Archive for the ‘Opinion’ Category

Amazon gives numbers: it’s about prices, not share

July 30, 2014

Amazon gives numbers: it’s about prices, not share

Amazon has added a fascinating

Kindle forum post (at AmazonSmile: support a non-profit of your choice by shopping*)

which does something Amazon rarely does: it gives specific numbers.

I know when I do my analysis posts, some people just skip them. :) Not everybody likes seeing the mathematical interiors of something they enjoy:  for some, it’s like seeing an x-ray of the person they are dating. ;)

However, these are statistics as a weapon…a weapon in what I call the Hachazon war. That’s the ongoing disagreement between Amazon and Hachette, one of the Big Five publishers (presumably, Amazon is also in or going to be in similar negotiations with the other four).

It’s a carefully crafted post, with again, Amazon taking the populist/consumer point of view…and tacking on support for authors.

I’m not saying that isn’t how they sincerely feel: it certainly could be. It’s just apparent to me that the statement has a very large position framing component…and it’s reasonable that it does, of course.

I recommend that you read it, and I do want to point out some key points.

The biggest argument made is that Amazon isn’t fighting with Hachette over revenue share, as has been reported. It’s not (according to the e-tailer) about trying to get, say, 50% of the sale rather than 30%.

It’s about keeping the prices low.

Amazon argues that e-book prices should be lower than p-book (paperbook) prices. Since the rise in popularity of e-books with the release of the Kindle in 2007, that’s been many consumers’ intuitive sense. We would see posts about that all the time in the forums: “There is no paper cost, it’s just a file.”

For many of those posts, it was clear that they didn’t understand the economics (which Amazon presumably does). They were only talking about manufacture, and that is a small part of the cost of producing a book. I remember an analysis, way back when, that an e-book was about 12.5% less expensive to produce than a p-book.

How can that be?

What costs the most money isn’t the paper, it’s the people. Even for an e-book, you still need to pay the author (although not necessarily the same amount), the editor, the cover designer, the proofreader, the layout artist, and so on.

You still have the same legal costs.

Marketing costs could be different, but are still significant.

Amazon adds in other costs including, interestingly, used sales. Since e-books can’t be sold used, they argue, the initial price can be lower.

If a p-book is sold for $20, and then sold used for $10 and used again for $5, the publisher only gets money out of that initial $20. If the people who paid $10 and $5 for it would have paid $20 otherwise, those second and third sales are a loss of revenue…which the publisher has to make up on the first sale.

Of course, many people who buy a used book at a reduced cost wouldn’t have bought the new book at the full price…but it’s a reasonable argument. Amazon has worked on creating a used e-book market, but that would presumably be a case were the publisher would get a cut of subsequent sales.

Here’s the big stat in this short excerpt from the post:

“We’ve quantified the price elasticity of e-books from repeated measurements across many titles. For every copy an e-book would sell at $14.99, it would sell 1.74 copies if priced at $9.99. So, for example, if customers would buy 100,000 copies of a particular e-book at $14.99, then customers would buy 174,000 copies of that same e-book at $9.99. Total revenue at $14.99 would be $1,499,000. Total revenue at $9.99 is $1,738,000.”

Amazon is saying, “Lower the price and make more money.”

They explain how that benefits everybody: publishers; readers; authors; and Amazon.

You know what it doesn’t benefit?

P-books.

That’s always been one of the publishers’ concerns with Amazon pricing many new and popular e-books at $9.99 (which sometimes meant Amazon was selling them to consumers for less than what the e-tailer paid the publisher). It’s “price perception devaluation.” If a Stephen King novel is worth $9.99 as an e-book, why is it worth $25 as a p-book?

If e-book prices set the market perception of what a book should cost, it hurts p-books.

You might think that would hurt Amazon as much as it does the tradpubs (traditional  publishers), but tradpubs have a massive percentage of p-book sales in brick-and-mortar stores (and those do still matter), and a likely significantly decreasing percentage of e-book sales.

I was a brick-and-mortar bookstore manager…and almost all of our stock came from the biggest publishers (the few that didn’t came from smaller traditional publishers, represented by a distributor such as Publishers Group West).

We simply needed the size and services of the big tradpubs. You need to be able to replenish stock quickly when a book is hot, and get credit for copies when a book is cold.

The smaller independent publishers didn’t have the resources to do that.

All of that goes away with digital reproduction and distribution.

The Big Five’s power is disproportionately in p-books…and POD (Print On Demand) hasn’t changed that (yet).

The other thing Amazon says in the post is that the publisher should get 35%, Amazon should get 30%…and the author should get 35%.

To me, that’s a little…manipulative, I guess. Amazon (as they say later in the post) can’t control how much the author gets from the publisher…that’s a matter of their contracts.

It would be like…looking over at another table at a restaurant, and saying to the six-year old, “You know, if your parents really loved you, they’d give you the whole pizza.” ;)

Authors, of course, are not like six-year olds…I expect we’ll see some pointed comments from some of the Hachette-side authors about this part of the post.

Brand new or aspiring indie-authors may have the relative “life experience” of a six-year old, in terms of publishing, but they’ll have different abilities to judge.

Speaking of those indie (independent) authors, you may think that what Amazon is saying isn’t unreasonable: after all, Amazon pays KDP (Kindle Direct Publishing) authors either 35% or 70% (the latter if they meet certain guidelines).

Yes, but that’s a different case from Amazon’s traditional publishing efforts.

With KDP, the author/publisher (they are often one and the same in that situation) takes on the costs and risks of development of the book. Amazon takes on some of the marketing costs, although the publisher will many times continue to have those as well. Amazon will also have Customer Service costs, and accounting costs, but for the bulk of the costs, it falls on the indie.

KDP is a platform: the author delivers the book and updates it as needed, and Amazon sells it.

Amazon’s traditional publishing, and the Big Five’s, involves a lot more investment.

The other thing about pricing is that consumers (and Amazon is positioning itself as seeing things from that viewpoint) look at an individual sale, while publishers (and stores) look at populations of sales.

Popular books support unpopular books.

As readers, we do want publishers interested in something besides profits on each title.

We want them to take risks on new authors, and we want them to publish “meaningful” books which won’t be popular.

If a researcher spends ten years documenting working conditions in 19th Century America (I’m just making that up as a topic), it’s not going to top the bestseller lists…but it’s important that the information be out there and preserved.

That book will probably never make back its developments costs…so popular books have to be priced somewhat higher to enable the publisher to take a loss on the “public good” book.

That’s not inherently different on e-books and p-books…except that the risks are quite a bit lower on e-books.

Right now, it’s likely that e-books are, to some extent, supporting the publishing of p-books. They are providing, if not a higher margin, a better cushion for taking risks on the development of p-books.

All of that said, this is an extraordinarily revealing post, as far as Amazon goes.

What do you think? Will it persuade the public to be more on Amazon’s side? How will authors react? Would consistently lower e-book prices hurt p-book sales? Would that cause publishers to take fewer risks with p-books, resulting in less innovation? Would indies pick up that slack? Feel free to tell me and my readers what you think by commenting on this post.

Join hundreds of readers and try the free ILMK magazine at Flipboard!

* I am linking to the same thing at the regular Amazon site, and at AmazonSmile. When you shop at AmazonSmile, half a percent of your purchase price on eligible items goes to a non-profit you choose. It will feel just like shopping at Amazon: you’ll be using your same account. The one thing for you that is different is that you pick a non-profit the first time you go (which you can change whenever you want)…and the good feeling you’ll get. :) Shop ’til you help! :) 

This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy  Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them.

Kindle Unlimited: how does it affect authors, and what’s the deal with the KOLL?

July 23, 2014

Kindle Unlimited: how does it affect authors, and what’s the deal with the KOLL?

You know that look Indiana Jones has in that one scene, where the  adventuring archaeologist  thinks everything cool, and suddenly, it all goes reverse  Sisyphus? ;)

That’s the look a lot of the book industry still has after Amazon introduced its subser (that’s what I call a subscription service) for e-books and audiobooks for adults.

I’ve already written about it more than once, but there’s a lot more to say since I wrote

It’s official! Kindle Unlimited is here with 639,621 titles

way back on…Friday. ;)

I said at that point I was going to address how this was affecting authors, and that’s going to be one of the two parts of this post.

A lot of people want to know if this is good or bad for authors, and like almost everything, in my opinion, it’s both.

My guess is that some authors are going to see tremendous increases in revenue by being part of Kindle Unlimited (KU). Others, rightfully, are concerned about the restrictions involved.

Let’s first lay things out a bit.

Authors get paid for the sale of the books they’ve written. In the traditionally publishing world, they licensed the rights to sell the book to a publisher (the deal was usually made by an agent acting on the author’s behalf), which sold the books to stores, which then sold them to customers.

A tradpub (traditional publisher) might give the author an advance against the royalties. Let’s say that you could be reasonably sure that Stephen King was going to sell a million copies of the next novel, and that you knew as the publisher you could get $10 per copy (I’m basically working with this as a hardback for this example). $2.50 of that is going to go to King.

However, the author needs a year to write the book, and needs to spend that year largely unconcerned about earning a living besides that.

You are looking at getting in $7.5 million…you’ll have expenses out of that, of course, including the actual manufacture of the book and marketing, but you’ll advance King $1 million.

The first million dollars which would have gone to King from the royalties once the book starts actually selling, you keep to pay off the advance.

So, that’s one model.

In the independent (“indie”) e-book model, the author may publish the book themselves, going perhaps through Amazon’s Kindle Direct Publishing. The author, following certain guidelines, can get 70% of the list price they set for the book. Sell it for $2.99, keep about $2.09. Of course, the author has also taken on all the expenses: they might have paid for an editor, done marketing, and so on.

If the indie set the price outside of the $2.99 to $9.99 range, they can only get 35% for it…that’s going to become important as this explanation continues.

When Amazon introduced the Kindle Owners’ Lending Library (KOLL) in 2011, they created a new income stream for authors.

Eligible Amazon Prime members with a hardware Kindle can borrow up to a book a month from a certain set of books.

The indie publishers (and those might be just individual authors) divide a variable pool of money, getting a cut of it for each borrow that happens.

Let’s say the pool is $1.5 million for January. If there were 750,000 borrows that month, everybody in the pool gets $2 for each borrow. If your book was borrowed ten times, you get $20. That $2 figure is close to what it has been actually running.

That’s a big plus if someone borrows a $0.99 book: $2 instead of $0.35. It’s about a wash with a $2.99 book that meets the other requirements to get 70%.

There are also traditionally published books in the KOLL, although not from the biggest publishers. They get paid differently: they probably mostly get paid like it was a sale, and so the author would get their normal royalty…presumably. Publishers don’t release those kind of contract details, normally.

Now, along comes KU, and the economics change.

The one big technical change is that the indies publishers don’t get a royalty unless someone “reads” ten percent of the book (not based on when they simply download it). I put “reads” in quotation marks, because of course, the system doesn’t know if you actually read it or just flipped through it…or even, I think, jumped ahead to 10%.

That’s not that big a deal, though. I doubt very many people downloaded a KOLL book and didn’t read at least 10% of it.

What makes the difference is the “Unlimited” part.

KU isn’t really unlimited, of course, but it would be unreasonable to think that “unlimited” was a literal term, in my opinion. For example, you can’t go back in time and read the book. ;) You can’t read a book on the surface of the sun. “Kindle Unlimited” is a name, not an actual definition.

In practice, though, it is pretty much all you can read. You can have ten books out at a time. I think that’s to limit the number of people using it, not to limit an individual. I could borrow ten books on August 1st. If I read all ten by August 10th, I could just borrow ten more…it’s not ten per month, it’s ten at a time.

I do find that it feels freeing. I had to make careful choices with the KOLL…I don’t with KU.

That’s going to be a big boon for books which most people would not have bought.

In this

TechCrunch article by John Biggs

In the article, Biggs says:

“My son, for his part, has already downloaded a few dozen Minecraft ebooks…”

A few dozen!

The article also suggests those books may not be that good, but the point is,  that would not have happened without KU.

It wouldn’t have happened with the KOLL: after the first book, you’d have to wait until the next calendar month to get the next one.

Even if we figure they were all ninety-nine cents, we can be sure they wouldn’t have spent more than $30 on them.

Those publishers will all get royalties…and possibly, much bigger royalties than they would have gotten for sales which probably wouldn’t have happened otherwise.

Authors whose books were part of the KDP Select program (that’s what gets indie books into the KOLL) were automatically made part of KU:

“All books currently enrolled in KDP Select with U.S. rights will be automatically included in Kindle Unlimited. KDP Select books will also continue to be enrolled in the Kindle Owners’ Lending Library (KOLL) available to Amazon Prime customers in the U.S., U.K., Germany, France, and Japan where authors will continue to earn a share of the KDP Select global fund when their book is borrowed. KOLL borrows will continue to be counted when a book is initially downloaded.”

–Amazon e-mail

So, why wouldn’t every indie author jump into KU?

There’s one big sticking point.

KU requires exclusivity for Amazon for indies…that’s part of the KDP Select rules.

Put your book in KU (through KDP Select) and you can’t sell it through SmashWords or Barnes & Noble.

I actually think it’s possible that requirement will go away at some point, or at least, have two tiers of royalty for exclusive and non-exclusive.

Obviously, the exclusivity rules don’t apply to tradpubbed books…Harry Potter e-books aren’t exclusive to Amazon, and are part of KU.

So, KU is most beneficial to books which weren’t selling well, and to very low-priced books. It’s not as beneficial to books which do sell well and are higher priced.

How will this affect Big 5 publishers and their brand name authors?

Unless it starts significantly cutting into “piece” sales (buying a book at a time), it doesn’t affect them much. They may think that putting books into KU will cannibalize their piece sales…at least for the frontlist (the new and bestselling books).

If it does start to cut into piece sales…the game changes.

I can imagine that by the end of 2015, 10% of e-book downloads happen through KU.

That’s not ten percent of the income…a lot of those would be books with micro sales.

It could be, then, that a brand name author starts putting short stories and other “peripheral” material to big series into KU.

Not necessarily through their tradpub.

They may correctly feel that so much discovery is happening through KU that they can’t ignore it.

This might also spur a growth of Kindle Worlds (Amazon’s program which licenses books, comic books, TV shows, movies, and so on so that anyone can write in them, following certain guidelines, and the rightsholder, author, and Amazon all get a cut).

A tradpub could license a series to KW, which would then result in non-canonical works in KU…which in turn serves to promote the non-KU books.

The more successful KU is, the more successful it will become.

Now, people are undoubtedly thinking of ways to game the system. I asked Amazon what happens if somebody borrows a book, reads ten percent of it (triggering a payment), returns it, and then borrows it again and again reads ten percent.

One of my regular readers and commenters, Tom Semple, asked what would prevent someone from just asking a bunch of people to borrow it, jump to the ten percent mark, and then return it.

The answer is that Amazon has made it clear that if they decide you are doing things like that, you are out. Naturally, they can always stop carrying someone’s book, they don’t really need a reason. I don’t want to get into any non-public details about this…suffice it so say, they aren’t going to get “tricked” much and suffer the consequences. I think it’s far more likely we will hear about them thinking someone has done something wrong who hasn’t. They are pretty good about taking “appeals” in those cases…but we see it happen on the forum that someone’s posts are deleted, and they never figure out why, for a much smaller example of what might be Amazon being overly cautious.

Now, as to what is happening with the KOLL:

As you can see from the quote from the Amazon e-mail, the KOLL continues to exist: no change at this point.

That said, I’ve seen many threads in the Amazon forums where people think it has been discontinued.

That’s because the interface for getting to it has changed, and that has been affected by KU.

Basically what has happened, according to Amazon (and I asked them a detailed question) is that, if you are a KOLL member who is not eligible for a loan right now (because you’ve already borrowed a book this calendar month), you’ll see the KU “Read for Free” button instead of the KOLL “Borrow for Free”.

According to them, it works like this:

  • A Prime member and eligible for a KOLL loan will see “Borrow for Free” button on Prime eligible titles
  • A Prime member who has hit the KOLL limit will see “Read for Free” with KU eligible titles
  • Someone who is neither a Prime nor a KU member will see “Read for Free” with KU on KU titles which are also Prime titles, and will see “Borrow for Free” with Prime on Prime titles which are non-KU titles
  • Quoting Amazon: “For the E-readers and Kindle Fires, you’ll see the above, except for Kindle Touch and Kindle Paperwhite users will see the “Read for Free” button regardless of their current KOLL status.”

Hypothetically, then, the confusing thing has been that a “borrow” button wasn’t available in the browser, but only when a KOLL loan wasn’t availbale..and Kindle Touch and Kindle Paperwhite users didn’t see a KOLL button regardless.

That doesn’t answer everything: how does a Paperwhite owner make a KOLL borrow? Apparently, from what I’ve heard anecdotally, clicking that “Read for Free” on your Paperwhite will make it the KOLL loan if you haven’t done one yet that month.

I hope that makes it clearer.

What do you think? Is KU a good deal for authors, a bad deal for authors, both or neither? Feel free to let me and my readers know what you think by commenting on this post.

New! Join hundreds of readers and try the free ILMK magazine at Flipboard!

* I am linking to the same thing at the regular Amazon site, and at AmazonSmile. When you shop at AmazonSmile, half a percent of your purchase price on eligible items goes to a non-profit you choose. It will feel just like shopping at Amazon: you’ll be using your same account. The one thing for you that is different is that you pick a non-profit the first time you go (which you can change whenever you want)…and the good feeling you’ll get. :) Shop ’til you help! :) 

This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy  Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them.

 

“You should be ashamed of reading that”

July 15, 2014

“You should be ashamed of reading that”

I recently wrote about being a fan of the Planet of the Apes (I was linking to the original book). One of my regular readers, Tuli Reno, commented (thanks, Tuli!) that

“I love Planet of the Apes and am not ashamed of it. For some reason someone I know thought I should be.”

There is no reason to be ashamed of what you read or watch or play or to which you listen.

Oh, I suppose…let me get this out of the way. There is content which is created as the result of a crime, or that exploits real people. That’s a different story. The issue there is the crime, the production of the material.

One weird thing that I remember being proposed was banning sexually explicit animation…making it a crime to produce. I can understand people not wanting to watch it, but there has hardly been a crime committed against the pixels. ;)

So, with the issue of production out of the way, let’s talk about “content shaming”.

It’s interesting to me psychologically.

Why should it matter to one person if another person reads (or otherwise consumes) something that the first person thinks is too “babyish” or “silly” or that it is just junk?

Is the argument that they should be reading something better?

I can certainly see that being a slippery slope…isn’t there always something better? ;) Should you not be reading a really good novel because there is a great one you haven’t read? ;)

My feeling always is that if you are getting nothing out of a book, the lack isn’t in the book…

If you have enough imagination, and choose to exercise it (and it is exercise…it can be tiring), you could read a great novel in a blank book, right?

I just never understand the point of diminishing someone else’s happiness.

I’ve heard the argument about all kinds of things, from comic books, to romances, to mysteries, over the years.

“Stop reading that drivel!”

I do have a theory.

Years ago, I had an  epiphany.

I realized something, and said it this way:

“We hate in others that which we fear in ourselves.”

Let’s say that someone has been taught that crying in public is bad.

They were punished for doing it (“I’ll give you something to cry about!”).

They never cry any more…it’s not that they don’t want to cry sometimes, but that they repress it.

Then, they see someone freely crying in public.

For some people, the reaction to that in that situation is instant anger.

They may yell the same thing at the other person that the authority figure in their life yelled at them.

They hate that the other person is crying, because it is something that they struggle with in themselves…that they work hard to crush.

I honestly think there is something like that at work in some content shaming.

Someone who was told to stop reading Sweet Valley High or The Animorphs or Robert Heinlein, for that matter, learns to repress the desire to do so.

When they see somebody else reading, say, The Hunger Games, they may have that same lashing out.

I’m a proud geek…and we are really used to this sort of thing. :)

Now that geek has become mainstream, it’s a bit different…but yes, watching Star Trek or playing Dungeons and Dragons or reading Lord of the Rings could get you a sneering lecture in the past.

We used to gather in conventions to find like-minded people…but now, you can do it on the internet.

If you are a fan of pretty much anything, you can probably find like-minded people online.

That can help.

I should also mention that not everybody who thinks of themselves as a geek is open to all content. There have been geek feuds (Star Trek vs. Star Wars…or Star Trek vs. Lost in Space, back in the day), and you can see some geeks putting other people down. There is a derogatory term, “skiffy” (a deliberate mispronunciation of “sci-fi”) that some people use for…I guess I’ll say they might call it schlocky pseudo science fiction. When I see someone use that, it makes me a bit sad.

Geek culture should be about acceptance, not exclusion. George Takei has made this point about Star Trek and Star Wars…after all, Takei has appeared in both universes (having done a voice in Star Wars: The Clone Wars). Many other people have as well, although perhaps not with such prominence.

My main message on this, though, is that if someone else shames you because of what you are reading, it’s not about you…it’s about them.

A lot of how you emotionally react to things has to do with how you frame the situation.

After all, you are fine with your doctor doing things that would horrify you if someone else did…because you’ve framed it as happening for medical purposes.

If someone wants to content shame me, my framing of it makes me pity them. I feel sad both that they can’t get the joy out of the material that I do, and that something happened to them that made them fear in themselves something that I enjoy in myself.

I think, perhaps, the proper response is just to let them see that it isn’t hurting you…what you are reading, I mean.

Shamer: “Why are you reading that junk?”

Reader: “I like it.”

Shamer: “It’s stupid.”

Reader: “It’s interesting to me.”

Shamer: “You should be reading Tolstoy or Shakespeare.”

  • Reader (response 1): “I do [only if that's true]…I enjoy that, too. This isn’t Shakespeare…but Shakespeare isn’t this, either. I just like different things at different times.”
  • Reader (response 2): “Yes, that’s another thing I’d like to try some day.”
  • Reader (response 3): “You know, I’ve always been kind of scared of that…I’m not sure I’d understand it. Maybe you could help me get into it: where would you suggest I start?”

The bottom line, I guess, is that it should end up with a shrug on the reader’s part. You don’t want to be dismissive of the other person…showing interest in what they are saying would probably be best. You really don’t want to get defensive and engage the anger…that’s a rarely a good strategy.

I think one thing I might do is send the person a gift of a book in the genre…a book that I particularly like. I’d probably include a message that was something like, “I know that what I was reading didn’t make much sense to you, and I can understand how it could seem weird. Here’s a book I think you might enjoy…and if you want to talk about it afterwards, I’m open to that. If you want to trade it in for something else, that’s fine…I just wanted to give you an opportunity to see what I see in it.”

I know, I know…some of you think I’m a dreamer. :) Yup…and proud of it. ;)

Have you ever been content shamed? What were you reading/watching/playing? What did you do about it? Have you ever converted somebody who hated a genre into respecting it? If so, how? Name a book which you think would be a good “ambassador” to get somebody into something (for example, I’d go with Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns for somebody who doesn’t like the idea of comic books and graphic novels). Outside of something criminal or exploitative, is there something that has a fandom that you just don’t get? Feel free to tell me and my readers what you think, by commenting on this post.

New! Join hundreds of readers and try the free ILMK magazine at Flipboard!

When you shop at AmazonSmile, half a percent of your purchase price on eligible items goes to a non-profit you choose. It will feel just like shopping at Amazon: you’ll be using your same account. The one thing for you that is different is that you pick a non-profit the first time you go (which you can change whenever you want)…and the good feeling you’ll get. :) Shop ’til you help! :) 

This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy  Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them.

 

Amazon’s infinite stockroom

June 28, 2014

Amazon’s infinite stockroom

This may be one of Amazon’s biggest disruptions yet…and it could really benefit small publishers.

According to this

The Bookseller article by Benedicte Page

Amazon UK is pushing for new contract conditions with small publishers.

One of them I don’t like, and could run afoul of anti-competition agencies. That’s the so-called “MFN” (Most Favored Nation) requirement.

Essentially, having an MFN means that you can’t sell your product at a lower price anywhere else. In this case, it would mean that publishers would have to give Amazon as good as they give anybody else…including themselves.

MFNs haven’t been inherently found to be illegal, but they were a problem in the legal action taken against the Big 5 publishers for conspiring to raise e-book prices.

It feels to me (and I’m not a lawyer) like restraint of trade, since it controls what you do with another entity. That may be subtle, but I think it’s different from paying somebody for exclusive rights. Again, it’s just my feeling about it, but exclusive rights says, “Sell this just to us.” An MFN says, “We will control the pricing even when we are not part of the sales chain.”

The other rumored condition, though, is far more significant as far as I am concerned.

When I managed a brick-and-mortar bookstore, we would  occasionally  have someone come in who wanted us to carry a book they had self-published on a contingency basis.

In that situation, we don’t pay them anything for the book unless it sells.

They think that doesn’t cost us anything, which would demonstrate a lack of understanding about retail, as far as I was concerned.

In a brick-and-mortar, one of the biggest things you are battling is rent. Every day a book sits on a shelf, you lose money, because you have to pay the rent on the space under that book.

That’s one reason why books may turn over pretty quickly: if a book sold five copies the first day, three the second day, and one the next day, you might return it to bring in something hotter.

So, contingency was never risk free for the store.

However, what if the book did sell well? Wouldn’t that be worth it?

Books have a short sales cycle in a store. There just aren’t that many people who are going to come into a bookstore every day, and you have a core of regulars. If a bunch of your regulars buy a book as soon as it is released, they don’t buy it again, typically. Book sales are front loaded in most (but not all) cases. You need the book when it is hot…waiting a week can really cut into sales.

So, I would say to the self-publisher: “If I need ten more of these tomorrow, could I get them?”

Their answer would always be, “No.” It might take them weeks to get more printed.

That was why I would tell them I couldn’t carry it. A traditional publisher could drop ship me books that fast…certainly within a couple of days.

If a Random House author went on a local radio talk show (which was a huge driver of book sales), I could ask for a hundred more and get them while people still wanted them.

The little, independent publisher simply couldn’t compete, because they didn’t have the supply infrastructure.

That’s also been true online.

If you want a p-book (paperbook) from a small publisher, it might take weeks for Amazon to get it, even if they can then send it to you in two days.

Amazon has a solution (according to sources).

They are reportedly telling the small publishers that, if the publisher is out of stock, Amazon wants the right to print the book themselves.

Amazon has a huge “print on demand” operation already:

CreateSpace

I think most of the writing I’m seeing about this doesn’t adequately recognize what a game changer this would be.

Let’s take an easy example.

An author publishes a horror novel with a small press.

They print 500 copies, which seems likely to be adequate.

Stephen King writes about loving the book.

Suddenly, demand is huge.

Amazon could sell 10,000 copies tomorrow…but the publisher only had 500 for everybody…and it will take them two weeks to print more.

Under the reported proposal, the publisher has given Amazon the file from which to print the book, and Amazon just prints it themselves and gets it to the customers.

The publisher still gets paid.

My guess is that Amazon doesn’t need to charge them much (anything?) for having had to print it. The cost of printing a book is actually a small portion of what creates the consumer price. There are a lot of people costs (editors, cover artists, the author), marketing costs, and other things involved beyond the paper and ink.

The book now shoots up the bestseller list, and becomes an even bigger hit (competing strongly and directly with large publishers’ products).

If Amazon couldn’t print the book, they would likely lose the vast majority of those sales…some people would wait for it, but I think most would not.

Now, in the writing about these contract proposal rumors, the feeling is that publishers are pushing back against this one.

They don’t want Amazon to control the process…they may be concerned (not unreasonably) that the quality of the book might suffer. In the scenario that I’ve proposed in the past that new novels might cost $50, that includes them being printed in a much higher quality way than we usually see now…or that we would expect from print on demand.

What this does, though, is level the playing field between small publishers and the big tradpubs. Amazon becomes the back-up “factory” for the little guys.

In the same way that we’ve seen huge successes in e-book publishing for independents (where no factory is necessary), we would see gains for small publishers in p-books.

I also don’t see this being a problem under anti-competition laws.

This would further weaken the bargaining power of the Big 5 with Amazon, since little pubs could also have blockbusters.

I suspect this will come to the USA as well, if it hasn’t already.

What do you think? Would this be as big a deal as I think it would be? Will publishers push back against it to keep Amazon from having too much control…even if it might benefit them? What can the Big 5 do to maintain their marketshare? Feel free to let me and my readers know what you think by commenting on this post.

Join hundreds of readers and try the free ILMK magazine at Flipboard!

This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy  Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them.

What happens if Amazon and Hachette can’t agree?

May 30, 2014

What happens if Amazon and Hachette can’t agree?

It isn’t personal.

Hachette (a publisher) and Amazon (a retailer) are in the midst of a turbulent negotiation. It’s like Godzilla battling Mothra…and unfortunately, in that scenario,we readers are Tokyo.

Businesses famously fight and fight and fight and then settle things up and go back to business as usual. It’s not personal…there is nothing that fundamentally stops them from making money together.

Except sometimes, they don’t.

What if this is one of those times?

What if Hachette, which may be trying to bring back the Agency Model in September (when their legal prohibition ends), and Amazon, which wants control over consumer pricing, just finally have to stop working with each other?

A little over three years ago, I wrote

A Tale of Two Middles

I looked at the two “middles” between authors and readers: publishers and retailers. I even specifically compared Hachette and Amazon:

“How many people know Amazon versus knowing Hachette?  Familiarity is important online…you’ve got to trust the people from whom you buy.  Amazon has been cust0mer-facing for more than a decade…publishers are just really learning that.”

In the past three years have we gotten to the point where the tradpubs (traditional publishers) and Amazon don’t need each other?

Let’s postulate that Amazon and Hachette can’t work it out…and Amazon stops carrying Hachette books.

What would happen for Hachette?

Hachette would need to find another way to sell those books: Amazon is clearly a huge hunk of sales. They could, of course, hypothetically reconfigure in a way that they need to sell fewer books…take fewer risks in publishing choices, come up with alternate funding streams (licensing the backlist to subsers ((subscription servicers))), charge more for each book…there are ways. Let’s assume, though, that they want to continue to sell a lot of books.

They can work through other retailers…but that might be like running from one room to another during an earthquake. It might not exactly be a safe harbor.

The other choice is that they sell directly…which is what I was discussing three years ago.

I think that is a much stronger possibility than it was.

Initially, consumers were insecure about buying e-books: now, they aren’t as much. It’s familiar: they might buy from a publisher (which they know less well) rather than going with Amazon.

“Social selling” is another big possibility. Similar to Amazon Associates, the publisher could directly compensate anyone that sells their books (within certain structures). So, you e-mail your sibling about a $4.99 book, they buy it from your link, you get $0.50. That 90% “keep” for the publisher is much better than what they get from Amazon now, even taking into account the costs of sale.

Multiply that many times over with social media, like Twitter, Goodreads (owned by Amazon), and so on.

Do we trust Amazon more than we trust our friends?

Would we feel better about our friends getting a little cash than Amazon getting it?

What if it was a non-profit? That might do even more for the sales.

No reason for a publisher like Hachette not to make the file “platform agnostic”…they could make a book file like an MP3, where it could be read on pretty much any device.

It would cost publishers quite a bit to set something like this up…I think readers would insist on cloud storage of their books, like they get from Amazon, but I think it’s entirely doable. As discovery becomes decentralized, Amazon becomes less important.

What would happen for Amazon?

Amazon would need to have customers make a bigger mental shift than Hachette would, in part because I think customers have a more well-formed conception of Amazon.

When the Kindle was first released in 2007, Amazon had a goal of “every book ever published…”

They’d have to drop that as a marketing point.

If they didn’t have some of the big books, they’d be under more obligation to make other books matter just as much. That might be books they publish themselves, but it could be other titles as well. That’s exactly one of the tactics they are trying during the Hachazon War: they are putting ads on the Hachette books’ product pages recommending alternate books which are cheaper or better reviewed.

If that is successful, it means Amazon doesn’t need those publishers’ books…although the tradpubs would definitely be leading discovery at first (people would go look for the new J.K. Rowling before bouncing to another choice).

Another possibility is that Amazon keeps providing the books to their customers…but doesn’t sell them itself.

I think that might have been missed as one of the most important things Amazon said in their recent Hachazon War statement:

“If you do need one of the affected titles quickly, we regret the inconvenience and encourage you to purchase a new or used version from one of our third-party sellers or from one of our competitors.” [emphasis added]
Announcement Hachette/Amazon Business Interruption (at AmazonSmile: benefit a non-profit of your choice by shopping*)

That’s right: somebody can buy that Hachette book from Barnes & Noble and then sell it to through Amazon…and Amazon charges for the service.

Third-party selling is very important to Amazon, and a good way for them to make money. Naturally, that only works with physical books at this point, and you might expect it to mean higher prices…but it is a way for Amazon to keep being a place where you can get the books. If a way to sell used e-books ever does come to fruition, that would also really feed this.

The third option for Amazon is to stop carrying a broad array of books.

While Amazon was originally positioned as an online bookstore, those days are gone. They are certainly still seen as a bookseller, but they are so much more. They could get out of the book retailing business and still have a very substantial business model (including web services and “fulfillment services”).

They might still sell Amazon published books (Amazon traditionally published and Amazon as a publishing platform for independent authors) in that scenario.

Both companies have viable alternatives to the publisher/retailer relationship.

The question may no longer be who needs the other company more…but whether or not they need each other at all.

What do you think? What would you do if you couldn’t get Hachette’s books from Amazon? Would you get them somewhere else? What if you could buy e-books from the publisher which would work on your Kindle? Would you be more likely to buy a book from a friend than from a store? Do you ever make buying decisions because it helps a non-profit? If Hachette and Amazon “break up”, would the other Big Five publishers follow…or might Random Penguin, for example, stick with Amazon (in the way that Random House did not go with everybody else on the Agency Model back in 2010)? Feel free to tell me and my readers what you think by commenting on this post.

Bonus deal:

Save $79 by getting the Kindle Fire HDX and the Fire TV bundle!

Amazon Fire TV & Kindle Fire HDX 7″ Wi-Fi 16GB with Special Offers (at Amazon Smile)

That’s $249…for both of them!

I very often use my KFHDX together with my Fire TV…one can almost be considered an accessory for the other.

The key thing is that the KFHDX mirrors very nicely to the Fire TV. Anything on my KFHDX can be displayed on through my Fire TV.

For one thing, that means that any video I can watch on my Kindle Fire I can watch on my TV…even if the app I am using would stop working if I connected an HDMI cable (which at least used to be the case with the Xfinity app). You could watch HBO GO that way.

I can watch videos from websites on my TV, by pulling them up on my Kindle Fire and mirroring to my TV.

This is definitely a good deal…so good that they are limiting it to one to a customer, and making it for a limited time only.

Already have one or the other? You could always give the duplicate as a gift…

New! Join hundreds of readers and try the free ILMK magazine at Flipboard! (many articles on the Hachazon War from different perspectives)

* I am linking to the same thing at the regular Amazon site, and at AmazonSmile. When you shop at AmazonSmile, half a percent of your purchase price on eligible items goes to a non-profit you choose. It will feel just like shopping at Amazon: you’ll be using your same account. The one thing for you that is different is that you pick a non-profit the first time you go (which you can change whenever you want)…and the good feeling you’ll get. :) Shop ’til you help! :) 

This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy  Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them.

Should books be sold as gender specific?

March 18, 2014

Should books be sold as gender specific?

“What’s a good book for ten-year old girl?”

When I was a brick-and-mortar bookstore manager, I’d hear variations of that question, with age and gender specificity varying.

That always gave me pause.

It certainly wasn’t enough information.

Think back to when you were ten-years old.

Picture everybody in your class.

Would you have all liked the same book?

I didn’t think so. ;)

That means I would ask another question…

“What does she like?”

Shopper: “I don’t know. It’s for my niece.”

Okay…

It was always possible to suggest a book that pretty much any kid would like…or at least, that the odds would be good.

It struck me as…odd that someone would assume that all kids of one gender and age would like the same book…or at least, that those factors should narrow the choices sufficiently.

Regular readers know that I don’t tend to identify genders here (and other inherent characteristics). I’ll admit that it sometimes makes the writing more challenging, but I don’t identify mine, my Significant Other’s, my adult kid’s, or other people’s (unless they have already).

I chose to eliminate that information from the nominees for

Give a Kid a Kindle

It’s not that I think people should be ashamed of their genders: it’s that I want people to be known for their thoughts on the internet. That’s part of what’s magic about it. ;)

What about in bookstores, though?

Should books be marketed as for “girls” or for “boys”?

There is a group in England that is arguing that they shouldn’t…and it’s gaining quite a bit of support.

Let Books Be Books

It’s an offshoot of “Let Toys Be Toys”, which also argues that toys (be they G.I. Joe or Easy Bake Oven) shouldn’t be sold as “girls’ toys” or “boys’ toys”.

I have to say, from my experience, the issue is probably less with the kids themselves picking books.

I’m sure many a boy has picked up a Beverly Cleary or a girl gotten Choose Your Own Adventure books…even though the store might have marketed them as gender specific.

I think it is more the adults buying them that make choices based on those classifications.

This

The Guardian article by Alison Flood

about the campaign has some nice background.

Lest you think this is just an online petition (although there is one of those), some major retailers and publishers are following it, pledging not to market or label books as for girls or for boys.

I’m sure some people think this is a silly thing to do. After all, aren’t girls and boys different? Don’t they like different things? How is this any different from “chick lit” or “men’s adventure” (I’ve worked in a bookstore that had the latter section)?

For that matter, does something like this mean we shouldn’t label books as “romance” or “science fiction”, so we don’t prejudice the people buying them?

For me, there is a very big difference between labeling a book as “for boys” and labeling one as “mystery”.

It’s that “for” part.

It isn’t saying what the book is…it is saying who should read it.

I’ll decide what I want to read, thank you very much.

I don’t want to be judged by what I read…well, okay, sometimes I might like somebody to be a tiny bit impressed, but that’s about it. ;)

I’ve certainly seen that judgement. I read books that someone might think are not targeted at me. One easy example is kids’ books. If you saw me, you’d know I wasn’t a kid…at least chronologically. ;)

I’ve consumed a lot of kids’ media as an adult.

Oh, let me give you a great story with my Significant Other (I don’t think I’ve told this one on the blog before).

We hadn’t been together that long.

My SO came out and I was watching TV.

SO: “Are you watching cartoons?”

Me: “Yeah.”

There was a pause.

SO: “Japanese cartoons?”

Me (A little more reluctantly): “Yeah.”

SO: “In Japanese?”

Me (more reluctantly): “Yeah.”

SO: “Do you speak Japanese?”

Me (sort of pouting): “No.”

:)

It was fine (my SO absolutely did not think less of me or hold it against me), but with each answer, I could feel myself sinking deeper and deeper into the geek zone.

Now, I am a proud geek, but there was something about this where it was…yes, I’ll say “embarrassing”.

Why?

Geeks like me, back then, we had seen what we read a lot disparaged by others.

I was always happy to claim somebody who was considered to be a classic writer for the geek community.

Charles Dickens wrote a ghost story (A Christmas Carol).

The Greeks had fantasy characters all over the place.

Jack London wrote science fiction, even a post-apocalyptic tale.

I wanted to show that good writers wrote science fiction and fantasy, too.

I guess I have to agree with the name of the campaign: “Let books be books”…not labels.

What do you think? Anything wrong with marketing books for specific genders? If that’s okay, would it be okay to have a section in a store for people of a particular race? Not one that was fiction by a race, or that race’s “interests”…but labeled as for that race. If one is okay and other one isn’t, I’d be curious to know why? Did you read books where people would think they were intended for another group? Did you do it openly, or did you hide it? Feel free to tell me and my readers by commenting on this post.

Nominate a child to be given a free Kindle at Give a Kid a Kindle.

===

This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy  Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them.

Protecting the brand?

February 6, 2014

Protecting the brand

Yesterday, I wrote about Amazon’s

Kindle Worlds (at AmazonSmile: support a non-profit of your choice by shopping*)

licensing new properties, including G.I. Joe.

Now, in this interesting

Seattle Times article by Jay Greene

which talks about Amazon’s publishing efforts generally, and how they affect the publishing world (I recommend you read it), we get a bit more detail on the deal…and something really stood out to me. According to the article:

“Hasbro is putting few restrictions on authors. Writers can’t produce pieces that are sexually explicit, racist or sexist. Given that G.I. Joe is a military figure, violence is expected.

“Gritty is OK, but gratuitous is not,” Kelly said.

And Hasbro, based in Pawtucket, R.I., deep in Boston Red Sox country, threw in one other restriction: G.I. Joe’s comrade, Snake Eyes, cannot be a portrayed (sic) as a fan of the New York Yankees.”

Banned: sexually explicit, racist, sexist…Yankees fan?

Yep. :)

I think that last one is quite amusing.

I know a little about G.I. Joe (I like to know a little about everything), but I’m not quite clear: why Snake Eyes specifically? Would it be okay to show another Joe as a Yankees fan? How about a bad guy? ;)

I think their other restrictions are reasonable, although all of that gets to be interesting. The snippet in this report doesn’t mention a number of other protected groups…profanity also isn’t mentioned. That might, arguably, make for a more realistic military unit.

So, that gets to my point in this post.

Some companies (Disney, famously), are very protective of their characters and properties. Disney went after cartoonist Dan O’Neill (of the marvelous Odd Bodkins strips) for a comic strip which they felt crossed the line. It depicted Mickey and Minnie doing things that were…um, NSFW (Not Safe For Walt). ;) Disney won.

On the other hand, some have been much more relaxed about it, even explicitly allowing fan fiction (although sometimes with guidelines).

When it comes to Kindle Worlds, that has to be on the minds of the rightsholders. Will allowing people fairly free rein with the stories dilute (and possibly diminish) the consumers’ perception of the characters/world?

I think that’s unlikely.

First, I think that many people may see this as another medium. People don’t judge books by the movies or TV shows…or at least, many people don’t. We are talking about serious readers here, for the most part: the ones who know who the publishers are. I think that they will probably be aware that a Kindle Worlds book is something different…and not assume that, say, Kurt Vonnegut is a lousy writer because they read a Kindle World Vonnegut book that wasn’t up to their standards.

Second, bringing in new creative perspectives has often been a contributor to the longevity of a character, I believe.

We can see this when a property is adapted, and something is added or changed during the adaptation, and then that finds it way back into the original medium…or just simply becomes part of the public mythology about the character.

I believe that companies that allow that to happen strengthen their properties, rather than weaken them.

Here are some examples (at least, this is how the stories go that I’ve heard):

  • Superman’s ability to fly was added for the Fleischer cartoons…they thought it was both easier to animate and more dramatic
  • Kryptonite was added by the Superman radio show…so the actor playing Superman could take a break (otherwise, what prevents Superman from being in the story?)
  • The snowstorm in the 1939 Wizard of Oz movie is not based on the original book, but on a 1902 musical (the original solution to the problem, and I’m avoiding spoilers, would have been quite hard to do on stage)
  • The Wicked Witch of the West wasn’t green in the Oz books: that was done for the 1939 movie, in part because they were playing with the new technicolor options. In Wicked, the “fact” that the witch is green is central to the story…presumably, the author didn’t realize that was sourced from the movie, not the public domain works
  • Sherlock Holmes doesn’t say, “Elementary, my dear Watson” in the original stories. Holmes gets quite close to it, using both “Elementary” and “My dear Watson” within paragraphs of each other in The Hound of the Baskervilles. It does appear (with an extra “elementary” at the end in a 1929 movie version. I believe it might first have been used in a satirical way in The Secret Adversary by Agatha Christie
  • Alfred (Bruce Wayne’s butler) being thin and having a mustache came from casting for a film adaptation. Similarly, the Batcave first appeared in a serial, and later became part of the comics
  • Sulu’s first name on Star Trek of “Hikaru” originally appeared in an authorized novel by Vonda McIntyre, and later was used on screen in a movie

Those are just a few examples. I think the characters are richer because the owner saw a good idea and used it. They recognized the value of an outside input.

That doesn’t mean, I believe, that they should allow infringement (even though that might lead to “beneficial mutations”). However, Kindle Worlds is not infringement: it’s authorized. By allowing outsiders to introduce new elements there, the characters can be enriched.

It’s important to note that the authors of Kindle Worlds stories don’t control new elements they introduce for the characters. Quite a few people have been upset about that, but it’s not so different from the examples I’ve given above (with the exception, perhaps, of the Holmes one).

The Fleischers couldn’t very well have said, “Is it okay if we make Superman fly?” and then tried to stop DC from using a flying Superman in its comics…or asked for a royalty when they did.

My advice to rightsholders is that it is safe to put your worlds into Kindle Worlds, and may turn out to be a very good thing.

What do you think? Is it a risk to license your characters to Kindle Worlds? Are readers sophisticated enough not to judge the original “canonical” works by KW? Conversely, should rightsholders freely allow fan fiction (outside of Kindle Worlds)? Feel free to tell me and my readers what you think by commenting on this post.

Nominate a child to be given a free Kindle at Give a Kid a Kindle.

This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy  Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them.

Could this kill e-book sales?

January 12, 2014

Could this kill e-book sales?

I’m heavily invested in e-books…both economically and emotionally. :)

Their sales growth has been huge, although the rate of expansion has apparently slowed.

Many people wonder, though: is the pattern meteoric? Will they flash across the skies, and then burn up in the atmosphere?

Piotr Kowalczyk, of

EBOOK FRIENDLY

(which I highly recommend) has suggested that

Ebooks will disappear sooner than paper books

However…

I think the e-book, even though it is an evolving form, is likely to be around for quite some time. Even if the current crop of devices eventually fades away, and the companies that produced them become fallow, I don’t see books being delivered  electronically  as doomed.

They have too many advantages over paper. Sure, you might need some sort of emulator to read older ones, but I expect both paper and electronic books will be with us into the next generation.

That doesn’t mean, though, that sales of e-books will remain as strong.

Why not?

Am I suggesting piracy? Or a weakening of copyright?

Nope.

I’m suggesting a rising alternative to ownership.

By October of 2013, sales of digital music were down about 1%.

New York Times article by Ben Sisario

I’ve written before about how the music industry and the book publishing industry are not parallels. You can’t directly take what happened with digital music and physical music and compare it to books. One of the biggest things is that the use pattern for a song (or an album) and a book are quite different. Most people listen to songs repeatedly: most people read a book once. That changes the way that distribution affects sales.

However, I do think we can draw a parallel with a likely cause for the dip in music sales:

Subscription services

With a subscription service, you pay* a set amount per month (or year), and then you “borrow” the content. You can listen to a song on Pandora (at AmazonSmile: support a non-profit of your choice by shopping**) or Songza (at AmazonSmile)(an app I like on my Kindle Fire HDX 7″ (at AmazonSmile)), but you don’t own it.

The subser (subscription service) can withdraw that song, and you don’t have access to it any more.

We’ve started to see this model for e-books, and I’ve predicted that we may see Amazon get into it (in a different way) this year.

Amazon already lets eligible Prime members borrow up to a book a month. That’s a nice perk, but I think they may do something more like Kindle Freetime for adults.

We would pay something like $10 a month, perhaps, and be able to read from a pool of books…perhaps as much as we want (an “all you can eat” plan).

We couldn’t control which books were available to us.

Part of why I think this would work is that I’ve seen a significant change in younger generations.

I would say (without the statistics to back it up) that New Millenials (born roughly 1980 to 2000) are much more comfortable with the idea of buying access, as opposed to actual ownership, than, say, the Greatest Generation (born roughly 1922 to 1945) or the Baby Boomers (born roughly 1946 to 1964).

I do think that older folks are also getting used to it.

It’s a big change for me. I certainly have been a collector and a completist in my life. I have, on bookshelves, all of the Doc Savage Bantam reprints (181 adventures, although it isn’t that many books). I like owning them. I like seeing them there.

Recently, though, I’ve become accustomed to Netflix and Amazon Prime. It feels…decadent to want to buy a DVD. I have plenty of stuff to read and to watch. I claim to be an eclectic content consumer: I should always be able to find something to entertain and educate me: it doesn’t have to be a specific title that sits on a shelf in my house.

Interestingly, I’ve never been much of a re-reader…which, on reflection, makes it seem odd that I was so much of a collector.

I think that love of ownership is a territorial imperative thing, a hoarding thing: I don’t think it’s logical as much as emotional.

That doesn’t mean I want to get rid of the p-books (paperbooks) I already have. I certainly have some books that you aren’t going to find online.

If I could digitize them all and have access to them, would I let them go then? I think I might…I might donate them to places that could preserve them better than I can.

If Amazon did a subser that worked for me, would I buy fewer books?

Yes, I think that’s likely…and I think it would be even  more likely for other people.

Does this mean that subsers will kill e-book sales altogether?

No, I don’t think that’s the case. For one thing, people will want to give books as gifts: that won’t end with subsers.

I do think that if Amazon successfully introduces something this year, we could see it having an effect (a small one at first) on e-book sales.

It’s complicated, of course: how do you compensate an author for borrows?

Amazon already does that, with books in its KDP Select program. The publishers who make their books available in the Kindle Owners’ Lending Library (KOLL) through that program divide up a pool each month…and they can get more from a borrow than they do from a sale (if the price of the book is low enough).

We also see these sorts of deals a lot in video. Amazon may pay a studio X amount for movies for Prime for a given period (“$100,000 for six months”, for example), and it doesn’t matter how many times each movie is borrowed.

That situation can be very attractive for the studio, even if they might not make as much money as if people bought each video or paid to rent them individually. One of the key things is that the studio has a budgetable amount of income.

They know how much money they’ll have in, say, the next six months. That makes a company much more efficient.

It’s like being an actor. I used to do that, and the best thing for me was when I became a repertory player. When you are in rep, you actually get a salary. You don’t wonder if you’ll get a part next month: you know you are set for maybe a six month or one year contract.

There are disadvantages: we didn’t get to pick our roles. :) When I would see the slate of shows, I could guess which parts I was going to play.

We were employees, not independent contractors.

Still, that security was worth a lot. The theatre even invested in us, giving us lessons in Shakespearean analysis and movement classes.

Similarly, if you are paying a subser, they have a motivation to “invest” in you as a customer. They know you are committed to them. A book publisher doesn’t even know who you are, typically, when you buy a book. They don’t need to keep you as an individual happy: they need to keep an aggregate buying population happy.

That should hypothetically mean that they will give you better service, and work to cement the relationship, so you’ll continue it during the next period.

That’s what I think will bring about a reduction in e-book sales: e-book borrowing through subsers.

Let me ask you a couple of questions:

What do you think…will subsers hurt e-book sales? Would tradpubs (traditional publishers) sign up for it? Would you be interested if the selection was similar to what it is now in the KOLL (independently published books, books published by Amazon ((which includes James Bond and the 87th Precinct)), and books from some other tradpubs)? What if you were limited to a certain number of books a month…maybe ten? How would that affect your decision? Are e-books doomed regardless? Feel free to tell me and my readers what you think by commenting on this post.

* Some subsers have free levels. Typically, you pay for those by experiencing ads

** I am linking to the same thing at the regular Amazon site, and at AmazonSmile. When you shop at AmazonSmile, half a percent of your purchase price on eligible items goes to a non-profit you choose. It will feel just like shopping at Amazon: you’ll be using your same account. The one thing for you that is different is that you pick a non-profit the first time you go (which you can change whenever you want)…and the good feeling you’ll get. :) Shop ’til you help! :) 

This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy  Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them.

How much cheaper are Kindle books than hardbacks?

December 8, 2013

How much cheaper are Kindle books than hardbacks?

When Kindles first came out (more than six years ago now), there was talk about how the fact that they were so expensive (initially, just about $400), that it could create a barrier to reading. The logic went something like this: poor people couldn’t afford the device; books might be eventually produced only for the Kindle; so poor people would not be able to read the same books that rich people could.

Of course, that’s largely always been true.

Books used to really be just for the elite. They were rare and valuable items, in many cases. In the 19th Century, England saw the arrival of the “penny dreadfuls”, and the USA later had “dime novels”, but those were both typically genre fiction…not “good books”. You could read a Western, or about the mysterious “Spring-Heeled Jack”, but you weren’t getting Shakespeare and Ovid that way.

While what we now consider to be classics were often serialized (and those available more cheaply), it really wasn’t until the arrival of mass market paperbacks in the 1930s (first in Germany, then the UK, then the USA) that “regular folks” were able to get the same books that the rich people were reading.

That’s simplified, of course, but a lot of it had to do with the rise of literacy among the poorer classes.

No question, a $400 investment in 2007 was a lot.

E-books were typically cheaper than the hardback equivalents…markedly so, in many cases.

Even under the Agency Model, which raised e-book prices, they still tended to be cheaper than the hardback equivalents. Still, owning an e-book reader was perhaps out of the reach of many.

Well, a lot has happened.

For one thing, you don’t need an EBR (E-Book Reader) to read e-books. You do need a computer (or a SmartPhone, or other things).

For another, they are available through public libraries (although not fully at this point).

Key is that the price of EBRs has dropped…and that the Agency Model pricing structure was broken up through the action of the US Department of Justice, again allowing deep discounting of e-book titles by Amazon and others.

Those aren’t just cheaper prices on independently published books (which may also have created a downward price pressure across the board): the bestselling books are much cheaper as e-books than they are as hardbacks.

Here are the current New York Times fiction bestseller hardbacks, along with their prices and the Kindle store prices:

Title Hardback E-book Difference
Cross My Heart $14.50 $7.50 -$7.00
Sycamore Row $14.87 $6.49 -$8.38
Takedown 20 $14.00 $6.49 -$7.51
The First Phone Call From Heaven $12.50 $8.49 -$4.01
King and Maxwell $15.55 $8.99 -$6.56
Doctor Sleep $15.00 $7.99 -$7.01
The Goldfinch $15.41 $7.50 -$7.91
The Longest Ride $13.87 $6.49 -$7.38
The Supreme Macaroni Company $15.59 $8.00 -$7.59
Dust $16.68 $7.49 -$9.19
The Valley of Amazement $17.99 $8.99 -$9.00
Inferno $15.38 $6.49 -$8.89
The All-Girls Filling Station Last Reunion $15.00 $6.49 -$8.51
White Fire $15.55 $6.49 -$9.06
Mirage $17.37 $7.79 -$9.58
And the Mountains Echoed $16.58 $7.50 -$9.08
We are Water $17.61 $8.99 -$8.62
The Luminaries $16.20 $8.59 -$7.61
Winners $14.38 $8.39 -$5.99
Total $294.03 $145.15 -$148.88

I have not included one of the titles, which is not available as an e-book…or, at the moment, as a hardback (out of stock).

On average, you could save $7.84 buying the e-book over the hardback.

If you planned to buy all of the books in this group, and you bought e-books instead of hardbacks, you would have enough left over to buy two Kindles! The least expensive one, the one I call the Mindle, is $69…buy two, and you’d still have about $10 left over.

You could, of course, buy a more expensive model with that almost $150 savings money…even a tablet. You could also use the money for more books…a lot more books.

That’s quite a change!

You can also get some of the world’s great literature for free for your Kindle…a wonderful part of the e-book paradigm shift.

What about mass market paperbacks (which may be a more direct comparison)?

Not surprisingly, you don’t save as much money…but you still save money:

Title MMP E-book Difference
A Dance with Dragons $5.99 $2.99 -$3.00
Notorious Nineteen $5.66 $5.38 -$0.28
Ender’s Game $4.39 $3.99 -$0.40
The Racketeer $6.69 $4.99 -$1.70
Poseidon’s Arrow $8.99 $7.99 -$1.00
Hunting Eve $7.19 $4.78 -$2.41
Sinister $5.03 $4.00 -$1.03
A Game of Thrones $8.22 $4.99 -$3.23
Touch & Go $8.99 $7.99 -$1.00
No Good Duke Goes Unpunished $4.78 $5.03 $0.25
Angels at the Table $6.29 $5.98 -$0.31
Twilight $7.19 $4.79 -$2.40
Star Trek: The Fall: The Poisoned Chalice $5.03 $4.78 -$0.25
The Forgotten $7.33 $5.99 -$1.34
Speaker for the Dead $7.19 $5.99 -$1.20
A Big Sky Christmas $6.75 $5.24 -$1.51
The Black Box $6.82 $6.48 -$0.34
Best Kept Secret $8.99 $8.54 -$0.45
$121.52 $99.92 -$21.60

Hmm…two of the books aren’t available as e-books…I find that surprising.

Again, I’m just look at the New York Times bestsellers, here. There are many inexpensive books which are only available as e-books…and as I mentioned above, many free ones as well.

No question in my mind: e-books are making books much more affordable than they used to be…even taking into account the costs of access.

We have to remember that accessing paperbooks also wasn’t free. What if you had to get downtown to get to a bookstore…or a library? There are a lot of kids especially who have internet access at school, and not at home.

We even see this in a big way in third world countries. I’ve written several times about

WorldReader.org

which gets Kindles to kids in difficult locations. Can you imagine trying to get ten copies of Harry Potter into the middle of the jungle? With satellite internet (which they can help set up…and you might be surprised how many people in a village can maintain something like that…and solar or other nonconnected power sources), remote areas can download e-books much more easily.

Even if it was a question of periodically delivering Kindles loaded with a thousand books, that would be much more cost effective than transporting paperbooks.

Yes: e-books contribute to the democratization of literature, rather than being a barrier to it.

What do you think? Do e-books make books more affordable for more people? Do you worry that the digital divide may grow deeper and more significant if books move much more to one side of it? Feel free to tell me and my readers what you think by commenting on this post.

* I am linking to the same thing at the regular Amazon site, and at AmazonSmile. When you shop at AmazonSmile, half a percent of your purchase price on eligible items goes to a non-profit you choose. It will feel just like shopping at Amazon: you’ll be using your same account. The one thing for you that is different is that you pick a non-profit the first time you go (which you can change whenever you want)…and the good feeling you’ll get. :) Shop ’til you help! :) NOte: you can select WorldReader.org as the non-profit you support, if you want.

This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy  Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them.

Tolerance of Imperfection, or, the zipper-suit non-exclusion

November 8, 2013

Tolerance of Imperfection, or, the zipper-suit non-exclusion

I wrote yesterday about a Miracast adapter that lets me watch whatever is on my  Kindle Fire HDX 7″, HDX Display, Wi-Fi, 16 GB – Includes Special Offers‘ screen on my TV.

I mentioned that, with some streaming video, there was perhaps a half second lag between the audio and the video, and that I found that “tolerable”.

One of my readers, Marvin, suggested that people accepting that level of performance contribute to lower quality devices in the market.

That was a fascinating concept to me, and as all of the best comments on this blog do, it got me doing some self-examination.

I am a tolerant person. :)

I tolerate different opinions and customs in others, but I also tolerate imperfection in content and devices.

I can sum up my reasoning on that with a phrase that is used in the medical field (which is where I work in my “day job”, training people and optimizing workflows): “The benefits outweigh the risks.” ;)

I’ve seen people say that they won’t read any books with typos in them (or a typo a page, or “too many typos”, or wherever they set the bar*). Well, I have to say, I wouldn’t have gotten to read some of my very favorite books if that was my standard.

When I used to write some movie reviews back in high school, I judged movies on two things: what they were trying to do, and how well they did it. A movie could set low production quality expectations and deliver really well on story, and I would feel it was more enjoyable for me than a movie that was exquisitely produced, but was just going for a middle of the road concept.

Part of this, I’m sure, is being a geek.

It’s different now, but it used to be that science fiction, fantasy, and horror movies couldn’t get much of a budget. They were perceived as being attractive primarily on their concepts: they could play in a drive-in, and the production quality didn’t have to be good. The point was to go see a “monster movie”, not to marvel at accurate or convincing art design.

Geeks like me don’t reject a movie because we can “see the zipper” on the monster suit.

I’ve really enjoyed a lot of “zipper-suit movies”: my life is richer because I have seen them.

For decades, if we had rejected movies because the effect was imperfect, we would have seen no movies.

Now, obviously, you can say that the performance of a device is different from budget limitations in a movie, but I think there is a parallel.

Suppose someone said, “I hate the flash when you go to the next screen on a Kindle. I’m not using one until they get rid of it”. Certainly, for the first several years of the technology, they would not have had a Kindle…and all the advantages that can bring you.

I have seen people say they are angrily sending back their Kindle Fire HDX’s, because of some blue/purple tinging you can sometimes see around the edges.

I’m not saying that’s wrong to do. People have different levels of tolerance, and different things irritate them (as anybody who has ever been in a relationship knows). ;)

Part of this may also be me being a generally optimistic, positive person. I’ve had people in software classes I used to teach get quite upset because of a failure of, say, Excel to do something they thought it should do. I’ve said before, “If you are waiting for the perfect car, you’ll still be riding a horse.” I tend to find enjoyment in what’s around me, happening now. Does everything always go perfectly at work? Nope. However, I do wake up saying, “Oh boy, I get to go to work today.” ;) My Significant Other pointed out to me that I’ve always thought that wherever I worked was the best company in that industry. On reflection, that seems statistically unlikely… ;)

Another issue is how much you tend to do more than one thing at once, and how much you tend to focus on one thing. Both modalities have their advantages and disadvantages.

I tend to want to have several things going on at once. I think that’s why I can be a very good proofreader of other people’s work. I can read the book, and enjoy it, at the same time that I am paying attention to errors or inconsistencies. Stopping to highlight something doesn’t make me lose the mood or flow of the scene.

I know that’s not true for everybody.

Getting back to Marvin’s original (presumably rhetorical) question about how I can say that a half-second delay is “tolerable”, it’s because it is tolerable for me.

It would take a stronger person than me to find the two-minute delay tolerable…

I always try to write my impressions of something in a way that you can decide whether you would like it or not. I try to give you the information.

Part of that information is how I feel about it. I probably have readers who have been reading me pretty much every day for several years now. They have their own ideas about who I am and what I tend to enjoy more. They can use that baseline to help them determine how they would react to something.

That’s how I’ve always looked at reviews of books, movies, TV shows, and others.

I pay attention to who the reviewers are (I always read bylines, and you’ve probably noticed that I tend to credit the writers when I link to other articles…although they aren’t always listed). There are reviewers where I know that, if that person didn’t like, I probably will. ;)

Does my willingness to accept flaws contribute to there being more flawed products? Perhaps. My own intuition is that there needs to be an interest demonstrated before the investment will be made to reach perfection. What company would spend a lot of money to develop a perfect Miracast adapter before they even know what the market is for that product? If some people will buy a product (a book, a gadget) with flaws, even if others won’t, it suggests that a similar unflawed product might have broad appeal. We got Star Wars in 1977 partially because people were willing to watch Flash Gordon in 1936, despite the wobbly flights in it. Would we have had Gravity if people didn’t watch Captain Video? Would we have the Kindle Paperwhite now if Amazon had wanted to wait until they had a perfectly functioning device?

The bottom line on this, I guess, is that I tend to be inclusive of my options rather than exclusive. I’m okay with imperfection.

I suspect that people like me are in the minority on this. I think we early adopters, as I wrote in We are not guinea pigs, tend to be more tolerant of imperfection, and pave the way for better products to come.

What do you think? Should I refuse to use a Miracast adapter until there is no lag? Would that accelerate development of the technology, or slow it down? Do you have set exclusions (“I won’t watch anything in black or white”, or “I won’t read anything without an index”)? Do you think this is hypocritical on my part, since I won’t knowingly buy books with text-to-speech access blocked? Feel free to tell me and my readers what you think by commenting on this post. Thanks again to Marvin for inspiring this post!

* There is a famous story about Winston Churchill (there are many of those), which I am going to paraphrase here. Supposedly, Churchill said to someone at a party, “Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?” “Yes.” “Would you sleep with me for two dollars?” “Of course not! What kind of person do you think I am?” “We have already established that: now, we are just haggling over price.” ;)

This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy  Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,299 other followers

%d bloggers like this: