Book Publishers Circulating 'Talking Points' To Counter Arguments That Ebook Prices Need To Go Lower
from the fighting-basic-economics-is-never-a-good-idea dept
For a while now, we've been discussing how the pricing on ebooks doesn't make much sense, and almost certainly needs to fall. Like many industries, the book business could learn a lot from other businesses that have realized that drastically lowering the price on digital goods can massively increase sales, and better maximize profits. But, instead, book publishers seem to be pushing in the opposite direction, and trying to push the price of digital books up. We recently wrote about a NY Times article that suggested consumers might revolt if the publishers keep moving in this direction, which is actually supported by reports of how consumers are reacting to publishers' anti-consumer activities with regards to ebooks.Given all that, I was amused when a friend "in the business" forwarded me an email message sent to a mailing list of book publishers in response to that NY Times article about consumers' potential revolt, that encourages publishers to get out there and fight back against such perceptions. The email contains a list of "myths and potential talking points." Some of which are amusing. It starts out by saying $9.99 doesn't need to be the price for ebooks, which is true, but they don't even seem to consider the notion that the price could be less (or even free), focusing only on examples of people paying more for ebooks. It then suggests that publishers start blaming the ebook device makers for "the implicit, false promise" that ebooks can be cheap. That's ridiculous. The idea isn't "false," it's just basic economics, and we've already seen it playing out in music. Why wouldn't the same economics play in the ebook space as well?
The talking points also tries to attack the claim that Amazon is losing money on every ebook sold by not actually responding to that (mostly accurate) claim, but instead directing your attention elsewhere, by pointing out that Amazon has a $50 billion market cap and can sell products like ebooks at a loss and still make massive profits. Yes, this is true. And it's true because Amazon seems to understand the basic economics of where the money is made: which is in scarce goods, not in infinite ones.
Among the other talking points is the claim that people who buy ebook readers for hundreds of dollars shouldn't bitch about ebook prices, because they're obviously rich enough to afford whatever publishers think the books should be priced at (again, ignoring basic economics). Also there's a claim that publishers are really lowering the prices on ebooks even as consumers see higher prices. While this is technically true in cases like Macmillan, where the company is lowering its wholesale price in order to get Amazon to raise its retail price, it misses the fact that this doesn't matter to consumers. Consumers don't care about the wholesale price. The talking points also included one about how publishers' deals with Apple might actually price books lower anyways -- and it seems like that particular talking point has been "anonymously" pushed into a NY Times article already.
The list goes on in this nature, but it's worrisome that publishers are thinking this way. Just as we were recently discussing, they're acting like the recording industry ten years ago: hunkering down for a "war" of words, rather than actually focusing on new business models or figuring out what consumers actually want. Instead, they're trying to dictate what consumers want and hoping for some sort of magic bullet in the form of ebook readers. This is a dangerous move by publishers that can only come back to haunt them. Instead of focusing on "countering" what consumers are saying, why not actually listen to them, and look for ways to provide what they want?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: book publishers, ebooks, publishing, talking points
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'm an avid reader...
I haven't purchased a major-label CD or DVD for almost ten years. I got so fed up with the **AA groups and their anti-consumer practices that I decided I wouldn't support their efforts. I have bought a few CDs from indy bands on small labels or who produce their own CDs, but that's it. I am still carrying on with this boycott and will keep it up until the music labels and movie industry come to their senses.
To date, I've been purchasing my ebooks legally. I think they're too expensive, but the book publishers haven't acted like complete assholes just yet... but I certainly see it coming.
I will stop purchasing my ebooks legally if the publishers keep this shit up. As a digital-age consumer, I am not stupid and know full-well where I can acquire ebooks for free. I haven't done so yet, but if the publishers choose to pursue a similar anti-consumer path like the music and movie labels/publishers have, then I will have no problem with boycotting them also.
Book publishers, I hope you're listening. Don't make the same stupid mistakes that the RIAA and MPAA members have done. You'll regret it. I know I'm not alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm an avid reader...
Even if publishers aren't listening, I can promise you that authors certainly are. It's not uniform, but in talking to other authors, we're a group considerably more enlightened than music artists were ten years ago.
I've put a Google Docs link of my entire recent work in PDF format on my blogger page, just on the off chance that some folks will like it enough to put it up on the filesharing sites and build some reputation for a sequel (which would be where I'd be looking to make money in more creative ways). I only recently discovered Google Docs and how I can put that link on my page, but I'll of course keep TD informed if it works out well in any way....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm an avid reader...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm an avid reader...
You're right, I need to put in some time to learn it and do it. But Google Docs is REALLY easy, so I accomplished it in 5 minutes this afternoon.
Now go DL it and READ!!! ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm an avid reader...
Hit the link from your Blogspot.
Google said: Sorry, the page (or document) you have requested is not available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm an avid reader...
A digital copy is much more convenient than paper, but is inherently less valuable to me because I can't sell or give it away, if i can loan it is is just for a short time, and i can't burn it for warmth during the apocalypse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm an avid reader...
Are you actually participating in a real boycott or are you just pirating all the shit you used to buy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm an avid reader...
> or are you just pirating all the shit you used
> to buy?
I'm not sure you understand the definition of the word "boycott". It means to refuse to patronize a company or industry. It doesn't mean to refrain from using any of their products.
By refusing to do business with them, he's boycotting them. It matters not if he's getting the music from other sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm an avid reader...
Heh.
–verb (used with object)
1.
to combine in ABSTAINING from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion: to boycott a store.
2.
to ABSTAIN from buying or USING: to boycott foreign products.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/boycott?jss=0
boy·cott (boikt)
tr.v. boy·cott·ed, boy·cott·ing, boy·cotts
To ABSTAIN from or act together in ABSTAINING from USING, buying, or dealing with as an expression of protest or disfavor or as a means of coercion.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/boycott
boy·cott (bo̵i′kät′)
1. to join together in refusing to deal with, so as to punish, coerce, etc.
2. to refuse to buy, sell, OR USE
http://www.yourdictionary.com/boycott
A boycott is a form of consumer activism involving the act of voluntarily ABSTAINING from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for political reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott
verb
1. To ABSTAIN, either as an individual or group, from USING, buying, or dealing with someone or some organization as an expression of protest.
http://www.allwords.com/word-boycott.html
Since so many pirates seem so keen to compare themselves to civil rights activists of the 1940s, let me ask you how effective you think the Montgomery bus boycott would have been had Rosa Parks's followers just decided to "freeride" (in its original meaning) on the back bumpers of the buses rather than refuse to use them completely?
Obviously, what it would have done is considerably diminish their message.
Don't act like you're "boycotting" the various industries when you're really just pirating their products and BENEFITING from not having to pay. With a real boycott the benefit comes after the boycott ends, not during.
Do you have ANY examples of a successful boycott where the participants still illicitly used the very same thing they were supposedly boycotting? Do you have ANY examples of a boycott where the act of abstaining from the thing in question didn't play a key part?
But who am I to judge? If you want to believe that the best way to perform a hunger strike is to enter a hot dog eating contest, go right ahead, just try not to be surprised when people don't take your intentions seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm an avid reader...
Think about it real hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm an avid reader...
Did you think about it "real hard"?
haha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm an avid reader...
> > definitions you quoted.
> So no real world examples then?
LOL! Apparently you did think about it real hard, realized that you were boxed into a logical corner, and decided to change the subject to distract from that fact.
Not clever enough by half.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm an avid reader...
I didn't box myself in at all. You are the one who said a boycott "doesn't mean to refrain from using any of their products" which is false and you were corrected. It can and does mean that as evidenced by multiple definitions from multiple sources.
You then assert that a boycott can also mean a simple denial of payment even for services already rendered or otherwise (illicitly) procured and I would simply like to know if you have any evidence of this actually occurring?
Despite the various definitions use of "or" instead of "and", refraining/abstaining from the product or service in question seems to play an integral role in boycotts historically AND linguistically. Realizing that you have no real world evidence to back up your claim to the contrary, you decided to ignore the majority of my post to distract from that fact.
I'm willing to admit I'm wrong should you have any evidence to back yourself up, so I reiterate, do you have ANY examples of a successful boycott where the participants still illicitly used the very same thing they were supposedly boycotting? Do you have ANY examples of a boycott where the act of abstaining from the thing in question didn't play a key part?
Until such a time as you do, I'm afraid you are completely unqualified to try and judge the cleverness of anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm an avid reader...
When you boycott a manufacturer of a scarce good, you should not keep buying the same good (or a close substitute), since that would sustain the demand for that good and thus the manufacturer in question (unless the boycott is sufficiently widespread).
However, if you instead violate copyright or patent rights, the (direct) effect on the boycotted party is a loss.
An example is the boycott of western pharmaceutical patent licensors by e.g. India; it led to further price reductions and special considerations for emergency manufacturing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm an avid reader...
> from using any of their products"
I assumed you realized we were talking about the context of this particular case. I realize now I gave you too much credit. That's my mistake and I apologize. I'll try and be more pedantic for you in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm an avid reader...
From the very definitions that you quoted:
You're not the only one who can change the emphases when quoting from sources. But here's the real world example that you're asking for.
Pirates boycott the music industry by not buying their products (see bold text in definitions); the effect, quoted from RIAA.com:
So if your understanding of boycott is when people do actions that fit the definitions above and target of the actions cause grief on the target businesses or industries, it follows that the actions of pirates amount to a successful boycott of the recording industry.
That is, if you believe the figures quoted from RIAA's FAQ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Maybe a customer can pay more for a digital book, but why should he? Currently, nearly all the value of the ebook format comes from the device, not the publisher. Portability, frictionless purchasing experience, syncing across multiple registered devices--all of that is provided by the device and the retailer's back-end.
By contrast, here's what the publisher currently provides in an ebook edition: typos, no additional content over the print version, no cover art, perhaps no photographs or illustrations, and no custom formatting. Saddle that with DRM that deliberately interferes with the consumer's ability to preserve or make full use of his library, and you've got one pretty low-value digital offering from a publisher
"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://consumerist.com/2010/02/publisher-if-you-can-afford-an-ebook-device-you-can-pay-mor e-for-ebooks.html
(we can't edit posts here unfortunately - your link needs a space between : and h).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Worse than that, many publishers demand that the device remove value they could be adding (like disabling Kindle's voice reader feature, fearing it will cut into audiobook sales).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
e-book prices
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From another avid reader
Poster #1 isn't the only one that is fed up with music and refuses to buy now from the major labels. When sue'em all started, I stopped buying. From that day on, I became a boycotter and will not buy again until the music industry comes to it's senses.
Just like when the music industry did start to get into digital with iTunes and the like, so too is this article reflecting the same mentality. The music industry no longer had to pay for jewel cases, for pressing of cds, for the moving of physical products by shipment, nor did brick and mortar stores any longer figure into the total cost of the product. The music industry did not pass that savings on to the customer, rather they pocketed it as profit and went looking for more ways to raise the price and drop the quality.
So no, poster #1 is not alone; not by a long shot.
During these times of bad economic troubles, Walmart has been doing fairly well by having a lower price than their competitors. If publishers can not see this, so be it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From another avid reader
Are you actually participating in a real boycott or are you just pirating all the shit you used to buy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't dictate price, dictate marketplace features!
Instead, the publishers should find a way to incorporate features such as physical book sales into the various book marketplaces. i.e. If you like the iPad version, and like it, can I purchase the print version at a 20% discount? Can a user buy it on the device within 2 clicks and have it charged to an iTunes account, which already has my address, and billing information?
A user already has a readable, eBook version so it probably doesn't have to be fulfilled in the traditional one week sense. Can a user get an additional discount if it's fulfilled in, say a 17 days window?
This way, you can still sell traditional paperbacks while you steam ahead into the 21st century. Market collusion doesn't get us anywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't dictate price, dictate marketplace features!
Sorry, work on incorporating more pixie dust to solve the problem and less of your brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm
What irks me is that not only will certain online stores not sell me books due to geographic location, they also often don't have the formats I need. Even worse, some stores have differing prices on the books depending on the format, because the CONSUMER gets to pay for the DRM.
Why? Why all the hassle? It's not that I don't have the tools or knowledge to remove the DRM nand convert the files to a usable format, which, in case you're wondering, is quite legal where I am. I just wonder what the point is? It seems to me like most publishers want to see eBooks as a concept die. But why? How often have you tried to get a book only to find it's out of print? I have several in my collection that were so popular that they couldn't be found second-hand, yet I had to wait for upwards of ten years for them to see print. In college, we had one subject where the main book for the subject was out of print. We had to borrow the profs copy and copy the whole thing.
This could be avoided by ebooks. They don't need to go out of print, ever.
In my opinion, the only publisher who ever got it right was Baen. The eBooks are cheap compared to other stores, you can always download them again in any format you need... Heck, even before eBook readers came on the market, if you bought a hardback you were likely to get a CD with your purchase containing each and every book the author had ever written, some special art, even music related to the book. This is added value to the hardcopy, and I can see why it might be tough to add extra value to the eBook, but hey, they aren't afraid to try new stuff. They even give full books away on their website.
I really wish more companies would have the guts to follow their example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is the point of a war?
What if I wanted to buy a $0.99 cheeseburger from McDonald's and they tried to convince me that $0.99 was too little because of the beef ranchers, and dairy farmers? If they tried to convince me that $2.00 is a reasonable price because they think it is, I'd walk out and go buy one at Wendys or Burger King.
What publishers and music producers, and all those middle men don't realize is that competition will bury them. I would gladly pay a price I think is reasonable... but if I can't find it for a price I am willing to pay, I'll look elsewhere or go without it. If I can get something for free with a coupon or a promotion - even better... but I absolutely refuse to pay the same price for an infinitely available product as its scarcely available counterpart (ebook vs. hardcover).
Publishers don't realize it - markets set those prices... not the retailers or producers. They want some sort of control, but they can't get it through their heads the basic tenet of sales "the customer is always right".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is the point of a war?
That is EXACTLY what would happen if our government stopped curtailing the free market by pumping billions of dollars into subsidizing corn every year.
99% cheeseburgers are disgusting. And I'm not just talking about taste.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is the point of a war?
I'd gladly pay you $.99 on Tuesday for a cheeseburger today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An argument to high priced readers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
balh balh yack yack
it costs me 2 cents per 700megabytes of data with an unlimited 4 megabit account
you can get better deal at buying faster line
i want it at 5 cents a book
OR I AINT PAYING
end of story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: balh balh yack yack
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing the point
What happens when the bookshelf is digital, with unlimted space. What happens when B&N and Boarders go the way of Tower Record stores? When people stop going to bookstores the publishers lose their major benefit to authors: placement.
The authors can place themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By extension, I use it for any freely and legally accessible content.
The only physical book I still pay for are technical ones and some from contemporary authors I favor particularly (e.g. my favourite philosopher). As long as the electronic versions will not have a price that aligns to their real cost of publishing, I will continue to buy the printouts.
As a conclusion, it is correct to say that device makers are shaking the book industry just as the Internet shakes the music industry. But they should adapt, not us. One can turn the problem in every way, the users are not at fault. The way I use my own device does indeed means less immediate money for publishers, but I consider my way both legal and moral.
Of course publishers can try to lobby to have copyright laws changed, they can try to force DRM on electronic publications. But, in that case, they will loose me an probably many others.
With electronic publications, the ball is in the camp of writters and people seeking new business and distribution models. There are lots of similarity with the case of the music industry, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I purchased a $250 nook ... not because I'm rich, but because it has value. An eBook does not hold $22 worth of value to me, most barely hold $10 of value. I've purchased exactly 3 eBooks and didn't pay more than $5 each, and everything else has been free & legal through B&N or another website that distributes public domain and license-free ePub files. And then there's free eBook check-outs from my local library's website.
So, I can get all the legal free content I need to read on my nook. The publishers can go suck one.
"The Singularity is Near" ... that I ended up getting on The Pirate Bay in a torrent that came with the PDF and a DOC version. I would have paid $5 in an INSTANT for this book even with DRM ... $10 caused me pause and I waited ... but $22, screw you guys!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hardcover:paperback::paperback:ebook?
It's a mystery to me why publishers wouldn't sell out-of-print books electronically at a discount. I guess they figure demand for the out-of-print is a kind of crop to be harvested: as the supply of existing copies dwindles through attrition, and as new people learn to read, enough new demand comes into existence to justify another printing.
But now way does that serve consumers' interests. I think copyright holders should have to physically print and sell their wares, or lose the rights to them.
(As a new Kindle owner I've promised -- maybe we all do -- to exhaust my supply of free classics before purchasing anything. We'll see. But I'm 29% of the way through my first Jane Austen).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Talking points = anti-trust violation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ebook Prices
And I agree with an earlier post. The typos and quality of the ebooks being sold are incredible. And they want to increase the price on that? If you purchased anything else that had that bad of quality, you would return it to the store. With online ebook stores, that can be difficult.
Authors are going to let publishers take money out of their pocket by allowing this. What would it really cost an author to write a book, format it for an ereader, and sell it on the internet. I think their profits would rise, and the money mongering publisher fools would be the one's losing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every industry that pulls this stunt does a faceplant.
Music: Bought indie music from CD Baby and some mp3s from Amazon. Amazon's squabble with Macmillan has taken them OFF my "buy from them" list. (Not the defense of prices, but arbitrarily removing the books.)
Books: Several thousand legitimately-purchased or public-domain novels and stories in open or DRM-removable formats (which by now is all of them). I've been buying more books than I can keep up with, removing the DRM, and archiving them for later reading.
At least so far, with the exception of Bloomsbury(Rowling), they haven't actually shot themselves in the kneecaps.
I'm happy to pay for my fun and support artists and writers, but every movie, music, or book executive who talks like this just gives more reasons to say "ARRRR!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sigh
Why should I spend more money on an e-book than I would spend on a $5.00 paperback?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh
Because an e-book costs more to produce and distribute? Nope, that's not it. The opposite is true.
I guess I don't get it either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sign
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sign
They cannot. But they probably see an eldorado, where costs tend to zero and margins skyrocket.
Maybe they hope that with ebooks, they'll be able to force people in buying a book every week. Oh yeah, I see it: the 'Book Consumer Patriot Act'. Federal penalties to apply to anyone not spending 50$ a week on ebooks.
Second-hand resale forbiden. Just like what Sony is trying to do with pre-owned games.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
get them for the same price as the print version...or less.
The free books are older books by their contemporary authors, and others.
(I know that most regular readers on techdirt.com are aware of it, but it's still worth a reminder).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: get them for the same price as the print version...or less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I read a lot, have purchased 0 ebooks
Dead Tree Version:
- Can easily give them to friends to read
- Can read them when and wherever I want
- Cannot be taken back by seller after purchase
ebook version should have all of that *and*:
- Can be purchased from anywhere
- Can store thousands on a single device
- Prices reflect drastically lower costs
- I can share quotes/annotations directly with people
- Can update to fix corrections if I ask it to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then you hit the issue of release dates, not all books get released to all ebook stores at the same time. Doesn't seem to be any rhyme nor reason to it. Some authors by the same publisher can be found on one retailers site, but not another. Not all books by a given author can be found on each ebook site either. To get some series you'd have to go through upwards of three different e-tailers.
The entire ebook industry is a freak'n nightmare. Made so mostly by publishers who couldn't be bothered to turn it into a profitable business on their own, and have only allowed themselves to be dragged toward it by people who keep throwing money at them in hopes of being able to make money selling ebooks. Because of that the entire process is a huge hodgepodge, there is no concerned effort by publishers to make it work, there never has been. And its only the numbers Kindle, and things like it, are touting in the press that is even causing them to start to notice it now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For the one curious
I've had years and years to buy what I wanted from the major labels. I have absolutely no need to pirate though like everyone else, if I wished I know where to go to do so.
I've simply reached the point that the industry as a whole thoroughly disgusts me with their actions. As a result, I buy no music any more. Not used, not indie, not any. Full stop. Period.
I went to movies when sue em all started. When they started their little gig, I dropped buying or renting movies and do neither now. Before that not only would I buy but was common to rent $30 of movies at one shot. I do neither now.
Nor do I any longer watch tv. Been long enough I haven't done that, I don't even own a tv anymore. So no cable, no PPV, no public broadcast, nada.
You know what? I don't miss it. I don't miss the commercials at all.
Again, I'm fed up with it and am prepared to boycott the rest of my life without problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to spot dying companies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Share that email?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I personally don't understand the pricing of most digital content. A digital album will run you $12.99 (compared to $15-16 for a CD), a digital movie costs $14.99 (compared to $15-20 for a DVD), and an eBook costs roughly the price of its hardback equivalent. At least music and movie downloads fall a few dollars under their physical counterparts. Charging the same price as the most expensive physical version for an eBook, though, is nothing but profiteering and gluttonous.
I can only surmise that most consumers don't sit down and think about what they're actually paying for. If I buy a CD, DVD or physical book, I understand that there's materials costs, manufacturing costs and transportation costs that go into that price. Additionally, there's overhead costs for the retailer involved in stocking physical goods. There's also hidden costs such as the little tax that gets passed on to each consumer to cover the overall theft of physical goods such as CDs and DVDs and the cost of anti-theft devices. That's a lot of cost to get a CD, DVD or book on a shelf in your local retail store.
Digital goods, however, eliminate the vast majority of those costs. There's no materials costs because the product is ethereal. There's no manufacturing costs, unless you count the initial one-time cost of production, but music, movies and even books are produced in digital form. The most that needs to be done is some sort of conversion process, and the cost of that process is virtually negligible when spread out across the entire consumer-base. There's no physical transportation costs, but you could include the cost of bandwidth here. Again, though, cost of bandwidth is extremely low compared to paying for fuel, vehicles, drivers, vehicle maintenance, etc. involved in physical transportation. Retail overhead for digital goods is confined to storage costs. Storage itself is dirt cheap, roughly $1/GB. That's fractions of pennies for each digital good, and unlike in physical retail, it's a purely incidental cost: you only need to store one copy of that song, movie or book. Of course, you need infrastructure around the storage, so there's still some ongoing cost. Piracy could be considered equivalent to physical theft, but there's no inherent "loss" in digital theft. Stealing a physical good means that the store is out of pocket for all those material, manufacture and transport costs mentioned previously. Downloading a digital good off a torrent does not explicitly impact the seller; it only implicitly impacts in the form of a "lost sale". (We'll discount entirely here that a number of studies have shown that the majority of "pirates" go on to actually purchase the item at a later day.)
The point is that, yes, there are costs involved with digital goods, but those costs are far, far less than costs associated with physical goods. The notion that consumers should pay the same price for digital or physical as if they're remotely the same is ludicrous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical behavior in a dying industry...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Antiquated publishing business models
[ link to this | view in chronology ]