Publishers Warned On Ebook Prices

An anonymous reader writes "The DoJ says Simon and Schuster, Hachette, Penguin, Macmillan and HarperCollins conspired to raise the prices of ebooks. The report originates from the WSJ, but the BBC adds comments from an analyst bizarrely claiming increased prices are somehow a good thing and thinking otherwise is the result of 'confusion'. I'd like to see an explanation of why the wholesale model, while continuing to work fine (presumably) for physical books, somehow didn't work for ebooks and why the agency model is better despite increasing costs for consumers."

Comments

Market Analysis

[slashgrim]

Sounds like these publishers don't know their market. I only buy ebooks because they are inexpensive. At relatively close prices I'd prefer a physical book (where at least I won't be restricted by the publisher's "loan" policy!).

Re:Market Analysis

[clodney]

One time bought I book on my Kindle that I had sitting on my bookshelf, just because I wanted to reread it before starting on the sequel, and didn't want to carry the physical hardcover with me on a trip.

So I paid for the extra copy purely for my convenience. Given a choice between a physical book and an ebook at the same price, in most cases I will buy the ebook, because that is the format I prefer.

Re:Market Analysis

[ColdWetDog]

Oh, and forgot my current major beef. If you're going to charge nearly as much for an eBook as a physical copy, please pay for a copy editor to review the damn thing. I'm tired of gratuitous typos and pagination errors. Yeah, you, Amazon.

Re:Market Analysis

[ultranova]

Given a choice between a physical book and an ebook at the same price, in most cases I will buy the ebook, because that is the format I prefer.

I would too, if that was actually possible. Unfortunately it isn't. Nobody sells e-goods, they're "licensed", which means that I may use them as long as the publisher lets me in ways they like (which they may change at any time they like), or as long as the publisher or some unrelated third party who happens to own them at the time doesn't mismanage its finances and disappear. Assuming, of course, that some other entity doesn't assert that they own the e-good instead, in which case it gets un-published and disappears like it never was.

But yeah, it would sure be nice to be able to buy e-books.

Re:Market Analysis

[mcgrew]

Given a choice between a physical book and an ebook at the same price, in most cases I will buy the ebook, because that is the format I prefer.

Not me, I try to avoid being stolen from.

With a physical book they have the cost of materials, printing costs, warehousing costs, shipping costs, retail space costs. An ebook has none of those costs, to charge the same price for something physical that costs money to get into your hands as something that is essentially free once they've paid the editing, proofreading, and other pre-production costs is nothing short of highway robbery.

And as another poster said, you own a physical book. You don't own an ebook.

Were it not for collusion, the competetion would ensure that ebook prices were far loawer than the price of a physical book.

I think they should give the ebooks away when you buy a copy of the physical book. I mean, a CD might add a nickle to the cost of the physical book. A code on the paper book's index page could lead to a download of the ebook and wouldn't cost them a penny.

Re:Why does an e-book need a publisher?

[Registered Coward v2]

Well he got one thing right: "All the costs are the people in the publisher's HQ..." Exactly. So why don't authors just upload their e-books and cut out publishers all together?

Probably because some of those cost are for editors, proof readers, illustrators, cover designers; all of whom play a crucial role in producing an outstanding or even good, for that matter, book. There may be a lot of extra costs that can be cut, but a writer alone, except in rare cases, can't produce a work nearly as good, or even good, without the help of others. Witness the proliferation of garbage titles now that the cost of entry is nearly zero.

If I'm typical...

[Oswald McWeany]

If I'm typical, (and I probaly am not) Amazon, et al, would get more money from me by LOWERING the price.

90% of the ebooks I "buy" are free- either from Amazon, or Gutenberg, or elsewhere. The other 10% I will only buy if they are cheap. If eBooks were in the $2.99/3.99 range (for books I wanted) - I wouldn't hesitate- and the vast majority of books I read would be eBooks.

Instead of making $7 profit on me once or twice a year- they could be getting $1 profit from me 20 or so times a year. Multiply me by a few hundred thousand and that profit margain goes up.

I don't know that I am typical though- in fact I probably am not- because I actually enjoy reading HG Wells, Oscar Wilde, etc- and I don't consider it too much a hassel to not be buying the latest-pop ficiton mega-release.

Re:Why does an e-book need a publisher?

[nathan s]

This. The writing and editing parts are trivial in comparison with getting people to know your books exist. I can see the appeal of a publisher if you're writing in hopes of actually being read -- not because the publisher does any work for you, but because the fact that your book is associated with a publisher means that more people are willing to risk reading it. If you self-publish, and even if you paid to have your book edited, you're still going to have huge amounts of trouble attracting the first tiny bit of an audience unless you are writing some obscure non-fictional stuff that can be judged at a glance as useful or not, and maybe even then you'll still have trouble. I only have experience with self-publishing fiction, so I can't really say for sure on the latter.

That said, people severely underestimate the gatekeeper effect that these traditional publishers play, not just for books but for music as well. It's not that I think that publishers are actually _good_ arbiters of taste or quality, but I can't deny that people would prefer to take a chance on a crappy song that is getting radio play after being pushed by labels than they are to waste 5 minutes listening to random MP3s on some guy's website. Truthfully, it's hard to blame them. I'm a writer and I make electronica, and I still find myself hesitant to waste time on random stuff I find online, simply because of a few bad early experiences doing that. So I'm sure that I'm missing great content in the same way that some people would probably really enjoy the things I create but skip it rather than take the risk.

The short of it is, human nature is to blame here. People usually (and fairly rationally, I think) prefer the guaranteed payout in entertainment that they expect from a curated source, one that they are familiar with, to the real risk of wasting their time listening to or reading horribly flawed creations that they randomly stumble across online. The only way around this, from a creator's point of view, is to either delegate the marketing jobs to a publisher or to spend a lot of time doing it yourself. For the average writer/artist/programmer/musician/etc, I think that's something that is not really much fun when you'd rather just be making more stuff.