Amazon To Hachette And Authors: Here, Let Us Explain Basic Price Elasticity To You
from the lower-price,-make-more-money-dimwits dept
Apparently Amazon's efforts earlier this month to make it abundantly clear that it's fight with Hachette is about helping, not harming authors still didn't quite make it through to authors who seem to reflexively hate Amazon (often for reasons that don't make much sense). So now Amazon has tried to be even more explicit, by taking the time to explain what price elasticity means, and how Amazon's plan would actually make authors more money. They lay it out pretty clearly, especially for those authors who maybe didn't do so well in economics classes:A key objective is lower e-book prices. Many e-books are being released at $14.99 and even $19.99. That is unjustifiably high for an e-book. With an e-book, there's no printing, no over-printing, no need to forecast, no returns, no lost sales due to out-of-stock, no warehousing costs, no transportation costs, and there is no secondary market -- e-books cannot be resold as used books. E-books can be and should be less expensive.Amazon then goes one step further, driving a real wedge between Hachette and authors with the following paragraph:
It's also important to understand that e-books are highly price-elastic. This means that when the price goes up, customers buy much less. We've quantified the price elasticity of e-books from repeated measurements across many titles. For every copy an e-book would sell at $14.99, it would sell 1.74 copies if priced at $9.99. So, for example, if customers would buy 100,000 copies of a particular e-book at $14.99, then customers would buy 174,000 copies of that same e-book at $9.99. Total revenue at $14.99 would be $1,499,000. Total revenue at $9.99 is $1,738,000.
The important thing to note here is that at the lower price, total revenue increases 16%. This is good for all the parties involved:Keep in mind that books don't just compete against books. Books compete against mobile games, television, movies, Facebook, blogs, free news sites and more. If we want a healthy reading culture, we have to work hard to be sure books actually are competitive against these other media types, and a big part of that is working hard to make books less expensive.
- The customer is paying 33% less.
- The author is getting a royalty check 16% larger and being read by an audience that's 74% larger. And that 74% increase in copies sold makes it much more likely that the title will make it onto the national bestseller lists. (Any author who's trying to get on one of the national bestseller lists should insist to their publisher that their e-book be priced at $9.99 or lower.)
- Likewise, the higher total revenue generated at $9.99 is also good for the publisher and the retailer. At $9.99, even though the customer is paying less, the total pie is bigger and there is more to share amongst the parties.
So, at $9.99, the total pie is bigger - how does Amazon propose to share that revenue pie? We believe 35% should go to the author, 35% to the publisher and 30% to Amazon. Is 30% reasonable? Yes. In fact, the 30% share of total revenue is what Hachette forced us to take in 2010 when they illegally colluded with their competitors to raise e-book prices. We had no problem with the 30% -- we did have a big problem with the price increases.
One more note on our proposal for how the total revenue should be shared. While we believe 35% should go to the author and 35% to Hachette, the way this would actually work is that we would send 70% of the total revenue to Hachette, and they would decide how much to share with the author. We believe Hachette is sharing too small a portion with the author today, but ultimately that is not our call.Are there legitimate concerns that some may have about Amazon's position in the marketplace? Absolutely. But it's fight with Hachette does not seem to be about that, but rather about setting up a deal that actually does make everyone better off. It appears that Hachette has been fighting that, in this ridiculous belief that ebooks have to be priced higher -- and that it should get to keep more and more of the money.
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: authors, books, ebooks, economics, price elasticity
Companies: amazon, hachette
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some extra numbers regarding lower price points
Assuming that figure holds up in both indie, and 'professional' ebook markets, if the authors really wanted to rake in the cash, and increase their audience size, they'd be pushing the publishers to slash their (currently insane) prices even lower.
Source:
http://blog.smashwords.com/2013/05/new-smashwords-survey-helps-authors.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
B..b..b...but whenever I say exactly the same thing the trolls tell me the costs are justified because someone has to reformat the first copy!
Glad to see that someone with direct experience in the industry outside of simply being a consumer (like myself) is able to validate what I have always presumed.
"In fact, the 30% share of total revenue is what Hachette forced us to take in 2010 when they illegally colluded with their competitors to raise e-book prices."
Nice dig. It's obvious that someone at Amazon is getting annoyed, hopefully this will end well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Did you mean *not* to self-publish? I assume so from the content of the rest of your comment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Some extra numbers regarding lower price points
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Some extra numbers regarding lower price points
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Still missing data here..
So, this new deal would be totally unacceptable to the publishers. Which is why they are fighting it so hard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Each author would then be pounding at their publisher's door for their check, or at least reading the fine print more carefully next time.
Accompany that with a chart that shows what the revenue change was for similar books that changed prices, both up and down.
Information in the right hands can be a powerful weapon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That section really needs to get more attention, as if an ebook seller is going to demand that you cannot resell an ebook once you no longer want it, then automatically the value of it drops, as it's impossible to recoup any money from it, and as such it's only fair that the price drops to reflect this.
Nice dig. It's obvious that someone at Amazon is getting annoyed, hopefully this will end well.
Yeah, that was a pretty blatant attack there, pointing out that Hachette has been caught being dodgy before, so they might not be as pristine as they're undoubtedly trying to paint themselves as.
Assuming Hachette is still giving Amazon the silent treatment, in the hopes that Amazon will crack first, I can totally understand why Amazon might be losing patience, so it's had to blame them for that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
After scanning and OCR, someone has to sit and go through the book to correct any errors introduced during the OCR process. That can take up to a week. Of course, the way books are published now, that's something someone has to do anyway for the print edition. Basically, once those wages have been paid through the sale of the print edition, everything that comes in is pure profit.
BTW, I'm saying this to you because you're not as annoying as a troll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another problem is that retail chains often demand that ebooks are sold at the same price as paper or they'll refuse to stock the book which scares publishers. Ebooks sold at 50% price of paper are after all a serious threat to retail store revenue.
Both of these problems are caused by legacy players; not the artists themselves. In the following link fantasy author Brandon Sanderson explains why he decided to give away ebook copies of one of his novels.
http://brandonsanderson.com/books/warbreaker/warbreaker/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Why, would they need to scan, OCR and correct any book published in the last several decades, the publisher will have it in a digital format, either as provided by the author or or as supplied to the printer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Some extra numbers regarding lower price points
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
presuming the original text wasn't typed on a computer. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
How many authors do not type their books on a PC these days? I would say an extreme minority.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Wife used to work at a book pre-press company (she was the graphic artist) and they tend to use InDesign for making books these days. She did start off with film production and suchlike for both newspapers and magazines.
Guess what makes handy dandy ebook files? InDesign.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Still missing data here..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I downloaded 2 Game of Thrones books and bought the physical ones afterwards. Because I wanted to have the "originals".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Some extra numbers regarding lower price points
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Great arguments
However, they do miss one issue, which is the question of potential market size. That is to say that for every book, there are only so many people who would be interested in it, a non-specific but certainly finite number of people who will part with money to purchase the product at all.
So in their example of going from 100,000 to 174,000 sales, they are assuming that there exists a market that is 75% larger than the initial market. That may be true for some titles, but perhaps not for others. So not all authors would magically see 75% more sales.
Also, they tend to forget that the cost related to the transaction remain generally the same. Cutting the price of the ebook changes the numbers all down the line when it comes to the ratio of expenses to income. If you are operating only on percentage, that is fine. But certain costs related to the transaction (accounting, tracking, and all those other back office things) are pretty much a constant. Lowering the price takes the biggest part of the profit right off the top, it rarely changes the costs.
If those costs are high enough, they could make that potential 75% increase much less enjoyable - except for Amazon of course, who would have more transactions and more cash flow.
e-books cannot be resold as used books
Surprised that nobody has jumped all over this. Everything in the law right now points to the concept that E-books are likely to be subject to first sale rights, which means that yes, they will at some point be able to be resold.
That will be an even bigger issue in the long run, because e-books have no wear and tear, they don't get dog eared, they don't get wet in a leaky backpack, they don't gather dust or dry out. An e-book is eternally fresh and it's resale value would remain a constant, and would certainly create negative pricing pressure in the marketplace. If a used e-book is exactly the same as a new one, there is no reason to buy a new one.
So Amazon appears to be making sense, but they also appear to have their finger on the scale of logic a bit, tilting things their way and glossing over some of the more complex issues.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
There's plenty of space to sell shitloads while being fair. Of course you may not have insane profit margins or you won't have super hyper star authors overnight but the pie grows exponentially.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But I believe you got it wrong with this book issue.
It seem you forget that customer are as well workers.
As such we should not always fight for the customer good when it goes heavily against workers well being.
Just take a second .
Think about this wonderful job that is librarian and how important they are for the book industry.
Now compare it to an average amazon worker in warehouse ( plenty of information on working condition there ).
Do you really think we get a better deal if we pay 30% less for our book at the cost of butchering an entire profession.
Do you believe that creating more job in amazon(or competitor ) warehouse is beneficial for culture and literature.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Some extra numbers regarding lower price points
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
'Butchering an entire profession' is just a titch overblown as well, libraries aren't going anywhere in the foreseeable future, as even with ebooks becoming more and more common, there are still plenty of people who prefer a solid paperback for their reading, for any number of reasons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Great arguments
Too bad. Some authors don't write really good stuff. And if they are niche they can actually charge more for it. However we are talking about a Publisher forcing a price tag to all authors.
Also, they tend to forget that the cost related to the transaction remain generally the same.... But certain costs related to the transaction (accounting, tracking, and all those other back office things) are pretty much a constant.
Yeah, last time I checked with my friend that owns a shop Visa charged about 0.4% to 4% of the total transaction. As for the administrative costs that's where Amazon share kicks in. I'm inclined to think they can lower that number too. In fact the goddamn publisher can greatly lower their margin too depending on the strategy adopted (ie: marketing campaigns and stuff like that).
Everything in the law right now points to the concept that E-books are likely to be subject to first sale rights, which means that yes, they will at some point be able to be resold.
Right now they cannot be resold. So your point is simply invalid. And if it's clearly sold as a copy that cannot be distributed or resold but with reasonable price tags it seems all good. You don't resell phone apps generally. Or in-app transactions.
An e-book is eternally fresh and it's resale value would remain a constant... If a used e-book is exactly the same as a new one, there is no reason to buy a new one.
That's the main issue with file sharing. Why would you buy something that's available for free? Ease of access is one insanely determinant factor. The will to support the artist is another (I bought Minecraft just because I support Notch's attitude despite the fact I don't like the game).
So Amazon appears to be making sense, but they also appear to have their finger on the scale of logic a bit, tilting things their way and glossing over some of the more complex issues.
Actually you are the one doing it. Glossing things that are clear with some dark ink.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Aren't the original texts provided digitally nowadays? If not, wouldn't the editor need to have gone through this process already to proof and edit the text before submission to the printers? Don't printers use digital files? Why would there be an additional cost in preparing the ebook compared to the print version if the same master text is used apart from the formatting? If it's not the same, why not?
These are the questions I ask constantly, and never get anything other than vague replies and people pretending I must be a pirate because I won't pay hardcover prices for an ebook.
"Of course, the way books are published now, that's something someone has to do anyway for the print edition."
So, from that, I assume you're suggesting that any work will need to be done equally regardless of whether the master copy is produced for print or ebook. Why, then, are the obvious savings as listed by Amazon not passed on to the consumer?
"BTW, I'm saying this to you because you're not as annoying as a troll."
I appreciate that. I don't troll - I think it';s a pathetic waste of time and look down on those who do it. I ask these questions honestly, as a technically-minded consumer. If there are justifications for any of the higher costs, I'm glad to hear them, but to my ears they usually sound like excuses not to pass on production and distribution savings to the end consumer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
When I did my book (Techdirt book club book for August 2012) it was my first attempt at doing an ebook and took me 2 days to create and format it into 6 different fileformats, which I didn't consider to be too bad for my first attempt. Professionals can do it a lot quicker.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Great arguments
"That is to say that for every book, there are only so many people who would be interested in it, a non-specific but certainly finite number of people who will part with money to purchase the product at all."
...and a higher number of people who will pay for it at $5 or $10 compared to those who will pay $20. Funny, you didn't address that point, only argued sematics based on numbers you pulled from your nether regions again. What's the justification for the higher prices?
"Also, they tend to forget that the cost related to the transaction remain generally the same."
Citation needed. Which transaction costs are you referring to, considering that the lower production and distribution costs are already covered by Amazon's statement?
"e-books cannot be resold as used books"
"they will at some point be able to be resold. "
So, you reject this point because in your imagination what's not possible now will be available in the future. Any evidence for this? Specifically of how they will succeed where attempts to do similar things for music are failing (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/business/media/redigi-loses-suit-over-reselling-of-digital-music. html?_r=0)
"they also appear to have their finger on the scale of logic"
Whereas you're still trying to work out where it is.
"glossing over some of the more complex issues"
Wow, the lack of self-awareness is strong. Do you want to address the actual issues this time, or are you going to whine because I might have called you a funny name while pointing out your fallacies and half-baked simplifications of the issues at hand like you did yesterday?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What do Amazon warehouse conditions have to do with the discussion of ebooks in the article? What do warehouses have to do with libraries?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Great arguments
It's called the market in general, and as Amazon's numbers show, it doesn't really matter what size is it, books priced lower sell more, significantly so, and are therefor more profitable for everyone involved.
Lowering the price takes the biggest part of the profit right off the top, it rarely changes the costs.
... what? Whether they sell 10 or 100, the difference in 'transaction' costs, when it comes to ebooks is essentially the same, which is to say negligible. Typing out/copy-pasting one number, rather than another, in the accounting sheet takes the same amount of time, and the same amount of cost, whether that number is high or low, so I've no clue what point you're trying to make here.
Surprised that nobody has jumped all over this. Everything in the law right now points to the concept that E-books are likely to be subject to first sale rights, which means that yes, they will at some point be able to be resold.
It would, if it were treated as a sale, but the vast majority of digital 'sales'(of any kind) are generally treated as licenses(non-transferable at that), where you are 'sold' nothing more than access to the content, you don't actually own anything beyond that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Wait,this was a serious description about how digital books are published in 2014? This wasn't a joke?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Some extra numbers regarding lower price points
The prices the publishers want aren't excessive, they're obscene.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Now compare it to an average amazon worker in warehouse ( plenty of information on working condition there )."
I'm not sure if you are trying to be sarcastical or not.
"Do you really think we get a better deal if we pay 30% less for our book at the cost of butchering an entire profession.
Do you believe that creating more job in amazon(or competitor ) warehouse is beneficial for culture and literature."
I guess you would've also tried to stop progress to save the silesian weavers. You really think we would've been better off with child labour, bad expensive clothing and without industrialization just to protect one profession that can't adopt to new circumstances?
We lose professions all the time and we gain new ones instead. You mention Amazon Warehouse workers, well what about the Software Developers for those e-Book readers for example, you want that profession to disappear instead?
You can't protect whats not willing or able to adapt - and personally I think librarians aren't really in any danger here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Again, when I don't by an e-book because the prices are ridiculously high, the authors in question don't make a single cent!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Great arguments
When that is said, the tracking should be 100 % automatic and the paperwork should also be pretty trivial to automate further than if you have to gather paper-data from stores etc. Your logic here seems even more shallow than the primary point you claim is so. It is not that these types of costs disappear, but they can also be reduced if you are clever enough to use electronic data treatment as opposed to paper! As for e-books vs. normal books, they are apples and oranges. Resale is a tricky subject on e-books and it depends on the device used and the DRM used if resale is possible not to mention legal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Great arguments
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the New Model
Baen also has some of the old classics by Heinlein, Anderson, Zelanzy, and many others. Often at $4.
The icing on the cake is NO DRM, even on the new stuff.
Am I buying? Yes. I have also found several new authors that I would not have found otherwise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Great arguments
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Some extra numbers regarding lower price points
I have bought more expensive e-books, but they were all textbooks for college courses. Of course, given how much publishers can blackmail students for high prices, even a $50 e-book is a steal in those cases.
(The real scam is "access code courses," where the publisher sets up coursework online, and students pay for semester-length access codes with the book. Of course, these are non-transferable, so bookstores never buy back these books - and the publishers also eliminate resale values and the used book market.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don't assume authors are idiots
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In addition to the tons of additional work for Amazon, I'm betting they don't do this because they're contractually obligated not to do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Some extra numbers regarding lower price points
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
So far libraries here are becoming a meeting hall with cultural exchange and a place for teaching people how to use computers, as well as a place everyone can come and use a computer if their own doesn't work. They can also help you to use a search engine properly for finding specific material etc. No, Librarians will do fine in the information society. There may be less need for them at libraries but their skills should be pretty useful in several contexts in the future.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Maybe take your own advice
'...but dismissing what he says as an example of reflexive hatred is just silly.'
... did you really just dismiss one article out of hand, and then suggest another, followed by an admonition against being dismissive regarding something just because you disagree with the one who wrote it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Some extra numbers regarding lower price points
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Except that Amazon's contract with Hachette almost certainly prohibits this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Maybe take your own advice
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Still missing data here..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Maybe take your own advice
So if you are interested in the debate, read the post I linked to as well as this one. If not, well then perhaps not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PS - not PDF
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Maybe take your own advice
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Don't assume authors are idiots
No it doesn't. Amazon's argument is not friendship, it's that their business model will make both Amazon and the authors more money. That's a purely business argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Sme thing with DRM, they refuse to acknowlege that DRM reduces value to customers and therefore means fewer sales at their offered price.
A useful experiment would be one dollar with DRM versus $9.99 without.
Short of authors knowing these economic realities don't expect any changes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Don't assume authors are idiots
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Great arguments
..and a higher number of people who will pay for it at $5 or $10 compared to those who will pay $20. Funny, you didn't address that point, only argued sematics based on numbers you pulled from your nether regions again. What's the justification for the higher prices?
The point (that you missed) is that the number of potential buyers is not infinite. We have seen in the past where super low prices can create sales that might not otherwise happen. Amazon's point is great, and certainly they have the experience to back it up, but you have to be a bit innocent to think that a simple price drop will sudden make the overall book market grow 75% out of thin air. It may be that books with lower prices get preferential sales over ones that are not (in similar titles) or they may be cannibalizing print copy sales when they reach a certain pricing point between e-books and hard copy books.
Understanding that the market is not infinite, and that there is no indication that the total book consumption market grows by 75%, you have to wonder where the sales come from and what the knock on effects are.
Citation needed. Which transaction costs are you referring to, considering that the lower production and distribution costs are already covered by Amazon's statement?
I didn't say distribution or production costs, I said transaction costs. The costs to accept the credit card. The costs to process that payment. The costs to account for that payment. The costs to manage refunds, and all that goes with the back office costs of actually retailing something. Again, unless the increase in volume leads to lower costs per transaction, you have to deal with the transaction costs being the same in both.
Simple number: If the transaction costs are $1 per item and constant per transaction, then the percentage of the transaction that is this cost is higher as you drop the price. Basic stuff really, I am sure you can grasp it.
you reject this point because in your imagination what's not possible now will be available in the future.
My point is that Techdirt is a place where there is plenty of discussion of first sale rights, and purchase versus license and those sorts of things. That e-books aren't specifically in a place to be re-sold now does not mean that they will not be in the future.
For that matter, if you have a kindle with 100 books on it, what stops you from selling the kindle and the books on it today? Transfer the account, and you are off to the races. Bingo, you just sold e-books.
Amazon's flat "it can't be done" flies in the face of the conventional wisdom around here.
Whereas you're still trying to work out where it is.
nice, another personal insult. Could add anything, just needed a dig?
Wow, the lack of self-awareness is strong. Do you want to address the actual issues this time, or are you going to whine because I might have called you a funny name while pointing out your fallacies and half-baked simplifications of the issues at hand like you did yesterday?
It's why I generally don't have discussions with you anymore. Personal insults, the inability to move from topic to topic, and most importantly, the inability to grasp an alternate opinion. Look, I am stubborn and opinionated, but I learn and I do accept other points of view. Perhaps if you turned down the personal attacks and started to consider alternate points of view, you might get along better with people.
As always with your comments, I am done. So you can answer me back and call me a liar and all sorts of names, and I honestly won't care, because you will be talking to yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Some extra numbers regarding lower price points
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't assume authors are idiots
But you do have a point about business arrangements being temporary things. However, that's true of all business arrangements regardless of who they're with, so it's not really a meaningful point in terms of talking about Amazon specifically.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Great arguments
If you have $1 of admin costs per transaction, at $10 you have a gross of $9, and at $14 you have a gross of $13. The $1 doesn't change, so it's 10% of the cost in one example, and 7% of the other.
More importantly, if the e-book transaction at $10 is profitable by $5, the same transaction at $14 is profitable by $9. The costs remain the same, period. The 75% increase in sales would actually mean a similar amount of profits overall:
100,000 transactions at $9 profit: $900,000
175,000 transactions at $5 profit: $875,000
(before Paul flips out, the numbers are out of the air, I am only trying to show relative things. It would be worse if the break even cost was $8 (then you would have $2 and $6, making the higher price significantly more profitable even with the increase in volume) and the advantage would tip towards the lower price if the break even price was somewhat lower (a $3 cost would give you $7 and $11, or 1.1 million at the high price and 1.225 million at the lower price). The actual profit of the situation (not the gross but the net) has much more to do with the break even point on each sale, and not just the volume of sales.
It would, if it were treated as a sale, but the vast majority of digital 'sales'(of any kind) are generally treated as licenses(non-transferable at that), where you are 'sold' nothing more than access to the content, you don't actually own anything beyond that.
The funny part is that generally this is my point of view. However, I am wise enough to see that there are legal issues in play here which could change. Shifting the entire business model of e-books to a lower price point today because the books cannot current be resold doesn't mean that the situation could not change tomorrow.
The right to resell the license is one that will probably be a while back and forth, in the court and in the legislative branch around the world for a while to come. As we move away from print books and shiny plastic disc for digital data and move into e-whatever, consumers will push to obtain more rights to control what they pay for. It's pretty logical to think that there will be pressure to allow for resale of e-goods. Amazon is correct today, but their statement isn't forward looking, and seems even to ignore a potential reality in the not too distant future. At some point, there will be a discussion as to if this stuff is a purchase or a rental.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Great arguments
They took their numbers from a huge dataset of sales and presented averages. So, on average, that is what they could expect to see for an increase in sales. True that it is possible that they are going to run into some market forces outside of the price impacting the market size, but publishers in particular should find these numbers compelling because they are involved in enough books that they are extremely likely to average out.
As far as the authors - yup, some will do worse, but some will do better. It is unfortunate that the authors have no say in what their publisher is going to charge because they are the ones with the most interest in setting price based on other factors (like a niche market), but that is the reality when you use a publisher.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Great arguments
So people who buy books will likely buy more books than they would have before and so what if they are cannibalizing hard copy sales? Hard copy sales contribute to a reseller market that they do not profit from and have a higher production and distribution cost.
"I didn't say distribution or production costs, I said transaction costs. The costs to accept the credit card. The costs to process that payment. The costs to account for that payment. The costs to manage refunds, and all that goes with the back office costs of actually retailing something. Again, unless the increase in volume leads to lower costs per transaction, you have to deal with the transaction costs being the same in both.
Simple number: If the transaction costs are $1 per item and constant per transaction, then the percentage of the transaction that is this cost is higher as you drop the price. Basic stuff really, I am sure you can grasp it."
You don't understand how merchant accounts work do you? Merchant accounts generally charge a flat fee plus a percentage per transaction. The fee and percentage are based on a range of total expected volume for the seller. This is a cost Amazon negotiates for doing all of their business not just e-book sales and with the volume that the do in transactions, the cost of each individual transaction is likely laughably small to the point that it isn't even a factor to consider in the equation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then again, eBook formatting/editing is regularly atrocious. I have yet to understand how the publishers can claim it costs them so much money to copy-edit them when, as a reader, it appears no one even spell-checked the damn thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't assume authors are idiots
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bury the Hatchette
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't assume authors are idiots
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Maybe take your own advice
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Great arguments
No problem. You earn them every time.
"The point (that you missed) is that the number of potential buyers is not infinite."
No shit. The number is also smaller when you apply artificially prohibitive prices that's more than most potential customers wish to pay. There's also a large number of people who will never pay, no matter how low the price. However, there's a point where more customers are attracted by lower prices, and where the economies of scale and relative lack of marginal costs actually bring more profit in for everyone.
That was Amazon's point, but you rejected that outright without discussion while trying to substitute your own made-up scenario for which you provide zero citations or figures. Back up your own arguments, else you will get called out.
"Again, unless the increase in volume leads to lower costs per transaction, you have to deal with the transaction costs being the same in both."
But, every other cost, from duplication to distribution is lower. Not only that, but it's AMAZON who have to deal with that cost, not the author or publisher. Thus, it's down to them to deal with - authors and publishers just collect the increase portion that goes to their royalties while Amazon swallow the transaction cost. Is that too hard for you to grasp?
"My point is that Techdirt is a place where there is plenty of discussion of first sale rights, and purchase versus license and those sorts of things."
You noticed. So, why do you ignore everything that's discussed in those threads, and substitute something that's been proven wrong in the real world?
"because you will be talking to yourself"
Until the next thread, where if you lie and act like a disingenuous asshole, I will note it.
Sorry, your proclamations don't mean anything to me. Either stop your idiotic behaviour and take part in honest discussion, or face the consequences of what happens when you lie in a public forum.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Maybe take your own advice
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't assume authors are idiots
Which I also don't understand.
From what I read from Amazon, the comments are consistent, factual and not founded in emotional responses. In fact, countering your comments to Amazon, I am inclined to trust Amazon would teat me more consistently and from a solid business perspective.
I would think that any author would find significant comfort in knowing exactly how their business partner is going to behave, time after time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Great arguments
lol
The logical knots you're tying yourself into in order to try and have a point are quite funny, though. Maybe if you understood the points raised before trying to poke holes in arguments you haven't even started to grasp, there's be less friction here.
But - why do you think anyone but Amazon has to pay the transaction fees? If not, why do you have a problem with them running their retail business the way they wish?
"It's pretty logical to think that there will be pressure to allow for resale of e-goods. "
Did you look at the provided links as to why that's failed for other media types yet?
"At some point, there will be a discussion as to if this stuff is a purchase or a rental."
May I direct you to the last decade of discussions on the subject on the very website?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Don't assume authors are idiots
Amazon’s Latest Volley
Having read it, I can certainly dismiss it - because his arguments are wrong. Let's take a look:
If you entertain the notion that Amazon is just 30% of the market and that publishers have other retailers to consider — and that authors have other income streams than Amazon — then the math falls apart. Amazon’s assumptions don’t include, for example, that publishers and authors might have a legitimate reason for not wanting the gulf between eBook and physical hardcover pricing to be so large that brick and mortar retailers suffer, narrowing the number of venues into which books can sell.
The plain fact is that most people are moving towards e-books no matter what. Physical sales are going down, because the demand is going down, regardless of e-book prices. On the other hand, those who buy physical copies will likely pay more for them anyway - they're already paying more than they would for an e-book, even if prices remain exactly the same as they are now.
In other words, the gulf in prices is not what would drive down sales of paper copies. So the only question is how much money authors want to make from the dominant format, meaning e-books. And by Amazon's own data (which is backed up by basic economic principles widely known for many decades), lower prices will result in higher profits.
Incidentally, Amazon may be only 30% of the book market, but e-books in general have a far, far higher market share than that. In nearly all book categories (and all fiction categories other than graphic novels), e-books have a much larger share of book sales than paper copies. (See e.g. BISG Report – A Few More Ebook Stats.) If Amazon doesn't lower their prices, then Kobo, Sony, Apple, and Barnes & Noble eventually will, for exactly the reasons that Amazon said.
Amazon’s math of "you will sell 1.74 times as many books at $9.99 than at $14.99" is also suspect, because it appears to come with the ground assumption that books are interchangable units of entertainment, each equally as salable as the next, and that pricing is the only thing consumers react to.
Except Amazon is not making that assumption. In fact, they say exactly the opposite: "So, for example, if customers would buy 100,000 copies of a particular e-book at $14.99, then customers would buy 174,000 copies of that same e-book at $9.99."
This is how basic price elasticity works, and basic economics predicts that goods that are less necessities will be more elastic. This has been shown to be true for many, many years. It is in total agreement with data collected across other artistic industries, such as the video game industry.
This is where many people decide to opine that the cost of eBooks should reflect the cost of production in some way that allows them to say that whatever price point they prefer is the naturally correct one. This is where I say: You know what, if you’ve ever paid more than twenty cents for a soda at a fast food restaurant, or have ever bought bottled water at a store, then I feel perfectly justified in considering your cost of production position vis a vis publishing as entirely hypocritical.
Ironically, this goes against his point. The production costs associated with the fountain sodas or bottled water are much higher than they are for e-books. The costs of the products themselves are much higher - both for fixed costs (factories, land, bottling machinery) and per-unit costs (shipping, labor, packaging, etc). And people pay for these things because they are convenience; and unlike convenience on the Internet (which is essentially free), that convenience also has higher costs (store rents, labor costs, etc). Yet people pay far, far less for a soda at a fast food restaurant, or for bottled water at a store.
Unless he's ever paid $14.99 for a soda at a fast food restaurant, or more than $9.99 for a bottle of water at a store, then I feel perfectly justified in considering his cost of production position vis a vis publishing as entirely hypocritical.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: I think it’s very likely that if $9.99 becomes the upper bound for pricing on eBooks, then you are going to find $9.99 becomes the standard price for eBooks, period, because publishers who lose money up at the top of the pricing scale will need to recoup that money somewhere else, and the bottom of the pricing scale is a fine place to do it.
First: if he'd have paid attention, he would have noticed that publishers would make money "up at the top of the pricing scale." So his whole assumption is invalid.
Second: publishers that price books at "the bottom of the pricing scale" are doing so precisely because the bottom is where they make the most money regardless. If publishers could make more money by raising prices at "the bottom," they would have done so already. So that argument is also invalid.
Third: Amazon explicitly said that they don't think $9.99 should be the upper bound. From their forum announcement: "Is it Amazon's position that all e-books should be $9.99 or less? No, we accept that there will be legitimate reasons for a small number of specialized titles to be above $9.99."
I think Amazon taking a moment to opine that authors should get 35% of net revenues from publishers for their eBooks is a nice bit of trying to rally authors to their point of view by drawing their attention away from Amazon’s attempt to standardize all eBook pricing at a price point that benefits Amazon’s business goals first and authors secondarily, if at all.
Or, it could be Amazon drawing attention to the fact that authors blame Amazon for low payouts, while the actual reason is that the publishers keep the money that Amazon gives them. (This is essentially how it works in the music biz.)
And it's really hard to argue that higher sales don't benefit Amazon and authors equally, if both make their money as a share of the income (which is the case). If you earn 35% of a hundred thousand in e-book sales, then it makes no difference if you get a hundred thousand from 10,000 sales at $10, or from 100,000 sales at $1. So, if the price elasticity benefits Amazon, it benefits authors as well.
The other type of revenue sharing is a flat per-book fee, like the royalty rates in streaming music. But if that's the case, then authors would benefit from price elasticity more than Amazon itself would.
Either way, higher sales due to price elasticity benefit authors at least as much as it benefits Amazon.
I will grant you this: his position certainly isn't "an example of reflexive hatred." In his other posts, he's made it clear that he works with Amazon, and doesn't dislike them in particular. It's simply an example of being ignorant of basic economics, which unfortunately seems to be endemic to a lot of artists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Great arguments
That can be answered with, "Why would you go to a restaurant when you can cook at home for almost free ?"
Willingness to pay comes when the price asked is less than the percieved value.
Getting somebody to percieve your goods favorably is a skill that those depending on Copyright as a crutch
seem to have forgotten, be they author or publisher.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I never thought I would like an ebook, but when it came down to either buying one or making a new bookcase, I made the jump. My wife called me a traitor to books, but she now too has an ebook reader.
Being able to have thousands of books and documents at my fingers, not having to search for titles that I can't remember where I left, being able to buy a new book at 3am from bed because I can't sleep, and having automatic updates for technical books are only some of the advantages.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Great arguments
Those were real world numbers amazon used, not pulled from a hat.
That revenue and profit calculation? Real.
Yours? Made up.
For every copy an e-book would sell at $14.99, it would sell 1.74 copies if priced at $9.99. So, for example, if customers would buy 100,000 copies of a particular e-book at $14.99, then customers would buy 174,000 copies of that same e-book at $9.99. Total revenue at $14.99 would be $1,499,000. Total revenue at $9.99 is $1,738,000.
So, *higher total revenue*, which results in 16% bigger take for the author.
See their numbers? Revenue at 9.99 is $1.7m. Revenue at $14.99 is $1.4m. Those numbers aren't made up. Yours are.
1.7m in revenue, how amazon slices it (not how you think they slice it) results in higher payouts to the publisher than 1.4m in revenue. You simply do not have a leg to stand on in this argument. Using amazons numbers (which aren't made up) its clear that at lower prices, the author and publisher MAKE MORE.
End of story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Great arguments
You are trying to apply an argument that applies to very few books to books where that argument does not apply.
It can be assumed that Amazon know their own transaction costs when suggesting a price level, and can make a healthy profit on he margin that they propose. As the publisher will be dealing with probably monthly payments from amazon, their transaction costs are fixed regardless of the volume of sales. Therefore the proposal makes sense, especially as Amazon is discussing books aimed at the mass market.
On the very rare occasion when someone tries to sell a book with a very limited market via Amazon they can still sell at a much higher price.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
100,000 transactions at $9 profit: $900,000
175,000 transactions at $5 profit: $875,000
your example is NOT profit it is gross income.
For it to be profit you have figure distribution, sellers cut, printing costs, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Don't assume authors are idiots
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't assume authors are idiots
They are doing exactly what you would expect from a solid business perspective, which is to act in their own interest. To some extent that's bound to align with authors' interests: Amazon needs there to be products in order to sell them. But I don't expect - and can't think of any reason to expect - Amazon to act in the interests of authors beyond that, and do expect that over time Amazon will try to arrange things to maximise its own share of revenue at the expense of authors and publishers.
Amazon could, to take a different example, run its warehouses, with better paid staff and more stable employment conditions. Not doing so is good for Amazon, less good for the employees concerned. Amazon has the bargaining power, low-wage workers don't. They pay as little as they can, consistent with the effective operation of the warehouses.
What reason is there to suppose that, over time, they won't want to pay authors as little as they can, consistent with the continued supply of new books? Some - or perhaps many - authors will accept that bargain, but Amazon will still be in the business of extracting as much of the value as they can. Why wouldn't they be?
And again, since it seems to be confusing people, that's not a moral or emotional judgement, that's just how capitalism works. The emotional reaction is to assume that for some reason Amazon is in business for the good of authors. They have never claimed to be that, and there is no reason to expect them to be (though of course it is true that they have created a distribution channel for authors which has value for them).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Fixed costs>: if you make one copy or 100,000 what remains fixed? In the case of "books" in general, that's editing, formatting, artwork, etc.
Marginal costs: how much does it cost to make (and deliver) one more? For a physical book, the cost of paper, ink, physically printing, and then distribution. For ebooks? $0 (or close enough not to matter).
Your example would imply a fixed cost of $500,000 for producing the book. Good luck in that universe because it isn't this one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can, however, attest to the lack of ability to press the spell check though. That never made any sense to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Even more damning, as several others have pointed out, Amazon is making the sale and proposing giving the publisher 70% of the gross (or at least the pre-tax gross), so Amazon will be absorbing all unit costs. And your argument was... what, again???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't assume authors are idiots
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Total nonsense for at least 95% of all books, which only contain text and a few images.
Try this plugin for MS Word: http://toxaris.nl/?page_id=96
and you're done in 2 hours max.
What does the plugin do: http://www.toxaris.nl/helpen/
OCR a book, or use a PDF file and convert it to a MS Word document en run the plugin.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Great arguments
This is not true everywhere. See this story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Don't assume authors are idiots
... "therefore it doesn't matter if you work against print books" seems to be your argument. By the same logic, I should kill you personally "because you're going to die eventually anyway, and you're no particular use to *me* anyway."
My personal anecdote is that a bookstore is a "not-bad" place to look for new titles, and that a web page is very poor for the same task.
The production costs associated with the fountain sodas or bottled water are much higher than they are for e-books.
And the development costs are amortized in individual sales, same as they are in books. Guess what? The development costs of books are proportionally higher, and the volume of sales lower. (How many cokes do you buy? How many copies of "50 shades of gray"?)
Scalzi: I think it’s very likely that if $9.99 becomes the upper bound for pricing on eBooks, then you are going to find $9.99 becomes the standard price for eBooks, period.
Karl: ... he would have noticed that publishers would make money "up at the top of the pricing scale."
If (Volume of books sold) * (price per unit) < (development cost), it's a loss for the publisher, period. And while lower prices often lead to higher volumes, not only is that not guaranteed, there's an upper limit to the number of customers. You do a lot of hand waving saying "it'll be all right" but I'm not seeing citations to numbers drawn from experience.
"Is it Amazon's position that all e-books should be $9.99 or less? No, we accept that there will be legitimate reasons for a small number of specialized titles to be above $9.99."
Yes, they are saying that "as a general rule, the upper bound will be $9.99".
Or, it could be Amazon drawing attention to the fact that authors blame Amazon for low payouts, while the actual reason is that the publishers keep the money that Amazon gives them.
Interesting that you make this argument along with arguing that lower prices will increase volume. If they're complaining, you'd think it was that they were getting less money, in an absolute sense.
You call out ignorance of basic economics. But what I see you arguing is theoretical economics, rather than practical applied economics based on existing sales data. Please feel free to disabuse me by citing sales data to the contrary.
I recall a comment by an author (I thought Lois Bujold, but I can't find the quote now) saying that e-book sales and promotion seemed to work for some people (specifically mentioning Cory Doctorow), but not as well for most authors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Do you have any more useless conversion ideas?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Some extra numbers regarding lower price points
100,000 units @ $14.99.
174,000 units @ $9.99.
748,200 units @ $3.99 (4.3 × 174,000 units sold @ $9.99)
Turnover -/- Amazon 30% = earnings for publisher and/or author
@ $14.99: $1,499,000 -/- $499,700 = $1,049,300
@ $9.99: $1,738,260 -/- $521,478 = $1,216,782
@ $3.99: $2,985,318 -/- $895,595 = $2,089,723
Traditional publishing
Author receives 17.5% royalty (sales price);
@ $14.99 $262,325 (100%)
@ $9.99 $304,196 (116%) > increase 15.96%
@ $3.00 $522,431 (199%) > increase 99.15%
Publishing company earns (keeps) the rest: 70% -/- royalties payed to author
@ $14.99 $1,049,300 -/- $262,325 = $ 786,975
@ $9.99 $1,216,782 -/- $304,196 = $ 912,587
@ $3.99 $2,089,723 -/- $522,431 = $ 1,567,292
A traditional publisher receives 3 times more than an author.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Some extra numbers regarding lower price points
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Depends on where you live.
http://torrentfreak.com/online-store-can-sell-used-ebooks-court-rules-140723/
For the time being. :-\
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In exchange for more (or less!) expensive eBooks, the authors that you care about make... the exact same amount.
The Librarians that you also mention make... the exact same amount.
This is one of the rare cases where everyone (with the possible exception of a few Publisher employees) has a better outcome.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't assume authors are idiots
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Some extra numbers regarding lower price points
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Great arguments
I have set up merchant accounts for a major retail company. Got it figured out. However, the credit card fees, especially in a larger company like Amazon, are a small part of the deal, and yes, they are a percentage. However, actual accounting, tracking, processing of the orders, and allowance to handle exceptions, refunds, and so on is a pretty constant thing when you look over a larger group of transactions. As a result, there is a pretty consistent cost per transaction on average, and that doesn't vary much with price. Effectively, like it or not, it costs Amazon X per transaction overall, and that doesn't go away.
It's actually one of the reasons why it has been very hard to start up online payment processing for small payments. It's not the credit card merchant fees that get you, it's all the tracking, accounting, and handling required to make micro payments really work out. It's why most micropayment systems require that users make a single larger pre-payment charge and then go from there, just so that the transaction costs don't wipe them out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Looking at some publishers.
Baen Books: "Electronic submissions are strongly preferred."
Tor Books: They want submissions via email as "should be in something approximating standard manuscript format and be sent as *.doc (not docx), *.rtf, or plain-text attachments."
Pan MacMillan India: They want book proposals to be emailed. If you don't use email, the following quote applies "Hard copy proposals are not preferred and will not be returned, so please retain a copy."
Seems to me that electronic copies are the preferred media for new book submissions. After all, it's rather easy to change formats and layouts. And electronic typesetting is the current standard. OCR is just for handling older books that are being republished in the electronic age.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Some extra numbers regarding lower price points
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Great arguments
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Great arguments
Those were real world numbers amazon used, not pulled from a hat.
That revenue and profit calculation? Real.
Yes, and contrary to what you might think, I AGREE WITH THEM. Straight up, when the ratio of sales increase is higher than the reduction is price, the gross income will increase. DUH!
That isn't the point.
The point is twofold: 1, are there in fact that many more consumers for all e-books on a consistent basis, and 2, once you remove the (close to) fixed transaction costs, is the bottom line profit bigger for all parties?
Amazon answers neither question. If Amazon keeps the 70-30% split, they need to increase sales by the percentage decrease in price just to remain in the same spot (plus e
Their claim is basic: lower your price, and suddenly 75% more people show up to buy. But where do those people come from? Are readers suddenly buying 75% more books? Or are they buying more of these e-books, and less of other e-books? Did market overall expand 75% as a result of price reductions, or is this just a shift of sales from other titles or other media?
1.7m in revenue, how amazon slices it (not how you think they slice it) results in higher payouts to the publisher than 1.4m in revenue
If in fact the sales increase that much. If all e-books move to a lower price point, will that 75% trend continue? Remember, they need a 40% increase in sales just to stay in place. Their 75% number sounds great, but without considering the real causes, it can be very misleading.
My opinion (and I say this so people like Paul can't get all cranky) is that Amazon has figured that not having to warehouse all these physical books is a godsend to their bottom line, that they can take space currently used for books in their warehouses and use it for other, higher margin / higher ticket items. Moving it all digital would be a true boost for their bottom line - which is currently hurting! So if a price drop in e-books erodes print further, it's very likely much better for Amazon than anyone else.
Out of curiosity, does anyone have a breakdown on how amazon handles physical books and distribution of revenue? Is Amazon buying for a price (like a normal retailer) and then selling on for a profit? Or are the doing a percentage margin thing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Don't assume authors are idiots
Hmmm... I hope that isn't the guy I've been arguing with. I have his Old Man's War series and while I haven't read it yet, I'd dread to think that someone so obviously obtuse was responsible for what's apparently a very good sci-fi series.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Great arguments
Per *transaction*. Which isn't per book, it's per purchase. Which, if someone buys multiple items at a time (usually the case, to my knowledge), it's a lot less per item than the particular item you choose to sell. Quite apart from the fact that this only applies to Amazon in these examples, it's amazing that someone with the self-claimed experience you have doesn't know that the processing fee applies to a purchase and not each individual item.
Another smug proclamation that actually falls apart when you start applying facts and logic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Great arguments
The customer base who will pay a reasonable price but not the ass-raping the publisher wishes? Passing traffic attracted by Amazon's deals and other venues that have nothing to do with the author and the publisher?
"My opinion (and I say this so people like Paul can't get all cranky) is that Amazon has figured that not having to warehouse all these physical books is a godsend to their bottom line,"
We're talking about ebooks, aren't we? Do you need to drag irrelevant crap into a discussion to make a point every time? Again, want me to stop calling you out on talking a load of guano? Stop talking guano.
"Is Amazon buying for a price (like a normal retailer) and then selling on for a profit?"
Why do you believe the digital market needs to work like this, when Amazon can make infinite sales from one copy in inventory, unlike physical sales?
"Or are the doing a percentage margin thing?"
If you'd bothered reading the article before pulling shit out of your rear end and smearing it all over your screen, you'd understand the focus of the discussion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Great arguments
As for e-book resale... that just sounds really impractical and not very relevant to the conversation either. And actually, if ebook reselling does take off, why would you trust a fresh new copy from the publisher less than one that may have been tampered with by some creative individual? I've had enough experience with viruses and malware that I don't think I'd be interested in an ebook resale market unless I'm looking for something that's been discontinued by the publisher.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't assume authors are idiots
What is Amazon doing to try to increase their percentage of the pie?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Some extra numbers regarding lower price points
Your right on one thing a book with a MSRP $14.99 can not be sold for $3.99 by Amazon or they will make huge losses on every book sold. Lower price points are only possible if the publishers set a lower initial MSRP.
I'm sure authors are better of with a lower price point for their books than the suggested $14.99 by the big 6 Publishers.
IMHO, a modest increase between 20-30% for the author should be possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't assume authors are idiots
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Depends on where you live.
Note, they are allowed to resell books to which the publisher added a watermark. And Toms Kabinet adds a second watermark to state that the book has be "tranfered" to another individual.
This site does not have their checks and balances in order. The also sell a lot of books that are either scans or books with the DRM-removed (Adobe ADEPT).
I would not be suprised if this site will be shut down because of this illegal bookselling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't assume authors are idiots
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't assume authors are idiots
Yeah, because choosing to buy an e-book rather than a print book is exactly like murder.
Idiot.
The plain fact is that customers - who have every right to choose what to buy and what not to buy - are moving towards e-books, and those that aren't are staying with paper books for reasons other than price. I'm not saying that it doesn't matter if you work against print books; I'm saying that consumers are choosing e-books, and either you accept that they're your market, or you don't deserve to stay in business.
My personal anecdote is that a bookstore is a "not-bad" place to look for new titles, and that a web page is very poor for the same task.
Well, then, it doesn't matter how e-books are priced, does it? You're going to the "not-bad" place to look for new titles either way.
Other consumers may have different tastes, and maybe not enough find having a "not-bad" place to look for new titles doesn't trump the lower market value for e-books. Tough. Your tastes can't dictate the market.
And the development costs are amortized in individual sales, same as they are in books. Guess what? The development costs of books are proportionally higher, and the volume of sales lower.
Of course they'll be "proportionately" higher if you price e-books high enough. There will be less demand at that price, therefore a lower volume of sales. That's how price elasticity has always worked.
If (Volume of books sold) * (price per unit) < (development cost), it's a loss for the publisher, period.
Right, but if you lower the price, you'll increase the volume, so you'll end up making more money. Again: that's price elasticity. Selling 175,000 e-books at $9.99 each will make you more money than if you sell 100,000 e-books at $14.99.
If $9.99 is the "high end," it just means that they'll sell many more books at the "high end" than they're selling right now.
And while lower prices often lead to higher volumes, not only is that not guaranteed, there's an upper limit to the number of customers. You do a lot of hand waving saying "it'll be all right" but I'm not seeing citations to numbers drawn from experience.
If there weren't an upper limit to the number of customers, then prices would be infinitely elastic. There isn't, so of course there's always going to be a "sweet spot" that maximizes revenue.
The numbers that Amazon quoted are taken from their own sales records, so those would be "numbers drawn from experience." On the other hand, I've never seen anyone who actually quoted numbers when claiming book prices should be higher. The best they can come up with is "lower prices = less profits," which is simply not true, and never has been in any industry.
Yes, they are saying that "as a general rule, the upper bound will be $9.99".
You do know what "upper bound" means, right? It means "maximum." It does not mean "as a general rule." That would be "average" (more precisely, "weighted average" or "expected value").
Interesting that you make this argument along with arguing that lower prices will increase volume. If they're complaining, you'd think it was that they were getting less money, in an absolute sense.
It was just a guess. Authors may be getting less money in an absolute sense, but not because of Amazon. (For example, some publishers pay lower royalty rates for e-books than they do for paper books.)
It could also be that authors are complaining because they buy into the publishers' claims that lowering e-book prices will cannibalize paper-book sales. Well, guess what? Sales of paper books are already being cannibalized, and there's no way to prevent that.
Or it could be that authors are making the same mistakes you are. They look only at income per copy, see that they're making less per copy on digital sales, and think that they're being ripped off somehow.
You call out ignorance of basic economics. But what I see you arguing is theoretical economics, rather than practical applied economics based on existing sales data.
There is no such thing as "theoretical economics," really. It's an applied science, and economic theories are based on empirical sales data. If you want examples, open up any economic textbook and read about them.
In the e-book space, Amazon has already given its numbers based on their own sales figures: "We've quantified the price elasticity of e-books from repeated measurements across many titles. For every copy an e-book would sell at $14.99, it would sell 1.74 copies if priced at $9.99. So, for example, if customers would buy 100,000 copies of a particular e-book at $14.99, then customers would buy 174,000 copies of that same e-book at $9.99. Total revenue at $14.99 would be $1,499,000. Total revenue at $9.99 is $1,738,000."
O’Reilly had a similar experience when they released a $25 book as a $5 iPhone app: How E-Books Make (A Lot Of) Cents. There are probably more case studies, if you're not too lazy to Google.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
THIS. Very much this. Artists put a lot of their personality and ego into their work (in general). To see that work "devalued", even if it ends up making them more money, makes them feel like their work isn't as valuable.
People don't really create true art for money. It's the big fallacy in the entire copyright debate; if you took away every monetary incentive to create art it would not stop art from being created. It probably wouldn't affect it all that much, really, you'd just have less people doing it exclusively.
This is what publishers feed off of. They boost the artists egos, make them feel like their stuff is important, sell it at insane prices beyond what it's worth, and give them a pittance in return. The trick is that they promote the artist's creations, which makes the artist feel like their stuff is worth more. It's like when you make something awesome in Minecraft...nobody is going to pay you for it, but it feels good if someone looks at it and says "Wow, that's neat!"
From an economic standpoint artists are losing out on publisher deals. But the publishers make them feel like their stuff is valuable (even as they basically steal it). Thus artists keep promoting the publishers and ignore the economics.
The publishers are a business. They know the same thing as Amazon, and know that they could make higher profits by lowering prices. They also know that will hurt the artists' egos and possibly reveal the ultimate truth...that the publishers aren't necessary. They're playing a long game against another business (Amazon) at the expense of the same people they've been exploiting for years (artists).
Shockingly, they're still good at exploiting them. This should come as no surprise to anyone, especially not Amazon. Amazon is playing it's own long game...if artists figure out they can drop the publishers and earn way more money by dealing directly with Amazon then Amazon could potentially get a bigger piece of the pie, or at least make themselves extremely attractive to authors who now get the full 70% profit rather than the mysterious X% profits they get now (probably like 10% or less).
It'll be interesting to see where it goes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only issue I can see here is for books where presentation really matters (image layout, gutter size, block grouping) -- because then you need to generate separate ePub documents for each display size you're publishing to, and get the author's sign-off that the information is still presented in an appropriate way for that size.
As far as paperback fiction goes, this shouldn't even be an issue.
One other thing: a few years back, I talked to a number of authors using a number of publishers; in every single case, the author was required to do their edits and layout themselves prior to submitting for publishing, and to submit in X-PDF. If it wasn't laid out exactly how the typesetter wanted it, it would be rejected and the author would have to do the work of fixing the issues. This was a shocker to me at the time, because I had always thought of the publishers as being the ones with the expertise to take the manuscripts, edit them, prepare them for typesetting, and then sending them back to the author for sign-off. But apparently it hasn't worked that way in almost 30 years, despite the publishers still taking the same cut of the profits as they did when they actually did all that work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Another friend of mine is currently having a legal spat with a publisher over what was supposed to be done by the publisher and what they have actually supplied in their services. At least he has all the documentation to sink the publisher's accusations.
I have been asked to write a book on a particular subject. I intend to self publish as well after seeing the problems with alternative means.
David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ebooks and videos are available from them. Hard cover and paperbacks, newspapers and magazines are all part of the service. Inter-library loans across the state and even interstate are available.
They even take suggestions as to what books to buy. The staff are a pleasant lot, trying to be helpful, even on their off days.
David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
(I really wish I was joking here, but this actually has been argued in the past by greed driven parasites)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As an aside, they also provide and internet access service for free.
David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It takes a truly warped and/or money-centric mind for something like that to even begin to sound sane and reasonable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Some extra numbers regarding lower price points
My problem now is that my to-be-read list is dozens long, so new books from authors I haven't read have to look like a steal to get my attention at the moment. Which is a pity, because I love supporting starting authors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Great arguments
If there is a cost per transaction now, the SAME cost per transaction exists after. Unless the consumer suddenly buys more per transaction (no proof, you fail), then the cost per transaction remains the same.
Perhaps rather than trying to insult me and call me names, next time you could take a moment to think about things and realize just how much of a fool you are being.
I will leave it at that, you have proven yourself completely here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't assume authors are idiots
Good authors don't necessarily make good logicians. By all accounts I've seen, Douglas Preston and Richard Russo are quite good authors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't assume authors are idiots
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yeah, I had an argument on here with a self-procalimed author a few years back. He couldn't accept the argument that lowering price could make more money by lowering the price. His argument was along the lines of "my work is worth more than $1.99!". The obvious response of "no, it's worth $1.99 x the number of people paying for it at that price, which may make more money than the $15 price point you want does" was totally lost on him.
In a way it's understandable - nobody wants to work hard only to find their resulting product in a bargain bin. But, that's probably why many successful authors have agents and managers to help them of the business side of the equation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Great arguments
Christ, you really are deliberately ignoring the points raised, aren't you? Yes, those transaction costs exist, but:
1. They are costs borne solely by Amazon and Amazon alone. Are we to believe that Amazon have somehow managed to miss one of their major overhead costs, or are we to believe someone who's proven himself to be incapable of honest logical argument time and time again and depends on figures even he admits are made up?
2. The transaction costs - again these are per *transaction*. Do you honestly think that every customer on Amazon is only buying one item per transaction? Bear in mind that even with 1 click, Amazon usually group separate purchases into a single transaction later on it the day. To save costs, you know the successful business model they've been running for 2 decades but you think you know more about their basic overheads than they do? I could probably find proof if you really need it, but common sense dictates that you're wrong here, and you've proven that you ignore citations if they're not convenient to you, time and time again, so I won't waste time looking unless I really have to.
3. A company the size of Amazon can not only negotiate lower transaction costs due to their volume of transactions, but can also swallow the overheads completely if they stand to make more money in the long term. Look up things like loss leaders - standard retail practices for decades.
Of course, none of this explains why Amazon is wrong in any of the points they made. You haven't even bothered addressing them except to acknowledge that they're probably right. Even if Amazon spent 100% of their potential profits on the fees you're obsessed with, that's down to how they run their business, and has nothing to do with the point of the story (Amazon's argument that they can make more money for publishers and authors alike if they were permitted). But, you cannot bring yourself to take part in a debate, let alone an honest one.
See you in the next thread, where I'll tear apart your idiotic arguments with facts and logic yet again. But, you'll just pretend you're right, and ignore any points because I note how stupid your argument is, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Inflation in the prices of paperbacks has far exceeded the general CPI. In the early '60s, paperbacks went for $0.25, and "Bantam Giants" were $0.35. A paperback is now about $10, which is 40 times the cost while the CPI is up around 10. College text books have startling absolute price increases over that period, but their increases are much more in line with the CPI.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I agree that prices of paperbacks have increase massively, but not knowing the ins and outs of how that's broken down, I can't simply blame the publishers. They're heavy items in bulk, using a lot of raw materials that have to be paid for somehow, as does shipping, etc. They may not be the full cause of the rise in prices, but they're also not paying 60s prices for paper and printing.
Which, of course, is why publishers can't simply try to apply those same prices to digital media - people aren't stupid enough to believe that the same costs are involved, and expect at least some of the savings to be passed on to them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Don't ask me, ask the Big Six. They're the ones who colluded to keep ebook prices artificially high.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: reread the original article
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
EBook prices
I expect a hardcover to be more expensive as it is a hardcover book. I expect paperbacks to be 5-10 bucks because they are usually 2nd or 3rd prints of the book and cost less to make than a hardcover does.
Since the ebook only needs to be edited and then copied as needed from a digital source, I see no reason to pay for printing costs and such that don't exist in that format. Thus why I tend to not buy ebooks priced over 5 dollars.
I know alot of other people who feel the same.
If the perception people have is wrong, then the big publishing houses need to explain why its wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, yeah, heard it all before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Great arguments
[ link to this | view in thread ]