The cost of books

Feb 03, 2010 11:10


Over on barbarienne's LJ, she's posted about a cadre of Kindle owners who are making claims that the big publishers don't want ebooks to succeed as a viable format for reading.  I leave it in her capable hands to debunk that nonsense.  However, one comment that I read there, and have seen elsewhere, drives me insane.

The comment is that "printing makes up ( Read more... )

publishing

Leave a comment

Comments 54

mabfan February 3 2010, 16:46:11 UTC
I learned all about this when I got my Certificate in Publishing.

This post needs wider distribution.

Reply

delkytlar February 3 2010, 16:54:29 UTC
Link away.

Reply

mabfan February 4 2010, 15:03:46 UTC
Linked from Facebook.

Reply

delkytlar February 4 2010, 21:37:43 UTC
Looks like it worked.

Reply


robotech_master February 3 2010, 20:14:52 UTC
Then how is Baen able to sell the e-books of its brand new hardcovers at $6 each or less? (With no DRM, to boot.) And, according to Eric Flint, make a profit by doing so, and pay authors better e-royalties than most other places?

(Granted, they also sell E-ARCs at $15 each for three months before the release of each book-but other publishers only sell e-books starting at book release, so that would be comparing apples and oranges. But even then, $15 is a lot less than hardcover price.)

Nobody who complains about how printing costs make up only $2 out of the price of a $26 hardcover ever seems to want to address that.

Reply

delkytlar February 3 2010, 20:33:14 UTC
Baen makes it up through the print editions and those over-priced E-ARCs (yes, I think paying $15 for an advance uncorrected galley is too much). Eric and Baen are very clear that their free and low-cost ebooks are seen as an adjunct or promotion for their print publishing program. They are not intended to be complete substitutes for the sale of printed copies ( ... )

Reply

robotech_master February 7 2010, 17:06:15 UTC
I haven't seen any actual numbers to back up the claims of costs listed in the post above.

And, just about every person that I've talked to in publishing about this subject before this Macmillan/Amazon thing has said that printing, paper and ink are the major cost of a book.

Now they're all telling me that the largest cost is editorial.

I just want to see numbers at this point.

Reply

delkytlar February 8 2010, 16:29:16 UTC
There is a short-form estimate in one of my other comments here. However, I did not say that the largest cost is editorial - I said that it is overhead. That is: Editorial, Legal, Sales, Marketing, Operations as well as Production (which does not go away just because publication becomes entirely electronic). And, what we call Author Expense (the money we pay to authors to cause them to allow us to publish their work).

Better numbers, I can't provide. But then, Chrysler has never justified the underlying costs of my minivan to me. Nor Disney the underlying costs of my admission ticket to DisneyWorld. I have to take it on faith that the experience and functionality of those purchases is worth the cover price. I can only ballpark figures, and give an overview of underlying costs that too many people think we can do without.

Reply


meggins February 4 2010, 03:36:00 UTC
Returns. There's another minefield.

Reply

delkytlar February 4 2010, 03:59:36 UTC
Certainly returns are a major problem for print books. Not an issue for electronic books, thank God.

Reply


melinafandom February 4 2010, 18:53:20 UTC
My problem is less with publishers who reasonably price their books -- e.g., more expensive when the hardcover is first released, then reduce the price later when a trade or mass market paperback is released, but with those who keep ebook prices consistently expensive, which makes ebook readers feel like we just don't matter. Maybe Macmillan can explain why this title is still at $20 for the ebook version at Fictionwise, when the $6.99 paperback has been out for years now? This is the same company that is telling us they're going to do it differently in the future, but why is that believable, given their past (and current) practices ( ... )

Reply

delkytlar February 4 2010, 19:22:41 UTC
The sort-of-short answer is that right now, under the standard ebook model that Amazon and Fictionwise use, Macmillan does not have control of pricing. So, if there is a complaint to be made, it should be made to the retailer, who sets the prices. (It's entirely possible, considering that Fictionwise is now part of B&N, and since it has been reported that the corporate part of B&N is not fully up-to-date on Fictionwise's business and practices, that the new owners simply don't know there is a problem ( ... )

Reply

melinafandom February 4 2010, 19:43:07 UTC
The sort-of-short answer is that right now, under the standard ebook model that Amazon and Fictionwise use, Macmillan does not have control of pricing.

I was told that Macmillan's arrangement with Fictionwise was currently an agency model. If that's not correct, that it is Fictionwise's fault, though it's hard to see why those particular titles fell through the cracks. Carey's Hachette-published titles in the same series, now in paperback, are $7.99 there.

The only place that publishers currently have control over pricing of ebooks is on their own websites. Currently, that Kushiel book is selling in ebook format on Macmillan's website for $14 (if I had to guess, the price was probably set based on a trade paperback model, rather than a mass-market model, but that price is in keeping with the pricing model Macmillan has been talking about with Amazon). This in itself is a problem for me. I don't understand why an ebook should ever be priced higher than the retail price of the least-expensive paper edition available (which, given ( ... )

Reply

(The comment has been removed)


anonymous February 5 2010, 07:25:19 UTC
First, let me mention that I'm a parachute-in commenter. I found my way here via a link from a comment on John Scalzi's blog. So I have no background about you and know only what is in your post above ( ... )

Reply

delkytlar February 5 2010, 15:38:28 UTC
Normally, I don't reply to anonymous posters. While I would appreciate it if you'd identify yourself if we exchange further messages, you ask some reasonable questions, so I'll make an exception here ( ... )

Reply

delkytlar February 5 2010, 15:45:07 UTC
One request: could you please point me to the particular posting on Scalzi's blog that mentions this post? I can't find it, and it would be much appreciated.

Reply

anonymous February 7 2010, 23:33:27 UTC
Thanks for your response to my questions. I wasn't aware that you generally do not reply to anonymous comments, so extra thanks for making that exception. To reciprocate, I am Keith Dick, from northern California, and my only connection to publishing is as a reader ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up