It won't, because the utility of a real book is worth more than the printing cost. Also, there's no reason to actually pay the full MSRP. The retailers have half the price as a margin to play with, so the price differential is nowhere as large as they say. (See the Harry Potter book releases for example.)
Apple and the publishers can go ahead and charge $13-$14 a e-book, however if they included a rental price of half that amount, they would see tremendous amount of activity and Apple's iPad sales would skyrocket.
I don't believe people are going to pay $7 for something that is free at the local library.
Well, if I check the bestseller lists in the NYT or Time mag... quite a few people do.
Local prices differ quite a bit, too. Where I am, $26 is a decent price for a paperback. The last hardcovers I bought were closer to $50.
As I said, there's no reason to pay MSRP. I have no idea where you are currently situated, but Amazon ships pretty much everywhere.
Publishers are intimately aware that cost has nothing to do with price, so trying to make a cost-based argument is disingenuous and insulting.
Until they're willing to talk features, I'm going to buy very few ebooks, even at $10.
And it's not like I'm buying hardcover new releases in the meantime, so it's just money on the table, waiting for people who do want to talk.
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!
I know that most people hate the music companies, so a lot of misinformation is out there. But almost no acts ever make money. most lose it. The few big acts must share their income with the new ones just so that the music companies can afford to pay for all of the costs. It's like a pyramid. Only the acts above a small part are profitable, while the large majority are not. I suppose, if we don't want to see new acts all the time, the ones making money could get more. But then people would complain about the dearth of new music.
The same thing is true in publishing. Very few books make any money, and the major authors have to share some of their profits so that new authors can be brought out.
I don't believe people are going to pay $7 for something that is free at the local library.
Many libraries carry audio CDs and video DVDs.
It doesn't seem to have any effect on the local video stores or take-up of services like VOD or Netflix.
Wow, you need to find a new place to buy books. The article said "the average hardcover bestseller is $26". Not paperbacks were $26. List price on the top 10 NYT bestseller list currently runs 23.95 to 29.95. You might try Amazon, the highest price for the same 10 books was $16.19.
So,as I said, who pays $26 for a hardcover bestseller? Makes the math in the article BS as someone said...
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.
So, who pays $26.00 for a hardcover bestseller?
Exactly. Latest Dan Brown book, $29.95 list. I paid $16. Also, after it was read it was passed around to at least 2 additional people, so instead of the publisher getting $39 dollars for three books, the got just $13.
Using the figures the publishers themselves quoted, they make $13.67 profit on a $26.00 ebook. The same $26.00 paper book gets them something like $4.00 profit. So they are making four times the profit per ebook.
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?
Second, read for comprehension. $13 of the $26 for the hardback went to the bookseller (i.e. Borders or Barnes & Noble) and NOT to the publisher. Booksellers, in turn, have costs like... oh... a BUILDING, employees, utilities, and so on.
People need to get past the idea that the physical cost of an item is the only one that counts. Often, it's the least of them...
Wow, you need to find a new place to buy books. The article said "the average hardcover bestseller is $26". Not paperbacks were $26. List price on the top 10 NYT bestseller list currently runs 23.95 to 29.95. You might try Amazon, the highest price for the same 10 books was $16.19.
So,as I said, who pays $26 for a hardcover bestseller? Makes the math in the article BS as someone said...
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?
I do not quite get your logic... you say the current top ten is between $24 and $30 (as I said), and the resultant question is "who pays $26 for a hardcover bestseller"? Almost everybody buying a top ten book, maybe?
I don't believe people are going to pay $7 for something that is free at the local library.
If that were true, then there wouldn't BE a best sellers list, would there?
As I said, there's no reason to pay MSRP. I have no idea where you are currently situated, but Amazon ships pretty much everywhere.
You know where to look to see where he lives.
If the publishers wanted to meet us halfway on features, I wouldn't be opposed to higher prices. But even $10 was overpriced if I can't lend it or sell it.
Publishers are intimately aware that cost has nothing to do with price, so trying to make a cost-based argument is disingenuous and insulting.
Until they're willing to talk features, I'm going to buy very few ebooks, even at $10.
And it's not like I'm buying hardcover new releases in the meantime, so it's just money on the table, waiting for people who do want to talk.
Of course cost has something to do with price. How could you think otherwise?
We see, in some industries, such as the high end audio industry that prices are often much higher than cost would say they should be. But even if they brought those prices down drastically, there would be a point at which they couldn't go lower.
The pricing of books doesn't follow that boutique pricing model. The high list prices are to enable small booksellers to make a profit, and give the big stores a place to discount from. But costs are costs. They are high in the beginning, because much of what went into the book has to get paid off. Then costs come down with trade paperbacks, which are the most popular format. Then later, and sometimes at the same time, the pocket novel size, at the cheapest price comes out.
Publishers want to follow that model. I don't see a problem with it.
Just like now with hardcover, you don't HAVE to buy a book when it first comes out. You can wait for the cheaper edition.
Maybe publishers are trying to kill off the ebook?
Can't speak to this, but I'm a university professor, and I can tell you that publishers have been incredibly resistant to making electronic versions of textbooks available. A big part of this is that e-textbooks could/would significantly damage the economy of entrenched campus bookstores.
Many campus bookstores rely on textbook sales as the majority of their income, so the loss of too many paper copies of textbooks would threaten the survival of campus bookstores, and in turn the loss of staff and student jobs, and many sales representatives and customer service and support jobs as well. This is particularly true of smaller campuses that contract out their bookstore management to companies like Barnes and Noble; they face the same issue as their general bookstores in terms of being too badly undercut by e-book sales.
I personally would love to have electronic versions of the textbooks I use for my classes, as well as other books I use on a regular basis for reference, programming, etc. It would literally revolutionize my work flow; I would use an iPad as an e-reader alongside my MBP and it would save me from having to carry literally thousands of pages of books back and forth with me from my office to my home. Of course, this is assuming some kind of unified DRM system could be had along with a durable mark-up protocol that would allow me to make notes and annotations within the electronic books I would use.
Regardless, part of the issue is that it's simply easier to stick with the established system, because even though they might net more profit by going electronic, the cost and the potential loss of content control seems currently too great for them to follow that path.
For me, that makes something like an iPad or even a Kindle a device of very low utility.
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?
I do not quite get your logic... you say the current top ten is between $24 and $30 (as I said), and the resultant question is "who pays $26 for a hardcover bestseller"? Almost everybody buying a top ten book, maybe?
In addition, Amazon was sued by the EU for their free shipping. It's considered to be unfair competition there.
"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.
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.
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.
If the content was unlocked, I could definitely justify paying more for an eBook. In fact, with appropriate backups and supported reading platforms, an electronic copy could last much longer than a print version. Add DRM--and the device lock-in and other nastiness that goes along with it--and the whole thing is a much tougher sell, in my opinion.
tzb
Your right on the DRM nasties, but, Last much longer? Maybe I misunderstand you here, but how can an ebook last longer than 100 years or more. Word processors can't even open an documents formatted in the original MS Word or WordPerfect. How can any one expect digital content to be readable in the same format in 10, 20 30 or more years. Sure cross platform standards may help this, but thats not going to be the case here. DRM and other proprietary code will ensure that a digital copy of a book will not outlast its paper version. Can anyone imagine what value the great library of Alexandria, or the dead sea scrolls would be to us today, if they'd been in digital format. We'd never be able to read them.
Some here have mentioned renting books via ipad. For my two cents I see that as a good idea. People who like the rented book may also buy a paper version or the digital, if they wish, but the above still applies.
As for the statistics in this report. Mmmm? lets see the report was written by the New York Times. Which publishers paid them for this article. Sounds like part of a propaganda war to assist the publishers in getting higher prices for ebooks.
That's why they only intend to charge $12-$14 for the ebook, not $26. Where is the BS here?
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.