DOJ files suit on e-book pricing

[PennLady]

Just saw this at WashingtonPost.com. Haven't had a chance to read it yet.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...-report-says/2012/04/11/gIQAzyXSAT_story.html

 

[sr71plt]

This suit is against distributors; the publishers already settled on it. And it's about the pricing of mainstream books, mostly best-sellers. The prices of e-books folks like us are peddling aren't included. The price point for our books is around $2.99. The price point the publishers/distributors tried to set for mainstream best-sellers was $9.99.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Well, no, actually. In the US and Europe, the authorities are challenging the right of publishers to set minimum prices for e-books. It destroys an open market.

Even sr's smarmy $2.99 is twenty times the cost of an e-book.

It will change, but the publishers and avaricious writers will have to be reined in by - wait for it - government agencies.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Well, no, actually. In the US and Europe, the authorities are challenging the right of publishers to set minimum prices for e-books. It destroys an open market.

Even sr's smarmy $2.99 is twenty times the cost of an e-book.

It will change, but the publishers and avaricious writers will have to be reined in by - wait for it - government agencies.

So what you're saying is that my ebooks are only worth $.15 no matter what it's length or what people are willing to pay for it?

 

[PennLady]

This suit is against distributors; the publishers already settled on it. And it's about the pricing of mainstream books, mostly best-sellers. The prices of e-books folks like us are peddling aren't included. The price point for our books is around $2.99. The price point the publishers/distributors tried to set for mainstream best-sellers was $9.99.

Not all of the publishers. According to the article, Penguin and MacMillan did not settle, nor did Apple. For the pricing, the article says that it was Amazon that tried to set prices at $9.99, but the Apple pricing model -- where the publisher set the price and Apple got 30% of the proceeds -- gave the publishers leverage over Amazon.

I don't mind paying for e-books, although I get a lot of free ones b/c I just don't have the money to buy as many as I'd like. What I really hate is when an e-book costs more than a print book; that's just silly.

 

[Handley_Page]

Not all of the publishers. According to the article, Penguin and MacMillan did not settle, nor did Apple. For the pricing, the article says that it was Amazon that tried to set prices at $9.99, but the Apple pricing model -- where the publisher set the price and Apple got 30% of the proceeds -- gave the publishers leverage over Amazon.

I don't mind paying for e-books, although I get a lot of free ones b/c I just don't have the money to buy as many as I'd like. What I really hate is when an e-book costs more than a print book; that's just silly.

Why Should Apple get 30% ? OR anything, for that matter.

 

[sr71plt]

Why Should Apple get 30% ? OR anything, for that matter.

They don't, if you want don't want to sell any books to their customers. If you want 100 percent of the profits, you'll need to do all of the work of selling yourself. Publishers and distributiors aren't charity organizations. Try selling books from your website for a while. You'll be delighted to give a distributor 30 percent for any they can sell.

 

[lovecraft68]

Not all of the publishers. According to the article, Penguin and MacMillan did not settle, nor did Apple. For the pricing, the article says that it was Amazon that tried to set prices at $9.99, but the Apple pricing model -- where the publisher set the price and Apple got 30% of the proceeds -- gave the publishers leverage over Amazon.

I don't mind paying for e-books, although I get a lot of free ones b/c I just don't have the money to buy as many as I'd like. What I really hate is when an e-book costs more than a print book; that's just silly.

I don't recall Amazon setting prices at $9.99 across the board.

What they do is tell you that is you want 70% royalties you have to price between 2.99-9.99 anything less or more qualifies for only 35%

Amazon also prefers longer works that are priced in between somewhere. But because of the 35% people start even very short works at $2.99. Amazon will then lower it to $1.99 but because they did it and not you you still get 70%

 

[PennLady]

Why Should Apple get 30% ? OR anything, for that matter.

Because they are handling the sales for you. Whether you want to give them 30% is up to you. I'm with SR; if I can find someone to handle marketing, promotion, distribution, etc., then I'm happy to pay for that.

I don't recall Amazon setting prices at $9.99 across the board.

The article doesn't say they succeeded, just that they tried, and I recall reading about that a few years ago.

Here's what I think is a contrary view from Slate.com, but again, I haven't read it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...rs_are_colluding_to_raise_e_book_prices_.html

 

[Handley_Page]

They don't, if you want don't want to sell any books to their customers. If you want 100 percent of the profits, you'll need to do all of the work of selling yourself. Publishers and distributiors aren't charity organizations. Try selling books from your website for a while. You'll be delighted to give a distributor 30 percent for any they can sell.

Please forgive my ignorance of these things, but I thought Apple made computers, not sold books like Amazon.
If I want to put a book on my iPad, why can I not just do it ?
Imagine General Motors selling Lingerie ?

 

[sr71plt]

The article doesn't say they succeeded, just that they tried, and I recall reading about that a few years ago.

It wasn't across the board. It was on mainstream publishing house best-sellers.

 

[PennLady]

Please forgive my ignorance of these things, but I thought Apple made computers, not sold books like Amazon.
If I want to put a book on my iPad, why can I not just do it ?
Imagine General Motors selling Lingerie ?

I'm no expert, but -- Apple makes computes but also iPads, iPhones, and iPods. To make those useful, Apple has its iTunes store and sells music, video and applications (apps) for people to install and use on those mobile devices. To go along with that, there is an iBookstore to sell books to put on your mobile device.

I imagine you can put a book on your iPad, if it's in the correct format(s). For example, I can make files in a couple of formats, like .mobi (MobiPocket) and PDF, to put on my Kindle. But I can't put a book formatted for an iPad (or a Nook) on my Kindle. If I want a book by a certain author, I need to go to Amazon to purchase it. Amazon has not created the content, it just provides a way to sell it. Similarly, Apple does not create the content, it provides a virtual storefront for the sales.

I don't have an Apple device, so if I've phrased this incorrectly, someone please set us all straight.

 

[sr71plt]

It may be a news flash to authors, but the toughest part of getting money for writing is selling it, not either writing it or getting it set up in files or in print. Until someone gets a buyer to buy it--and zeros the buyer in on seeing it and wanting to buy it and puts it in a form that arrives where the buyer wants it in the reading system the buyer wants it in and with a money transaction system the buyer can use--it's just a collection of words authors have stored in their computers. Publishers and distributors are there to get it published and delivered. Without them, 100 percent of nothing is nothing. And there are a whole lot of authors out there with their computers full of collections of words that aren't going anywhere. The print world takes a whole lot more than 30 percent to get the works sold.

 

[lovecraft68]

I have no issue with someone getting 30% to push my stuff. And in case anyone is interested Smashwords only takes 15%.

That 15% is only through their main site though. When you sell a book to one of their affiliates its their 15% plus another percentage for the affiliate, but worth it all day long.

The problem I do have is in the e-market (print I'm sure would be vastly different) I don't see the advantage of a publisher. With a publisher Amazon (for example) is always going to get their 30%, but now the publisher is also taking their cut.

In order to counteract that loss in royalties the price will be set higher. That higher price may deter people who are used to only paying the "standard" 2.99 or so.

And what is the publisher doing? Formatting? Basic knowledge of word and you're a formatter. A nice cover? Stock photo's are cheap and text free. Their website? The majority of books are bought off of sites like Amazon and All Romance, SW etc.... the home site sales are not that large.

Advertising? Got a web site? Got a blog? Got facebook? you're all set. The only advantage a publisher gives is to people too lazy and unambitious to do the shit themselves.

And as for the threats that "indy authors" may eventually get the boot on Amazon or elsewhere A tax id # is free. Give yourself a name, get a website and you're so and so DBA as so and so books, you're a publisher.

So it's unrealistic to bitch about a distributor taking a cut, but if you're that concerned with the money coming to you, then you're nuts to go with a publisher.

 

[RjThoughts]

I have no issue with someone getting 30% to push my stuff. And in case anyone is interested Smashwords only takes 15%.

That 15% is only through their main site though. When you sell a book to one of their affiliates its their 15% plus another percentage for the affiliate, but worth it all day long.

The problem I do have is in the e-market (print I'm sure would be vastly different) I don't see the advantage of a publisher. With a publisher Amazon (for example) is always going to get their 30%, but now the publisher is also taking their cut.

In order to counteract that loss in royalties the price will be set higher. That higher price may deter people who are used to only paying the "standard" 2.99 or so.

And what is the publisher doing? Formatting? Basic knowledge of word and you're a formatter. A nice cover? Stock photo's are cheap and text free. Their website? The majority of books are bought off of sites like Amazon and All Romance, SW etc.... the home site sales are not that large.

Advertising? Got a web site? Got a blog? Got facebook? you're all set. The only advantage a publisher gives is to people too lazy and unambitious to do the shit themselves.

And as for the threats that "indy authors" may eventually get the boot on Amazon or elsewhere A tax id # is free. Give yourself a name, get a website and you're so and so DBA as so and so books, you're a publisher.

So it's unrealistic to bitch about a distributor taking a cut, but if you're that concerned with the money coming to you, then you're nuts to go with a publisher.

My daily Twitter feed is always full of independent authors advertising their e-books, most STILL only on Kindle/Amazon, but a few are learning that we Nookians do exist.

 

[sr71plt]

You're not nuts going with a publisher who does everything for a 30 percent cut and nothing you have to pay up front (or ever)--including providing an edit--if you are mainly interested in writing, are regularly writing, and thus are able to concentrate on the writing and getting more on offer rather than doing all of the setup, distribution (including reformatting for up to seven different requirements), and payment collection.

I work in mainstream publishing. For erotica, although I enjoy helping to find cover images, I'm happily busy with the writing--and leaving all of the grunt work (that I have to do in the mainstream) to someone else.

You're not nuts to do it either way. It depends on what proportion of the time you want to spend writing (and adding to your list of works on offer). One thing is sure to me--I wouldn't be making the money I do from erotica sales if I had to do all of the setup, distribution, and sales work myself (or even some of it).

 

[PennLady]

And what is the publisher doing? Formatting? Basic knowledge of word and you're a formatter. A nice cover? Stock photo's are cheap and text free. Their website? The majority of books are bought off of sites like Amazon and All Romance, SW etc.... the home site sales are not that large.

Advertising? Got a web site? Got a blog? Got facebook? you're all set. The only advantage a publisher gives is to people too lazy and unambitious to do the shit themselves.

And as for the threats that "indy authors" may eventually get the boot on Amazon or elsewhere A tax id # is free. Give yourself a name, get a website and you're so and so DBA as so and so books, you're a publisher.

So it's unrealistic to bitch about a distributor taking a cut, but if you're that concerned with the money coming to you, then you're nuts to go with a publisher.

You put all this out there like it's easy and quick to do, and it isn't. I am not "lazy and unambitious" It costs money and time to have a website, and I don't want to spend it. Let someone else spend that time and effort and money for me (if I can get that).

No one's nuts to go with or without a publisher. A lot of it depends on the time you have. Mine is very limited, and I'd rather spend it writing than finding cover art, formatting and everything else. And advertising -- don't get me started. I have a blog, and you know what? I seriously dislike blogging; it's a chore for me. I have a FB page, and it's like blogging -- WTF am I going to say every day, or a few times a week, to keep my status up for people?

 

[elfin_odalisque]

So what you're saying is that my ebooks are only worth $.15 no matter what it's length or what people are willing to pay for it?

Well, sort of, yes.

Author royalties are pretty poor and publishers have been fighting a rearguard war to keep e-book prices ridiculously high.

With no printing or distribution costs publishers could sell e-books for less than two bucks but won't. Authors as well need to keep to traditional levels of royalty.

 

[sr71plt]

I think it's been pretty well demonstrated out in the real world that an author makes more per unit off an e-book than off a mainstream-published print book (I also make much more off an e-book title than off a print title). But it's fine if not knowing that keeps authors out of the market--that's more for us who are in the e-market.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Well, sort of, yes.

Author royalties are pretty poor and publishers have been fighting a rearguard war to keep e-book prices ridiculously high.

With no printing or distribution costs publishers could sell e-books for less than two bucks but won't. Authors as well need to keep to traditional levels of royalty.

Why do you think there are no distribution costs? In fact that is the one thing that the electronic publishers still have, is a cost to distribute the work...the internet is not free. They also have the cost associated with storage of the work...cover art, author information, the text of the work in as many formats at they wish to support...all of which cost money.

Smashwords displays how many words they have published on their home page - 4,284,294,305 words. 4.2 billion words times multiple formats...let's say six...25 billion words. That's a lot of disk space for just the words alone, not to mention the format instruction, the communications protocols, the database structures, etc., etc. And that doesn't even count the words for description and the cover art storage space requirements.

And as an author/publisher I know how much time and effort I put into my work and charge accordingly.

 

[PennLady]

More from Slate. http://www.slate.com/blogs/breaking...ed_on_e_book_prices_they_didn_t_need_to.htmlz

 

[Handley_Page]

An amusingly-told tale here.

It's causing chaos !

 

[PennLady]

NYT article on possible fall out from DOJ/e-publishers suit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/business/media/amazon-to-cut-e-book-prices-shaking-rivals.html

 

[ishtat]

Google/ Amazon are very well credentialed financial supporters of President Obama. I anticipate that this is going to get very dirty and be waged on the political front as well as through the courts.

Google/ Amazon getting too powerful?

 

[Firebrain]

An article here explains the publisher's side of it clearly: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57412587-93/why-e-books-cost-so-much/?tag=mncol (and explains why ebooks don't cost $2).

Personally, while I accept that colluding to keep ebook prices higher is illegal, there are positives for authors. I would never want to end up with an Amazon-dominated market where readers demand only free and $0.99 ebooks, but if Amazon is allowed to price as they like, that is the kind of book that will end up succeeding.

I'm also in favour of encouraging competition between vendors, which is what the publishers wanted to do--especially since Amazon now has a publishing division. Conflict of interest, much?

Finally, I accept that the publishers are attempting to protect print by keeping ebook prices higher. But they're not specifically protecting print as an institution; it's just that their entire industry is based on print, and if they don't protect that large division of their industry, they're going to start going bust. Some people will think this is a good thing; others won't.

Ultimately, I think readers will need to accept a higher price than $2 per ebook to keep publishing as an industry going--"outdated" or not.