Welladay...

[rolanni]

I was going to post a long discussion about the cost of books, all kines, the. . .duplicity of. . .certain publishers, and reader expectation brought about by a conversation with a bookseller friend this afternoon, after reading this article this morning.

I fear me this Pithy, Insightful post will not happen tonight. Perhaps soon.

In the next week, the following things are penned into the schedule:

1. Friday, meet with accountant after work; pick up car from shop

2. Saturday -- write or know the reason why

3. Sunday -- put together and email an InfoDump; Second Life podcast interview

4. Monday -- database wrangling and bookkeeping

5. Tuesday -- write?

6. Wednesday -- take Hexampuma to specialist in Portland to have his ear evaluated
and very likely operated on

7. Thursday -- Sharon gives presentation as part of Moonlighting panel after end of
day-job day

8. Friday -- fall on face.

9. Saturday and Sunday -- write, dammit

Comments

[ariaflame.livejournal.com]

While not necessarily approving of unnecessary inflation of ebook prices (webscriptions seems to indicate they don't need to be that high for books that have been out for a while) some of those 'readers' need to get a clue. And blaming the author for it??? I'm pretty sure the author has about as much control over the price of the books as they do over the cover art, which is to say rarely any.

Of course for me $15 US for a book is less than what I generally have to pay over here for a mass market paperback so I am less outraged by the potential price 'jump'

Some of those E-Reader are nuts

[(Anonymous)]

I am shocked that the negativity is being misdirected at the authors, rather than the publishers and resellers! What are these people thinking? I know authors do not set the prices for their books, but get royalties based on sales. It is why I buy every Lee & Miller book in all formats. I have loved your books since 1988 and Edger caught my eye.... I know that every copy I buy regardless of format means that you get something and if more of us shell out cash and try and hook more readers on you than hopefully the day job can retire and we will get more books out of you two!

But I agree that the "Wal-Mart mentality" is destroying our economy and sending us all towards being serf-lower class since everything just has to be either on sale and a lost leader to be worthwhile to buy. What a stupid out look, pay for value and quality and it lasts. That includes a good read!

Hap

[spegasaur.livejournal.com]

The articles fine, as far as it goes, but there's a lot more to the debate than just price - although I guess the $9.99 has become something of a flashpoint. If you've not read it yet, this article from Teleread (http://www.teleread.org/2010/02/06/the-amazonmacmillan-blow-up-an-e-book-lovers-appeal-for-understanding/#more-37750) covers some of the background to the anger that "ebook nuts" are feeling.

As for anger directed at authors, this is probably due to some authors giving the impression that they back Macmillan all the way, rather than thinking that authors have any control over price points.

-Stuart

Rant Mode ON

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

Sigh. There are several things...misaligned in that article. For one thing, Amazon is Macmillan's customer. Ebook readers are Amazon's customers. Amazon, in case nobody's noticed, is working very VERY HARD to make sure that ebook readers are its customers.

And, yanno, a bookstore yanking an author's book because the bookstore is mad at the author's publisher, is just the sort of thing that makes authors nuts. Authors get paid a percentage of cover price on books sold. If a bookstore isn't selling an author's book, the author is looking at a slender(er) payday six months to a year out.

I can see being cranky at Amazon over that. Especially if Amazon thought that, if it made authors crazy enough, they would force Macmillan to capitulate, which is one of many readings of why Amazon behaved in such an... untactful ...manner. Publishers don't listen to authors. Especially, publishers don't listen to authors about how much the publisher ought to sell books for.

So, yanno, asking Scalzi (for instance) how much ebooks ought to cost, over and over, is pretty likely to get a snippy answer. As John said himself, it doesn't matter what he thinks ebooks ought to cost. It's like the guy who comes up to you (generic auctorial you) at a con and says that he's never buying another one of your books because YOU put a giant turtle on the cover and he abhors giant turtles.

You (generic auctorial you) aren't likely to think, "Wow, what an insightful comment; I will forthwith get that dern turtle off my cover." No. What you're likely to think is, "Wow, there's somebody without even the semblance of a clue."

Rant Mode OFF

Um, sorry.

[spegasaur.livejournal.com]

Firstly, apologies. It wasn't my intention to cause irritation.

Secondly, one of the problems with the 'debates' on the Amazon vs Macmillan bust up is that there are a number of issues closely related - large publishing houses approach to epublishing, the $9.99 price point, Amazons blacklisting of Macmillan titles, and people tend to argue at cross-purposes as a result.

The reason I linked to the Teleread article is that it made an attempt to seperate out those issues, rather than concentrating on the $9.99 kindle ebook price, which (I feel) is a bit of a side show: there's plenty of evidence to show people are willing - even happy - to pay more than that for an ebook. Just look at Baen's $15 E-Arcs: I don't know how well they sell, but there's clearly a market for them. If that was all the debate was about, I doubt there would be anything like the anger towards Macmillan, and those supporting their stance, as there has been.

One point, though. You are, obviously, correct to point out that Amazon is Macmillan's customer, not the readers. However, under the agency model that will change, and the reader _will_ be the publisher's customer. And the (e-)reader is one group that the (large) publishers seem just as happy to... annoy... as Amazon is willing to annoy authors. OK, it's an order of magnitude difference: but no-one appreciates being ignored, or treated with contempt.

-Stuart

Re: Um, sorry.

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

No, you didn't cork me off; Chris' article over on Teleread corked me off, and my rant was in (partial) response to it. I really shouldn't read the intertubes before I've had coffee.

However, under the agency model that will change, and the reader _will_ be the publisher's customer.

I'm not seeing this. The large publishers don't want to direct sell books; it goes against everything they've been doing. It's been obvious for years that traditional publishing is ailing; that the opportunity for, um, creativity exists at too many points along the chain, like a leaky pipe. The trouble is that everybody depends on the pipe, and nobody will take time to either fix the old one (not, I think, cost-effective, or, given the changes since, oh, World War II, reasonable) or lay a new one.

Part of what's making this so...interesting is the tension between the bigger publishers' being both unwilling and in a very real way unable to change, and the rate of actual change going on in the greater world.

Wednesday -- take Hexampuma to specialist in Portland

[elgordo303.livejournal.com]

It occurs to this one that four-foot healthcare is pretty darn spendy. Is there a healthcare fund that your loyal fans could contribute to (to ease the pain)?

Re: Wednesday -- take Hexampuma to specialist in Portland

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

It occurs to this one that four-foot healthcare is pretty darn spendy.

Yeah, I'm not sure what we're looking at. I'm braced for a couple grand; but we won't know until we see the specialist and he does his thing.

Is there a healthcare fund that your loyal fans could contribute to (to ease the pain)?

No, there isn't. Y'all do so much for us already; and we're grateful, but this is...how do I want to put it? A family expense?