Readers of ebooks: rejoice!

[Hello Again]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

Really?

Yes. New York Times Bestsellers at 30% off? Special bestsellers like Hunger Games at 40+% off? Losing money on every copy.

[aceplace57]

I'll believe it when I see the lower prices on Amazon.

Amazon already has a weekly list of ebooks for 2 and $3. I've found a few new authors that I really liked. Not every one was a gem, but at that price its not the end of the world if a book isn't worth finishing.

I've been tempted by Amazon Prime because they get a list of free ebooks. But, it's hard to justify the yearly membership fee.

[Athena]

Originally Posted by aceplace57

I've been tempted by Amazon Prime because they get a list of free ebooks. But, it's hard to justify the yearly membership fee.

Don't be. You can take out one book a month, and the selection is pretty small. Not at all worth the price of Prime if that's all you're using it for.

[Athena]

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3=

Again, I'm not claiming that publishers don't provide a service. They clearly do. But so did milkmen and record stores, and you don't see them much any more.

But that analogy doesn't work; a publisher isn't a milkman or a record store, it's the dairy or the record label, both of which absolutely do still exist.

I think everyone who is claiming that authors can promote and market their own books have never actually tried to do any promotion or marketing; to do it right is a big job, not something you do in your free time on nights and weekends. And not every good writer is a good marketer. And not everyone who thinks they're a good writer really are good writers. Just about every self-published book I've read has desperately needed an editor. Bad grammar, misspellings, just generally bad writing. Publishers absolutely do a very important job, and I don't think they're going to go away anytime soon.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by Athena

But that analogy doesn't work; a publisher isn't a milkman or a record store, it's the dairy or the record label, both of which absolutely do still exist.

I think everyone who is claiming that authors can promote and market their own books have never actually tried to do any promotion or marketing; to do it right is a big job, not something you do in your free time on nights and weekends. And not every good writer is a good marketer. And not everyone who thinks they're a good writer really are good writers. Just about every self-published book I've read has desperately needed an editor. Bad grammar, misspellings, just generally bad writing. Publishers absolutely do a very important job, and I don't think they're going to go away anytime soon.

If it's so freaking hard why are so many of Amazon's top 100 SF ebooks by self-publishers or published by very small publishers? Maybe it's not!

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

If it's so freaking hard why are so many of Amazon's top 100 SF ebooks by self-publishers or published by very small publishers? Maybe it's not!

I'm sure Exapno or Chuck will be back any minute now to tell you what huge exceptions those people are. Also, exceptions like that WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN!

Or something like that.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Athena

But that analogy doesn't work; a publisher isn't a milkman or a record store, it's the dairy or the record label, both of which absolutely do still exist.

I think everyone who is claiming that authors can promote and market their own books have never actually tried to do any promotion or marketing; to do it right is a big job, not something you do in your free time on nights and weekends. And not every good writer is a good marketer. And not everyone who thinks they're a good writer really are good writers. Just about every self-published book I've read has desperately needed an editor. Bad grammar, misspellings, just generally bad writing. Publishers absolutely do a very important job, and I don't think they're going to go away anytime soon.

No one is saying that authors can promote their own books as well as publishers currently do.They're saying that they won't need to. They have the advantage of the interconnectedness of the web, plus all the technological tools that tell people what is popular. You will be able to type whatever type of book you want and Google Books will find the most popular ones that fit, and then you just pick one. Instead of publishers guessing what people like, you will have electronic tools that already know.

I personally don't think it will be quite like that, but I think that will take up at least a healthy chunk of the market. I think there will also likely be publishers that cut out the retailer and just sell ebooks directly on their own websites. I think some of these will be the old publishers, and some will be new ones. Likewise, some of the current publishers will adapt and survive, while others will go belly up.

The one thing that will never happen is a complete market failure. There are people who want to write books for people to read, and people who want to read books that people write. Someene will always find a way to connect these two.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

If it's so freaking hard why are so many of Amazon's top 100 SF ebooks by self-publishers or published by very small publishers? Maybe it's not!

In that case, that's Amazon already becoming like one of the publishers I've already mentioned. These books aren't really self-published, they are published by Amazon. The step that's being skipped is the retailer.

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

Originally Posted by Athena

But that analogy doesn't work; a publisher isn't a milkman or a record store, it's the dairy or the record label, both of which absolutely do still exist.

I think you're trying to constrain that analogy a little too closely. My point is that industries can change, completely eliminating some previously presumed-necessary piece, in response to technological advancement. Just because something is useful (I'd love to get milk hand-delivered!) doesn't mean it will stand up to new economic pressures. As far as record labels go, they're facing the same pressures. More and more acts are forgoing major labels or starting their own, ie self publishing.

[Exapno Mapcase]

There are too many specifics for to respond to - it would take six long essays that nobody would read anyway - so I'm going to make one general post. Numbers are approximations from my memory, but they're close enough and wouldn't matter if they were 50% off.

Since I mentioned lotteries, let's start with the big Mega-Millions one that just happened. 100,000,000 people spent $1.5 billion to achieve a lump-sum payoff of about $400 million. That's about as pure a price point exercise as can be imagined. The average person spent $15 in the hopes of an essentially infinite return. That means they value the chance of $100,000,000+ dollars no more than they value the price of a Saturday night movie ticket or an ebook. In return they get the pleasure of anticipation and nothing more. Books of any kind can at least be read again, or traded or sold, so their expected value should be higher. If not, that tells us a lot about their maximum price point for the average reader. (Average does not mean you or me; it means the average of every book buyer in the U.S., who may be 100,000,000 people, many of whom - like lottery buyers - buy only one a year.)

There are many lotteries in the country, of course, but as a model lotteries can be best thought about as blockbusters. We already have industries that have moved to blockbuster models. Movies are the best example. Attendance at theaters has been falling for years. Revenues are about steady, only because ticket prices have soared. Studios have moved almost entirely toward making blockbusters, sequels, genre movies, and cartoons. Whenever an adult movie gets good reviews, the industry clamors to put it up for an Oscar just to pat itself on the back even if the slate of Best Movies were what once was expected of the average unrewarded good movie. Nobody says that the industry is healthy.

The music industry has already gone through this and crashed. It tried to hold on to a superstar model and failed. The superstar of the year, Adele, sold 5 or 6 million. Most other big names barely cracked 1 million. Maintaining a career keeps getting harder. Venues are disappearing, touring is down, bands are fungible and are replaced regularly. Nobody says that the industry is healthy.

I'm not expect on PC Games, but my impression is that it's another industry dependent on blockbusters, sequels, and genre. If so, that's not healthy.

And books. The publishing industry is uncannily like the movie industry. It exists on blockbusters, sequels, genre, and childrens. People have said - I can't confirm this, but it rings true - that the books on the annual bestsellers lists, around 200 titles a year, outsell all other books published, around 200,000 titles a year. That follows from the success of the mega-sellers. If a Hunger Games title sells 10,000,000 copies and the average successful book 10,000 then there can't be too many Hunger Games readers buying average books. (The long tail is mostly irrelevant. The bottom 100,000 sell less than 10,000,000. That's rounding error for an industry.)

We know what blockbuster mentality can do to the publishing industry because it already happened. For decades, bookstores purchased books at 40% off list price and sold them at list price. In today's prices, that's $18 going to publishers and $12 to bookstores on a $30 hardcover. Big box stores did not change this equation much. They could discount titles and did, but for the most part they competed on selection. Even - especially - rabid book lovers preferred stores with 50,000 titles over stores with 5,000 titles, no matter how personalized the service in a small store.

What changed the industry were the cream-skimmers - the Walmarts, the Costcos - who sold nothing but bestsellers (and category bestsellers). Selection didn't matter because they sold to people who bought nothing but bestsellers. And because the chains bought in large volumes, they could get the discount down to 50%. They sold books at this wholesale price. Technically this is not a loss leader, although realistically a store can't cover its overhead unless the book buyers bought other materials. Which they did. They weren't interested in other books, though. This is what finished off the independents. They had nothing to draw people in with. Many of them stopped selling bestsellers entirely, to save money for the other books, which disappointed the few who wanted both. Borders had more problems than just this one, but losing its lead product was certainly contributory. Losing independents and one big chain is bad for industry, even if bestsellers still sell.

Publishers will have severe profit pressure if the wholesale cost of ebooks drops below $15. The costs of print are not that major a percentage. You can always say that people will buy more if the price is lower, but we don't know how that will actually work out for the average buyer. It's the Laffer curve all over again. You can make the claim that very cheap product will sell, and that's true. That top 100 SF books list has Hugh Howey's name all over it. But his "books" were 50-page stories. A bundle of 5 books is selling - well - at $5.99. Is that the future? None of us know, but it does make comparisons tricky.

From the point of view of the average consumer, none of these events is a bad thing. People like blockbusters and best sellers, by definition. Getting more of them for a better price is a boon. New markets are being created. Some barriers to entry have been dropped. We are still early in the process. The Kindle has been around for only five years. When it appeared lots of people - a bet a lot of you - predicted that print books were dead then and there. I said that it would take 5-10 years before ebooks got out of single digit percentages. It took 4 and that just barely. The needle is just starting to move. CDs were hurt earlier and faster but they still sell in nine digits. Print books will be a major part of the industry for many years.

But absolutely no one argues that the publishing industry is healthy. The industry is publishers and sellers and writers. All are hurting, because it is harder to make a career and impossible to plan one into an uncertain future. Movies remain profitable because the industry found so many alternate paths to sell their product. Music has many pathways but overall sales are not on the rise. Books have difficulties in this area. A variety of sites can sell a book, but the extras that sell in the other industries are more difficult. Maybe every book will require a podcast extra. Throw out any wild ideas you have, and maybe some of them will come true.

Things will change but that does not imply that the industry will grow healthier. Right now, it's sick. You can't use your experiences as a consumer to make statements as an industry. Some of you have won the lottery. Some authors have won the lottery, too. That doesn't say anything, though. Always, in every industry, in every time and place, some people win that kind of lottery. The Internet doesn't change that. The economic laws about price points work in every industry. We've seen the future: it's our past.

[Hello Again]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

If it's so freaking hard why are so many of Amazon's top 100 SF ebooks by self-publishers or published by very small publishers? Maybe it's not!

How come none of their best books of 2011 are self-published? And that the "top 100" is populated by some self-published novels is a result of that being what is available at the moment. Given that not all, or even most, SF published by publishers is even available as an ebook, the Top 20 Amazon Bestsellers somehow manages to consist of such little known names as Stephen King and George RR Martin, Charlene Harris and Anne Rice.

Anyway, I wouldn't trust a crowd of strangers to tell me what to read or make my selections based on pure popularity. Going by that metric, as another poster suggested, Danielle Steele and Dan Brown are clearly some of the best writers of all time. My experiences of book suggestion threads on the Dope - which is a FAR more discerning audience than a general crowd of internet participants - constantly remind me that 90% of everything really is shit, and that I trust Tor or DelRey more than a random crowd of idiots to tell me what isn't.

[aceplace57]

Great post Exapno Mapcase and a excellent explanation of the issues publishers face.

I wonder how much longer there will be a mass audience for book reading. Entertainment today is so loud and visually stimulating. Watch Password or $10,000 Pyramid from the 70's or 80's. It's quiet. Questions are asked and answered. The audience claps very briefly. I tried watching the new Password last year. It was a shock. The audience was loud, obnoxious, and bright flashing lights. Are you Smarter than a 5th Grader is the same way. The loud audience and exaggerated high fives and fist pumps between the kids and the contestants just ruins it for me.

That's what entertainment is today. Loud and visually stimulating. Quietly sitting in a chair with a cup of tea and my book is a pleasure for me. I'm not sure the current generation will feel the same way.

Exapno Mapcase makes a good case about best sellers. I rarely buy any best sellers. I've got mystery writers I've followed and read for 30 years. They aren't best sellers and I could care less.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

I'm not expect on PC Games, but my impression is that it's another industry dependent on blockbusters, sequels, and genre. If so, that's not healthy.

Blockbusters are important to the video game industry, but it doesn't revolve around them and the "midlist" that you say is disappearing in the book industry is actually growing in the games industry. Part of that is due to a recent of "Kickstarter projects" that bypassed the big publishers and went right to fans for funding.

I can see a handful of authors seriously attempt this in the next few years. Stephen King tried it a few years ago with "The Plant" if you recall. The world is more ready for it now.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by aceplace57

I wonder how much longer there will be a mass audience for book reading.

Please excuse the double post. But reading is actually going up. There are actually very few studies that take into account all reading (most just focus on fiction and use that to claim reading is down), but book reading is definitely way up.

I think part of this can be traced to Amazon itself. Buying (and selling) a secondhand book through Amazon is so easy, and so much cheaper than buying new, that I believe this has had a huge effect on book reading as a hobby, while at the same time, being completely invisible to the industry at large.

[Hello Again]

The Romance Writers of America compile publicly-available industry trends and statistics; in a recent survey of ebook pricing opinions, the price Romance ebook buyers considered "fair" when a $9 paperback was also available was $5.90. Almost exactly the cost of the paperback less the cost of manufacture, storage, and shipping. the "High price but still reasonable" price point was $8.33.
Source: http://www.rwa.org/cs/readership_stats

In 2011, the Publishers Association of American called the growing popularity of ebooks "a major success story in content formats."
Source: http://publishers.org/bookstats/formats/

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

Originally Posted by Hello Again

My experiences of book suggestion threads on the Dope - which is a FAR more discerning audience than a general crowd of internet participants - constantly remind me that 90% of everything really is shit, and that I trust Tor or DelRey more than a random crowd of idiots to tell me what isn't.

People keep suggesting that if we didn't have publishers to tell us which books were worth reading, we'd be lost in a sea of awful literature. But, aren't those random crowds in book review threads only reviewing books that have been published by major publishers? If publishers are such a good quality filter, you should just be able to pick up a random book off the shelf. No recommendations needed. But of course you can't.

If you read random books based only on the criteria that they were good enough for a reputable publisher to put out, you'll probably be quite dissatisfied with them. Sure, you won't run into any blatantly awful stuff, but there will be lots of stuff you don't care for.

The effective way to find good books is to get recommendations from well-read people who share your taste.

Want to find some good economics books? Why not read what [url=http://marginalrevolution.com/]Tyler Cowen recommends. Science fiction? How about reading Orson Scott Card's reviews. I'm pretty sure the New York Times still writes book reviewsNow, maybe you don't agree with their opinions, but there are surely well-read people who share your tastes out there writing about it, and finding them is probably as simple as cross-referencing some search results for your favorite books.

[Chefguy]

Publishers mostly publish whatever is selling best. Good literature doesn't seem to enter into it too much. I have a friend who is an editor for the NYT, and who has been writing for about 25 years. He wrote a spy novel a couple of years ago and couldn't get an agent interested in pushing it forward: not because it was badly written, but because everyone was clamoring for vampire novels and Harry Potter-type fantasy. He ended up self-publishing, which means that he has to do a lot of self-promotion to get people to read it. If you're interested, it's called Spy Rules, and it's only available in ebook format through iTunes, Amazon, etc. By self-publishing, he keeps about 70% of the sales money.

[jabiru]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

If you're interested, it's called Spy Rules, and it's only available in ebook format through iTunes, Amazon, etc. By self-publishing, he keeps about 70% of the sales money.

My husband is disabled and hasn't really been able to read 'proper' books for many years because of difficulties holding/turning pages etc. I bought him an iPad last year for his birthday and he's like a five year old in a lolly shop. Finally he can read books again and this sounds like one he may enjoy. I'll send him the link.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by Hello Again

How come none of their best books of 2011 are self-published?

Define "best." What do the very small press and self publishers have going for them to get them on the best seller list other than the quality of their work. I doubt if the Amazon Top 100 list is a meritocracy, but it's surely much closer to being one than the New York Times bestseller list, which features the work of distinguished authors such as Snooki of Jersey Shore.

And that the "top 100" is populated by some self-published novels is a result of that being what is available at the moment. Given that not all, or even most, SF published by publishers is even available as an ebook, the Top 20 Amazon Bestsellers somehow manages to consist of such little known names as Stephen King and George RR Martin, Charlene Harris and Anne Rice.

I suspect that the reason some books get on the top 100 is that those readers lists and review sites are influencing which books get sold. In short, readers are finding their works. The top 20 folks you list are excellent writers in some cases, mediocre in others (as far as I'm concerned) but they DEFINITELY have some well moneyed marketing behind them, which might account for their success as well.

Anyway, I wouldn't trust a crowd of strangers to tell me what to read or make my selections based on pure popularity.

Who do you think the New York editors and publishers are who screen books for traditional publishers, other than a crowd of strangers? Know em all personally do ya? I'd trust a crowd of strangers MORE than them, because they're not being PAID to profess their liking for certain books. Internet reviewers and commenters are simply people voicing their true opinions.

Going by that metric, as another poster suggested, Danielle Steele and Dan Brown are clearly some of the best writers of all time. My experiences of book suggestion threads on the Dope - which is a FAR more discerning audience than a general crowd of internet participants - constantly remind me that 90% of everything really is shit, and that I trust Tor or DelRey more than a random crowd of idiots to tell me what isn't.

Trust whom you like. I think your reasoning is flawed, though.

[Hello Again]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

Define "best." What do the very small press and self publishers have going for them to get them on the best seller list other than the quality of their work.

I don't know how Amazon defines best, but it's a list they promote. "These are the best SF ebooks of 2011" -- and none are self-published works. The thing self-published books have going for them, other than quality, is that they are most of what's available. It's like asking why people go to community and university theater in small towns. If you want to see plays, that's what you get. And most of the time it's amazingly bad, but you just put up with it. You don't have the option of something better most of the time. Once in a while you'll be pleasantly surprised by what you see.

But I feel like we're getting afield here. The question of whether Publishers NEED to exist forever in the future (I think they do) is a different topic from whether Publishers NEED to price fix all ebooks at the hardcover profit level in order to survive. The answer to the latter, plainly, is no.

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

Charlie Stross wrote a good article on Amazon and eBooks where he argues that DRM is working strongly against the interest of the major publishers (who insist on it).

They hoped it would protect them from piracy (which it arguably doesn't, though that argument has been had many times, so it's best not to rehash it). But I don't think there's any doubt that it does provide tremendous retail lock-in. A lot of the people who like eBooks and pay for digital media bought Kindles, and now they have every incentive to keep buying books from Amazon.

Stross suggests that the publishers will wise up, ditch the DRM, and cut off Amazon's best competitive advantage. I hope that will happen (because I hate DRM), but I find it unlikely. It would be unprecedented for a media industry to unilaterally ditch DRM.