# Let's all beat up these major publishing companies!



## ElLector (Feb 13, 2009)

I know there's nothing new about the price jack in e-books at Amazon, but some prices left me  Really?!? Seriously?!? I got  after reading this article on The New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/technology/internet/18amazon.html?hp (If some fellow Kindleboard member already posted this, sorry. )


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

Interesting article. Thanks for the link!

L


----------



## GinnyB (Dec 19, 2009)

Hold on to your... whatever, folks. The ride is gonna get wild!


----------



## ElaineOK (Jun 5, 2009)

Remember when I said a month or so ago that Amazon was rolling over far too easily for someone with very clear Monopoly power?  After two days they begged McMillan to stop beating on them when they represent at least 20%, and for some imprints probably closer to 50%) of all North American sales?  That just didn't hold water for me.  I kind of figured that they were looking for a way to keep prices somewhat lowish but stop losing money on every book they had to subsidize.  

This game is just getting started.  None of the players represent my interests.  For the time being Amazon may be more closely aligned with my interests than anyone else, but that could change.  Regardless, Amazon has serious market power and more information about ebook sales and readers than anyone else out there.  

It will definitely make for interesting morning news for quite a while.

Elaine
Norman, OK


----------



## VictoriaP (Mar 1, 2009)

Sigh.  My problem is that my immediate knee jerk reaction is to go grab all the books I want from the Kindle store NOW before they all disappear.  As much as I despise what the publishers are doing, I'm going to really hate Amazon if they pull all those books.  If the pubs have even a 10th of a brain between them (which seems a bit doubtful), they'll have Kindle specific files available for sale somewhere else.

I think I'll go check my GC balance today and map out what books I still need to pick up.

(And yes, I know I'm being paranoid.  Chalk it up to a bad night's sleep and the ongoing concern of being tied to one specific e-format for most of my books.  I'll be happy when the publishers and hardware manufacturers finally allow all formats to be read on all devices!)


----------



## Morpheus Phreak (May 6, 2009)

Personally I'm with Amazon on this.

They have the right to sell goods for whatever price they wish to sell them for.  Retail stores do this all the time..it's called a loss-leader.  The fact that the publishers are trying to force the store to raise their prices is actually a violation of the Sherman Act.

To clarify for everyone, the general purpose of the Sherman act is to "attempt to prevent the artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply."

That's just what the publishers are trying to do. 

Amazon is actually defending the rights of the seller to choose the price for their item with no restriction on free trade.


Amazon is attempting to uphold the law and protect the consumer. My vote (and my dollars) are with them.


----------



## chipotle (Jan 1, 2010)

I'm glad I bought a ton of books when this all started because I'm already noticing a lot of price 
increases. I was thinking about some beach reading and was looking at Nancy Thayer's books on 
Amazon - one of her books I purchased last June for $9.99 is now $14.85 and $4.65 more than the 
mass market paperback. I do think Kindle version of books priced higher than the MMPB is going to 
become the norm.

Yesterday Amazon sent a little press release on some new cookbooks for the Kindle store (the cookbooks
themselves were not new releases) and most were right around the $20 price point.


----------



## TechBotBoy (Jan 25, 2010)

I'll remain hopeful for the moment - it's hard for even huge monopoly players like Amazon to buck public opinion too long.  In a perfect world book consumers would simply refuse to pay outlandish prices, and smaller players that offer more reasonable prices should spring up to fill the gap.  We don't live in a perfect world, but perhaps (to paraphrase) if we 'act as though we had perfection, perfection shall be granted to us.'

Don't buy books at rip-off prices. 

                    -Tbb


----------



## pugmom (Feb 23, 2010)

I am with Amazon on this one too...  I actually hope they do remove the BUY BOOK button, it will only be for a short time and then the publishers will realize they mean business and can't be pushed around.


----------



## tiggeerrific (Jan 22, 2010)

Am I understanding this right publishers will be pulling out of amazon? I just brought a DX and am hoping this isnt true as than I just threw away money.
Also you will need the apple ipad to get books?
I am confused all this is new to me as is the kindle so bear with me as I try to understand


----------



## Morpheus Phreak (May 6, 2009)

What is happening is that publishers are trying to force Amazon to charge a specific price for books, which is a violation of the Sherman Act. It's illegal as all heck. It's known in the industry as 'price fixing'.

Amazon is exercising their right to remove from sale books by these publishers until they decide to straighten up and fly right. I fully support them removing the books from sale until such time as these publishers realize that their illegal tactics aren't going to work.

Now if only other companies would stand up to organizations like this, & the RIAA &the MPAA we'd have something going for us.


----------



## tiggeerrific (Jan 22, 2010)

thanks your explanation really helped me understand


----------



## pugmom (Feb 23, 2010)

It could also be described as COLLUSION which is also illegal (Unless you are OPEC, but let's not go there...)


----------



## kb7uen Gene (Mar 13, 2009)

The one thing I noticed was that the authors didn't see an increase in their royalties with the price increase and structure change.


----------



## Morpheus Phreak (May 6, 2009)

No problem tiggeerrific.

Indeed, pugmom...it's quite a sticky situation and I honestly don't think the publishers want to push things too far considering how many books Amazon moves in the average month.

kb7uen Gene...That's also true...and that's part of why the whole thing stinks. The publishers and authors take a hit in what they make...just to cause price fixing to try and protect their DTB sales.


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2010)

interesting article link


----------



## Neekeebee (Jan 10, 2009)

Thanks for the link.  I also think we are at the beginning of a long, sure-to-be-interesting, fight. 

Some of the prices I've seen lately are outrageous.  It just doesn't make sense when publishers are charging more for the eBook than for the paper.  I want to buy the third book in a series (the hardcover was released a year ago) but the Kindle price is $14.85 while the paperback is only $10.80.  I am not buying either--library, here I come.

By the way, I just realized how many unread books I have on my Kindle when I downloaded my Kindle for the PC app yesterday.  Added to all the public domain books, I have enough to keep me reading happily for 2 years, easy.  I don't prefer to do it that way, but it beats being treated like a chump.

N


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

Morpheus Phreak said:


> Personally I'm with Amazon on this.
> 
> They have the right to sell goods for whatever price they wish to sell them for. Retail stores do this all the time..it's called a loss-leader. The fact that the publishers are trying to force the store to raise their prices is actually a violation of the Sherman Act.
> 
> ...


From wikipedia regarding the Sherman Act.

"it has sometimes been said that the purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors, but rather to protect competition and the competitive landscape."

If anything, the Agency Model will increase competition between retailers as it will prevent powerful retailers like Amazon from selling their e-books at a price point that forces other retailers to take a loss in order to be competitive.

And no, Amazon is not trying to protect anyone but themselves. The wholesale model they want is because it works to their advantage, this is no different than Apple trying to push publishers into using the Agency Model so that they don't have to compete with Amazon using the wholesale model.

I also think that blaming the publishers for this mess is wrong, I mean, sure, they were complaining about the low prices they were seeing on Amazon, but I don't think they would have ever had the backbone to make such a change if not for Apple demanding it of them.

As much as people are upset about this I think that the publishers have it worse. They've got Apple on one side, Amazon on the other, pleasing one pisses off the other. I so do not envy them.



chipotle said:


> I'm glad I bought a ton of books when this all started because I'm already noticing a lot of price
> increases. I was thinking about some beach reading and was looking at Nancy Thayer's books on
> Amazon - one of her books I purchased last June for $9.99 is now $14.85 and $4.65 more than the
> mass market paperback. I do think Kindle version of books priced higher than the MMPB is going to
> become the norm.


I did a search on Nancy Thayer at Amazon, if you're talking about "Summer House: A Novel" then you might want to note that the paperback version is not due to release until June 1.


----------



## mrmeany (Feb 1, 2010)

I have simple rules. Never spend more than $10 on a kindle book, never spend more than paper version and only spend X amount of dollars budgeted for books. Raising prices just affects the amount of books I buy. I won't spend more for higher prices. It just appears to me publishers have no idea how the digital business model works. Just like music, good writing will go independent and publishers will find profits gone as they only promote their typical banal offerings.


----------



## loca (Jan 3, 2010)

Publishers are playing by their games, consumer is not on their priority list.


----------



## cybergeezer (Jun 29, 2009)

I highly recommend Andrys Basten's 3-18-10 blog on this issue raised by the NY Times piece.

http://kindleworld.blogspot.com/

As for me: 1. There is plenty out there to read at prices I am willing to pay.
2. For books for which I am unwilling to pay higher prices there is still the library or as they will become to be known "your neighborhood digital reading station."
3. Has anyone heard of Walmart and Costco--Price x Volume=Enormously Successful Business.
4. Steve Jobs famously said: "nobody reads anymore." I think that will prove to be prescient on the iPad. Apple always produced good products and played hardball but the ultimate arbiter, price, has always and always will leave them with a small share of the market.
5. Pardon me but I have to return to my stress relieving reading while outside the dogs are eating the dogs.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

I'm with Amazon - still.  Last I checked it's the publishers who insisted on higher prices.  And no, higher sale prices will not increase royalties to authors.  Publishers are taking whatever increase there might be for themselves.


----------



## Morpheus Phreak (May 6, 2009)

Selcien said:


> From wikipedia regarding the Sherman Act.


Where do you think my quote came from?

You quoted a portion where it was a 'some say', my portion was the definition of what the Act is actually about.

Telling a retailer, "You must charge this much for our product" is price fixing, and falls under the Sherman Act.

It's entirely illegal behavior, and that's why Amazon can pull their product. As a store they have the right to carry the products or not carry them.

Let's say you own a bookstore, and you like to sell some of your books at a low price, taking a loss for other sales. Let's say a rep from the publishers comes in and says, you MUST charge this price, what are you going to do?

I'd tell him to get out of my store, & then notify the networks, but that's just me. I don't think they have a right to complain as long as they are getting paid the full amount they are owed.


----------



## Morpheus Phreak (May 6, 2009)

DYB said:


> I'm with Amazon - still. Last I checked it's the publishers who insisted on higher prices. And no, higher sale prices will not increase royalties to authors. Publishers are taking whatever increase there might be for themselves.


Indeed, under the 'offer' they shoved at Amazon they'd actually get less per book, as would the author. This move only makes sense if they are making up those losses via another source.

Sort of like how Sony subsidized nearly $1bn in costs for studios to go Blu-Ray exclusive vs HD-DVD. The money has to be coming from somewhere.


----------



## artsandhistoryfan (Feb 7, 2009)

cybergeezer said:


> I highly recommend Andrys Basten's 3-18-10 blog on this issue raised by the NY Times piece.
> 
> http://kindleworld.blogspot.com/


Thanks, cybergeezer

The direct link to my long response to the NY Times article is 
http://bit.ly/kwmacm8

I re-organized it a bit after the initial post to make it more readable,
with topic headers.

- Andrys


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

The NY Times article was clearly biased against Amazon.


----------



## Bren S. (May 10, 2009)

I only interest myself in things I have some control over.
I cannot control what publishers or Amazon does.I however do have total control over what I am willing to pay.
Call it old fashioned or over simplified,but I truly believe that if buyers of whatever product are only willing to pay a certain $$ amount then irregardless of what any company wishes to make on their product, they will have to bend on their prices if they wish to move that product and make any $$.
So I set a limit on what I am willing to pay for a book and I stick to it.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

Morpheus Phreak said:


> Where do you think my quote came from?
> 
> You quoted a portion where it was a 'some say', my portion was the definition of what the Act is actually about.
> 
> ...


Actually, price fixing is just one part of the Sherman Act, not the entire thing, but that's just being nitpicky.

Anyway, I've done what I should have done before, did a search on price fixing. What I found makes it clear that collusion between a publisher and a retailer constitutes price fixing. The Agency Model, by it's design, requires retailers to sell at the price the publisher sets, but there is no collusion between retailers and publishers, rather, I'd think this falls into "terms of sale".


----------



## Morpheus Phreak (May 6, 2009)

It is collusion if the retailer (Apple) tells the publishers that they aren't allowed to sell their wares to anyone who can offer a better price than they can, which is exactly what Apple is doing.

Apple is allowing the publisher to 'set' the price point, but as per their contract that means no one else can receive a better deal.

That's price fixing 


Also I agree that price fixing is only one portion...that's why I said it 'falls under' the Sherman Act.  The Act as a whole though is about consumer protections from schemes like this.


----------



## pooka (Jul 31, 2009)

This whole situation makes me angry beyond words...

Both parties assume the consumer to be mindless cattle, to be hearded whichever way lines their pockets more...

I, for one, will not allow this!! 

I have enough books on my kindle - and on my computer's hard drive (waiting for some form of organization from Amazon) to last me a few years. Seriously. Also I have discovered some wonderful indie authors via kindleboards and smashwords. They are not jacking up their prices beyond what is reasonable... 

There are only a few Macmillan (and subsidiary) books on my wishlist. But you can bet I am not going to be getting those until this garbage is over with.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

pooka said:


> Both parties assume the consumer to be mindless cattle,


Unfortunately, they're probably right. . . . . .present company excepted, of course. . . .

<shrug> Not going to let it ruin my day, however. . . .


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

After reading the article I realised something. pre-Kindle, I bought maybe 4 or 5 books a year. I got everything else from the library. Now I buy 3 or 4 books a month and rarely get anything from the library. A lot of it does come down to price rather than just the convience. And with the economy today, I 9and I'm sure everyone else) is watching what they spend. I can't afford many $14 books in any format. Now to work on a way to word that and write to all these publishers.


----------



## KindleChickie (Oct 24, 2009)

I noticed while looking to see if any of my series novels had released books, that the last book in the Dexter series has gone up from 9.99 to 14.85.  I dont think I will be paying more than paperback for anybook.  Some of my series will die with what has been published so far.


----------



## jason10mm (Apr 7, 2009)

I find it amazing that any publisher would favor Apple, a neophyte in the e-book business, over Amazon, the industry leader. Seeing how the kindle software is available for all Apple products, there really is no need to support Apple specifically aside from advertizing space on the itunes front page and whatever equivalent the ipad might have. What all this hints to me is that there is a not zero possibility that the ipad, at least, might exclude the kindle app, hence a reason for publishers to want to get into the ipad via the ibook store.

I think a lot of this is coming from the Apple/Amazon side. Amazon has a vested interest in keeping the ipad from being seen as the "kindle-killer" and Apple has every reason to try to convince as many people as possible that the ipad is THE e-reader to get.


----------



## tiggeerrific (Jan 22, 2010)

I just went and looked up books that I want to read on amazon and they are crazy the kindle is more money than the book a few where $1-$2 cheaper than the book .Well I will not buy them till it goes down I have found many free and other authors whos books are no more than $5


----------



## LisaW. (Jun 1, 2009)

mom133d said:


> pre-Kindle, I bought maybe 4 or 5 books a year. I got everything else from the library. Now I buy 3 or 4 books a month and rarely get anything from the library. A lot of it does come down to price rather than just the convience. And with the economy today, I and I'm sure everyone else) is watching what they spend. I can't afford many $14 books in any format. Now to work on a way to word that and write to all these publishers.


Me too (although I did buy more than 4-5 books a year). But authors' books that I used to get from the library and enjoy (but never bought), I now pre-order for my kindle. I've even gone back and bought books that I already read (and had no intention of buying in DTB) for my kindle because of the convenience. Since purchasing my k2, I've probably bought a good 60-70% more books than ever before. AND... amazon has always said that once a person buys a kindle, they buy more books.


----------



## Neekeebee (Jan 10, 2009)

mom133d said:


> After reading the article I realised something. pre-Kindle, I bought maybe 4 or 5 books a year. I got everything else from the library. Now I buy 3 or 4 books a month and rarely get anything from the library. A lot of it does come down to price rather than just the convience. And with the economy today, I 9and I'm sure everyone else) is watching what they spend. I can't afford many $14 books in any format. Now to work on a way to word that and write to all these publishers.


My experience exactly too. I used to go to the library all the time (mine has an excellent collection via interlibrary loans) and get most of my books there, but after I got my Kindle I went a few months without going to the library at all. I even bought Kindle books that I had already started to read on the library's copy just for the convenience. I was easily buying 5-10x as many books. Now I'm going to start relying on the library again. Even if I have to hold a paper book or wait 3 months for the eBook file, I am not paying more for an eBook than I would for a new paper copy.

N


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

Morpheus Phreak said:


> It is collusion if the retailer (Apple) tells the publishers that they aren't allowed to sell their wares to anyone who can offer a better price than they can, which is exactly what Apple is doing.
> 
> Apple is allowing the publisher to 'set' the price point, but as per their contract that means no one else can receive a better deal.
> 
> That's price fixing


Collusion is a secret agreement, the Agency Model is not a secret. Apple is also well within their right to dictate the terms necessary for a publisher to have their e-books available in their store, it's up to the publishers to decide whether they agree with the terms. Similarly, it's within the publishers right to choose to use the Agency Model, it's up to the retailers to decide whether they agree with it. And of course, it's up to consumers to give these companies the money that they need to stay in business.

Nothing being done here guarantees that the position of those that will be using the Agency Model will strengthen, it could very well have the opposite effect. I would think that price fixing would have a guaranteed result.

As far as I'm concerned there is nothing wrong with what's going on. There will be a healthy level of competition between publishers and a healthy level of competition between retailers, which I think is the most important thing. In contrast, according to the article in the OP's post, "Amazon has built up a 90 percent share of the American e-book market". The percentage is questionable but there can be no doubt that Amazon has been a dominant force, it cannot be a good thing for a single retailer to be so dominant.



KindleChickie said:


> I noticed while looking to see if any of my series novels had released books, that the last book in the Dexter series has gone up from 9.99 to 14.85. I dont think I will be paying more than paperback for anybook. Some of my series will die with what has been published so far.


_Dexter by Design: A Novel_ will not be released in paperback until August 24.

I'm thinking that this as well as _Summer House: A Novel_ had to be on the bestseller list, there's no other reason that I can think of for why they'd both jump from $9.99.


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

A couple of newer books I've been interested in just fell from almost $15 to 9.99.  Always better to wait.

Collusion is collusion, whether secret or not.  The consumer loses when this happens.  Well, actually MacMillan will lose in the long run, because they won't sell as many books period (e- or paper).  The kindle bestsellers are almost never the ones that cost $14.


----------



## HappyGuy (Nov 3, 2008)

Didn't we just have this entire conversation recently in another thread?


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

I've found an article that helped me understand what's going on.

http://ireaderreview.com/2010/03/18/war-over-ebook-pricing-heats-up-amazon-vs-publishers-apple/

Amazon does not like the Agency Model but that's not what has them concerned, it's the possibility that publishers will give Apple special concessions. That is why Amazon is pushing for the three year contracts.

I was under the impression that the Agency Model would equalize the market naturally by leveling the playing field between all retailers, but artificially equalizing it by giving an advantage to Apple so that they gain market share until they're split with Amazon is bogus. Of course, Amazon might also be asking for special concessions as well. It's like two bullies trying to outdo the other not caring who gets hurt in the process.

I was never planning on giving Apple so much as a penny for any of their content so they haven't managed to harm my opinion of them. However, even though I had already been moving my purchases to Fictionwise (I have a Sony Reader Touch), I had been planning to continue to buy e-books from Amazon when they had a better deal but I just cannot abide that notion any longer.

Neither Amazon nor Apple will get any of my book money, from here on out it will all go to their competitors.


----------



## KindleChickie (Oct 24, 2009)

Selcien said:


> _Dexter by Design: A Novel_ will not be released in paperback until August 24.
> 
> I'm thinking that this as well as _Summer House: A Novel_ had to be on the bestseller list, there's no other reason that I can think of for why they'd both jump from $9.99.


I hadnt noticed that the paperback wasnt available until Aug. Still glad I got it for 10 bucks. Dont think I would have purchased it at almost $15. And if the next one comes out and is that high, I wont buy it.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

I really think a lot of you are misunderstanding what the publishers are trying to achieve.  For them it's not a matter of making more money from ebooks.  What they want is to stop or at least slow down the whole ebook revolution.  (This isn't just my opinion, publishing insiders have been quoted on this subject in places like Teleread.)  They succeeded in the late '90s and early 2000 with exactly the same tactic - charge more for ebooks than for paper books.  They don't WANT to change.  They want to keep their business model in exactly the same inefficient form it has been in for almost a century.  That means they want people to buy DTBs; in particular they want people to buy hardbacks.  So if high prices and delayed releases on ebooks send people back to paper books, they achieve their goal.  If instead people react by concentrating their purchases on the ebooks that are still reasonably priced and getting the overpriced ones from used book stores and the library, well, maybe things will have to change.

My personal hope is that Amazon got so far down the road with the Kindle revolution that it can no longer be stopped.  The only reason that I bought a Kindle was I had faith that Amazon was going to support it to the point I would never be in the position I was in 1999, when I bought a Rocket Ebook (which I still have and love) only to find there were very few books for it and the ones that were available were overpriced.


----------



## TechBotBoy (Jan 25, 2010)

Morpheus Phreak said:


> What is happening is that publishers are trying to force Amazon to charge a specific price for books, which is a violation of the Sherman Act. It's illegal as all heck. It's known in the industry as 'price fixing'.
> 
> Amazon is exercising their right to remove from sale books by these publishers until they decide to straighten up and fly right. I fully support them removing the books from sale until such time as these publishers realize that their illegal tactics aren't going to work.
> 
> Now if only other companies would stand up to organizations like this, & the RIAA &the MPAA we'd have something going for us.


Here-here -- thanks for that -- I thought Amazon might have some bar of the blame, but perhaps not.

- Tbb


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

ellenoc said:


> My personal hope is that Amazon got so far down the road with the Kindle revolution that it can no longer be stopped. The only reason that I bought a Kindle was I had faith that Amazon was going to support it to the point I would never be in the position I was in 1999, when I bought a Rocket Ebook (which I still have and love) only to find there were very few books for it and the ones that were available were overpriced.


I believe that Amazon has driven things far enough that the e-book movement cannot be stopped, however, I don't feel that Amazon has had much effect outside of two other retailers (B&N, and Sony), and I feel that some of the prices that most other retailers carry are high enough that no sane person would choose to buy them (like the $26.95 that Fictionwise is asking for _The Little Stranger_, $22.91 if you have a membership). In the publishers attempt to counter Amazon's influence by using the Agency Model they will, in fact, be cutting down those prices.

The old prices, prior to Amazon butting heads with the publishers, are most definitely intolerable, but at the same time I do not see why every e-book needs to be priced from $2.99 - $9.99, Amazon's desired price points, I just do not understand why a new release (a truly new release, not a new to e-book kind of release) needs to be sold at paperback prices. $12.99 or lower for new bestsellers, $12.99 - $14.99 for other new releases (Macmillan's pricing for the Agency Model) is perfectly reasonable, the prices will come down in time, and then the people wanting the lower prices can buy them then. There's absolutely nothing wrong with waiting for a price to drop, I do it all the time with video games and movies, don't see why e-books should be expected to have the low prices from the get-go.

I realize that e-books have weaknesses that DTB's do not (not being able to loan them out unless you're sharing an account, or being able to resell them), but they also have strengths that DTB's don't have (with DTB's you get exactly one copy, with an e-book you have an infinite number of copies), I feel that they offset each other.

*************

In continuation of my previous post, I have severed myself from Amazon, or to be more accurate, the e-book portion of Amazon. I dl'ed a copy of every e-book I had with them for my DX, deregistered the device, dl'ed a copy of every e-book I had with them for my K1, deleted all of the e-books from my account, and then deregistered the K1.

I appreciate what Amazon has done for the e-book market but I do not agree with them on the price points that they're trying to establish, and I will not support them in this regard.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

<I realize that e-books have weaknesses that DTB's do not (not being able to loan them out unless you're sharing an account, or being able to resell them), but they also have strengths that DTB's don't have (with DTB's you get exactly one copy, with an e-book you have an infinite number of copies), I feel that they offset each other.>

I guess I'm not following you here. If I buy a book for my Kindle, I get one copy and unless I do something illegal, that's all I have. For families with several people on one account, they can get more than one copy, but then families and friends have been passing DTBs around for years.

I'm sorry you've come to feel so anti-Amazon. I'm very much the other way. And I have to admit I'm among those who simply have a gut feeling than an ebook should be priced considerably lower than any paper version of the book. My experience with the Rocket Ebook undoubtedly contributed to this. An expensive device was orphaned. My Rocket still works so I can still read the books I bought for it since I have every one of them on my PC, but when the device breaks, I lose those books as surely as if they burned. My trust in Amazon to stay in business and continue support is higher or I wouldn't have bought the Kindle, but no one is going to convince me a Kindle version is worth the same as a DTB. I have DTBs I inherited from my mother than are more than 50 years old.

So I guess the market is just going to have to shake out. Maybe there will be enough buyers for the high priced ebooks and that will be that. But I suspect there are a lot of people like me who just aren't going to pay a bunch for ebooks and who will still read the bestsellers - for free rather than the price we would be willing to pay.


----------



## Morpheus Phreak (May 6, 2009)

Selcien said:


> Collusion is a secret agreement, the Agency Model is not a secret. Apple is also well within their right to dictate the terms necessary for a publisher to have their e-books available in their store, it's up to the publishers to decide whether they agree with the terms. Similarly, it's within the publishers right to choose to use the Agency Model, it's up to the retailers to decide whether they agree with it. And of course, it's up to consumers to give these companies the money that they need to stay in business.
> 
> Nothing being done here guarantees that the position of those that will be using the Agency Model will strengthen, it could very well have the opposite effect. I would think that price fixing would have a guaranteed result.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned there is nothing wrong with what's going on. There will be a healthy level of competition between publishers and a healthy level of competition between retailers, which I think is the most important thing. In contrast, according to the article in the OP's post, "Amazon has built up a 90 percent share of the American e-book market". The percentage is questionable but there can be no doubt that Amazon has been a dominant force, it cannot be a good thing for a single retailer to be so dominant.


You're exactly the person that they are hoping for. Someone who falls for the scheme because you haven't actually put a whole lot of thought into it.

Collusion does not always imply secretive. Particularly in the arena of pricing it can merely mean enforced price rigidity agreed upon between two or more partners.

Price fixing does not guarantee success, it merely stifles competition which is what this does. It doesn't allow for price competition at all between retailers, in fact it removes a lot of the competition.

Am I competing against someone in a marathon if we're forced to run the same pace?

Edit - I just read your last post. At this point I don't think there is a way to have a rational conversation with you. You've taken an extremist position that to me is a huge overreaction.


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

Selcien said:


> In continuation of my previous post, I have severed myself from Amazon, or to be more accurate, the e-book portion of Amazon. I dl'ed a copy of every e-book I had with them for my DX, deregistered the device, dl'ed a copy of every e-book I had with them for my K1, deleted all of the e-books from my account, and then deregistered the K1.
> 
> I appreciate what Amazon has done for the e-book market but I do not agree with them on the price points that they're trying to establish, and I will not support them in this regard.


This is beyond my comprehension, since it is self-defeating and an extreme reaction to Amazon giving its customers lower prices. This is the first time I've ever heard of anyone who invested in a Kindle deleting all their books.


----------



## KindleChickie (Oct 24, 2009)

Of coarse ebooks should cost less than printed books.  It cost must less to distribute and produce them.  Makes no sense that they should cost more.  Of coarse, maybe I am just being too logical.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

ellenoc said:


> <I realize that e-books have weaknesses that DTB's do not (not being able to loan them out unless you're sharing an account, or being able to resell them), but they also have strengths that DTB's don't have (with DTB's you get exactly one copy, with an e-book you have an infinite number of copies), I feel that they offset each other.>
> 
> I guess I'm not following you here. If I buy a book for my Kindle, I get one copy and unless I do something illegal, that's all I have. For families with several people on one account, they can get more than one copy, but then families and friends have been passing DTBs around for years.


You have one copy if you choose to have one copy, if you decide to download the e-book to a PC or Mac you'd have two copies, download it to another device then you have three. With a DTB you only have the one copy, you lose it and you cannot get another copy from Amazon, lose an e-book and you can get another copy from Amazon. You can visit a friend that's a thousand miles away from where you live, forget your Kindle, and still access your e-books if they have a Kindle compatible device, you just have to register it to your account. You forget your DTB and well, quite obvious.

As for family/friends, while people have been able to share DTB's they've not been able to read the book at the same time, so while the number of simultaneous copies may be limited, more people can read an e-book at the same time than they can read a single DTB.

The "infinite number of copies" comment comes because you can make an infinite number of copies of the digital file, however, it's only partly accurate in a real world situation. With DRM titles you're limited to the number of simultaneous copies that the publisher sets but not all of the e-books sold at Amazon contain DRM, with the DRM free titles infinite is most definitely accurate.



ellenoc said:


> I'm sorry you've come to feel so anti-Amazon.


That's just the way it goes.



Morpheus Phreak said:


> You're exactly the person that they are hoping for. Someone who falls for the scheme because you haven't actually put a whole lot of thought into it.


I'm very well aware of the risks, once the Agency Model goes into effect all a publisher has to do is change a price on an e-book once, and they've changed it everywhere, but I'm willing to take that gamble as I don't think that they'll ever be in a position to take advantage of it. If they try to abuse the Agency Model I think that all they will accomplish is to push people to other ways of obtaining their books (library/used), to other publishers, and to indies.

The genies out of the bottle, there's no putting it back.



mlewis78 said:


> This is beyond my comprehension, since it is self-defeating and an extreme reaction to Amazon giving its customers lower prices. This is the first time I've ever heard of anyone who invested in a Kindle deleting all their books.


Trust me, there's no actual harm in it. I've just given myself a bit of added motivation to move away from Amazon. I was planning on doing it eventually, after they've lost a bit of their edge, just speeding things up a bit.


----------



## artsandhistoryfan (Feb 7, 2009)

Selcien
The publishers, led by Apple, are already 'abusing' the Agency model by insisting that Amazon go along with the prices at iBookstore instead of charging lower ones.

For anyone else interested in how this has all happened (and I don't mean Selcian, who has said a few times s/he's out of it now), please see a detailed take on all this at my 
http://bit.ly/kwmacm8


----------



## chipotle (Jan 1, 2010)

One thing I have to add is a caution. If you have an ebook sample on your Kindle and you go to buy it 
directly from the sample using the Kindle's wireless, you might experience a higher price than it was listed 
for when you bought the sample. I did that last night without thinking but fortunately the book was still $9.99. 

On Feb. 2, 2010 I purchased the Kindle version of Queen Takes King by Gigi Levangie Grazer for $9.99. It is
now $14.29. Jill Kargman's Ex-Mrs. Hedgefund's Kindle version is now $14.27 and I purchased it for $9.99 last fall.
I've already talked about Nancy Thayer's Summer House ebook which is more than the $9.99 I bought it for last
June. It seems like some books which were new releases (less than a year old) at $9.99 previously have increased
in price.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

artsandhistoryfan said:


> Selcien
> The publishers, led by Apple, are already 'abusing' the Agency model by insisting that Amazon go along with the prices at iBookstore instead of charging lower ones.


Macmillan gave a price range, to me it looks like everything will be fairly priced, by "abuse" I mean for the publishers to price above the numbers that Macmillan used.

I also stopped by Macmillan's site to take a look at their blog and found some things that I'm sure people here will be interested in.

http://blog.macmillanspeaks.com/answers-to-some-questions-from-the-comments/

"In the end, an e book will be priced to reflect the value consumers put on it."

This is immediately followed by...

"However, some digital books will retain their value over time just like print books. *Some will increase their value over time* (many physical books are now only available as trade paperbacks, after they have been out in the cheaper mass market formats). So our digital pricing will vary to reflect the value of the book at the time."

So, basically, some prices won't go down. Some will go down and then back up.

And in answer to "How can we trust Macmillan to carry out its pricing pledge?"

The answer is. "An interesting question in that *we have never made a pricing pledge.*"

I think that people are afraid that this could lead to the death of e-books but I don't see that happening. Authors know that there's money to be made here, they're not going to simply give away their electronic rights when they go to sign a new contract, and if they feel that their publisher is hurting them they will look for alternatives, it could be a different publisher that offers them a better deal, it could be a publisher that doesn't require the electronic rights, or they could form their own company/join an upstart company.

This transition was never going to be easy but what we've seen so far isn't the real fight, that will take place within the publishing houses as they try to maintain control of their authors and editors.

Maybe I'm being a total idiot here but I firmly believe that the worst case scenario is an industry wide revolution where authors and editors rise up to replace the publishing houses of old.



chipotle said:


> One thing I have to add is a caution. If you have an ebook sample on your Kindle and you go to buy it
> directly from the sample using the Kindle's wireless, you might experience a higher price than it was listed
> for when you bought the sample. I did that last night without thinking but fortunately the book was still $9.99.
> 
> ...


Very good advice. They really need to make it so that you go to the shopping page so that you can see the price before purchasing.


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

I never buy books directly from the sample.  I usually wait until I'm on the computer to buy or at least check the price before I buy.  The kindle store is set up for kindle with the buy button already highlighted and I move the cursor away from it to prevent buying accidentally.


----------



## Morpheus Phreak (May 6, 2009)

Selcien...exactly.  MacMillan has pulled what I call a 'Khan Maneuver.'

To explain, the following conversation occurs between Khan and Captain Kirk in Star Trek II.


Kirk: Khan, how do we know you'll keep your word?

Khan: Oh, I've given you no word to keep, Admiral. In my judgment, you simply have no alternative.



Again, just more proof that there is no intention to be honorable. We all know how this situation turned out for Khan.


----------



## artsandhistoryfan (Feb 7, 2009)

Selcien said:


> Macmillan gave a price range, to me it looks like everything will be fairly priced, by "abuse" I mean for the publishers to price above the numbers that Macmillan used.
> 
> I also stopped by Macmillan's site to take a look at their blog and found some things that I'm sure people here will be interested in.


 I see. Convenient.

Let me guess. You are very interested in all this but didn't mention a thing about reading my take on this though you're answering the very post in which I asked that interested people do. So, it's not a two-way conversation. But you're still interested in giving more of your take which is mainly to defend Macmillan.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

Morpheus Phreak said:


> Selcien...exactly. MacMillan has pulled what I call a 'Khan Maneuver.'
> 
> To explain, the following conversation occurs between Khan and Captain Kirk in Star Trek II.
> 
> ...


I don't know exactly how it went for Khan but I think it's safe to assume that it went badly. Do you disagree that it will also end badly for Macmillan and co if they don't take the utmost care with their pricing?



artsandhistoryfan said:


> I see. Convenient.
> 
> Let me guess. You are very interested in all this but didn't mention a thing about reading my take on this though you're answering the very post in which I asked that interested people do. So, it's not a two-way conversation. But you're still interested in giving more of your take which is mainly to defend Macmillan.


I replied to the part that you addressed to me. The parts that I quoted from Macmillan's blog actually go *against* Macmillan, but I thought that people who were still reading this thread would be interested in it. As for the last part where I go "I think that people are afraid...", yeah, I should have left that part off, however, what I said didn't defend Macmillan.


----------



## Morpheus Phreak (May 6, 2009)

It's already going badly if they are telling customers that they have no intention of building trust or faith, that we merely have no choice.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

If worse comes to worse I can survive on Baen  ebooks for a long time not to mention my several hundred book TBR list. I spend around $50-100 per month on books. If Mcmillan doesn't want any of it that's ok. I may not be average but surely most book customers have a "possibly buy" list that is much greater than they actually could ever read? Make if too hard or too expensive and I will skip it or get it used or check the library.


----------



## David Derrico (Nov 18, 2009)

Ideologically, I have to say I lean strongly towards Amazon's side as both a reader and an author. As a reader, Amazon is trying to limit e-book prices to $9.99, wants the e-book priced less than the paperback, and wants TTS enabled (in fact they spent a mint making it possible) -- while the publishers are fighting this. And, as an author, while the big publishers don't even want to read my books, much less publish them and give me 8%, Amazon has allowed me to sell thousands of copies of my books through the Kindle store and keep 35% -- which they are bumping to 70% in July.

On top of that, Amazon is investing in the future (e-books), while large publishers are fighting to hold onto the past, at the expense of readers. And Amazon's customer service is the best I've ever seen.

Now, I realize that Amazon is a business and wants to make money, but knowing what I said above, I trust them a heck of a lot more than the publishers. They're looking for a win-win-win for themselves, readers, and authors. Publishers ... not so much.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

Morpheus Phreak said:


> It's already going badly if they are telling customers that they have no intention of building trust or faith, that we merely have no choice.


Badly for whom?

Readers?

Is there anyone here who feels that they cannot find an adequate selection by publishers that are not adopting the Agency Model?

I'm rather hoping that Fictionwise can still use their Micropay Rebates on books sold under the Agency Model (obligatory mention of how I have a Sony Reader Touch), it's a long shot, but I'm hoping. If not, then there will still be more than too many books in my price range for me to choose from.

For retailers?

Is there any retailer *other* than Amazon who has an objection to the Agency Model?

As far as I can tell it's all about Amazon, it's all anyone ever seems to mention, well, Apple gets mentioned but they're clearly happy about it, I believe that B&N was also happy about it as well as it meant not taking a loss to match Amazon.

For the industry?

Isn't this the kind of environment that will give upstarts the best chance for success?

Or for the publishers that will be wielding it?

Let's say that they did, in fact, manage to drive people back to DTB's, rather than just use it as a means of getting rid of the $9.99 price for new releases. They have no control over DTB's and I think that people driven back will buy them used, or pick them up from the library.

I suppose they could still point their fingers at their lagging e-book sales and say "Look! Nobody is buying our e-books!" but does it really matter when the companies life blood is spilling out?

There have been a lot of comments about people expanding their reading on this board, trying new authors, new genres, indies. It's not like walking into a brick and mortar store where the major publishers buy up most of the shelf space (if they pulled this stunt with DTB's I'd be fully on board with you guys). There are plenty of options and with this board as a resource you will all fare well.


----------



## Morpheus Phreak (May 6, 2009)

Wow, you still just aren't getting it.

The Jobs RDF yet again in effect...wow.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

Morpheus Phreak said:


> Wow, you still just aren't getting it.
> 
> The Jobs RDF yet again in effect...wow.


I think I got the most important point.


----------



## Morpheus Phreak (May 6, 2009)

We'll have to agree to disagree since I honestly don't think you do.


----------



## angelad (Jun 19, 2009)

Getting a little testy


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

Morpheus Phreak said:


> The Jobs RDF yet again in effect...wow.


I ignored this comment the first time, debated responding to it this time. I've decided to respond to it as I want to make one thing perfectly clear. My stance does not have a single thing to do with Jobs or Apple. It took a bit of digging but here's a quote from one of my previous posts.

Please keep in mind that this is not meant to contribute towards my opinion on this topic, rather, it's meant to demonstrate that the stance I have was in place before "Agency Model" had ever been uttered.



Selcien said:


> Yes, I am suggesting that publishers set a minimum allowable price, it would be tricky, especially if the price they sell to retailers is different, I'm assuming it is, so I'd think that the lowest price allowable should be the lowest price a publisher sells a book. That way careless price wars like the one we have now would be prevented as the most powerful chains would not be able to dump books lower than what they paid for them (that would be risky as powerful retailers like Walmart may refuse to carry books that have a minimum set price, but hey, that's what book stores are for, get people interested in your books and they will find their way to a book store to buy them), publishers would have a far more accurate method of determining what consumers are willing to pay, and consumers will know exactly who's to blame for the prices we find on books.
> 
> What I've said here is likely to be found scary, especially considering the general sentiment towards publishers, but I feel that if they are always going to get the blame then it should be they who determine their own doom, not mega retailers that have money to burn.
> 
> ...


Now, obviously I didn't envision the Agency Model exactly as it is, or that Apple would be the driving force behind it, and I was talking about DTB's rather than e-books, but you have to admit that it doesn't take much to go from what I describe to the Agency Model.



Morpheus Phreak said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree since I honestly don't think you do.


The fact that you could disagree with a post as vague as mine truly means that all we can do is agree to disagree.

For the record, what I had in mind when I made my post is that this is a waste of our time, hence the short response.


----------



## Morpheus Phreak (May 6, 2009)

Nothing vague about it at all.

I said that I don't think you get it.

You said you think you got the most important point.

I said we'd have to agree to disagree since I think you still miss the point.



Think about this carefully. What you're suggesting in that post you dug up would mean that retailers could never bargain bin books, which means higher remainders, which means lowered profit, which means higher prices, which means more remainders, which means lowered profit, which means higher prices, which means...ad nauseum ad infinitum.

Allowing a company to set the selling price for their item, overriding a retailers right to compete is price fixing.


Hence why I don't understand why you can't see this as a bad thing.

Now applied to the world of eBooks it doesn't mean higher remainders since there are no remainders, but it will translate into fewer sales...which means a lowered demand to translate other works, or less effort to do so, into the eBook format.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

Morpheus Phreak said:


> Think about this carefully. What you're suggesting in that post you dug up would mean that retailers could never bargain bin books, which means higher remainders, which means lowered profit, which means higher prices, which means more remainders, which means lowered profit, which means higher prices, which means...ad nauseum ad infinitum.


Yes, you're absolutely correct. There is absolutely no way that any retailer could possibly ever, under any circumstance, contact a publisher to let them know that they will be sending back more remainders if they cannot lower the price.

We also know that publishers will do everything in their power to destroy the book industry. They're not even the tiniest bit capable of running their business.

Lastly, once the publishers take control of the pricing it will absolutely never end, they'll run the industry into the ground so far that people will never have ever heard of a book. [/sarcasm]

I do not like price dumping. I do not see how it could possibly be conducive to a healthy industry. All it does is allow the retailers with the most money to gain market share, while everybody that needs to make a profit watches their sales go down the crapper.

The publishers want to have control, they think they know what they're doing, I say let them have control. Better to have someone that depends on books making the decision than a retailer that is not at all reliant on selling books.

People will not stop writing. People will not stop reading. The industry may shrink, it may change, become something that we wouldn't recognize, but it will be here long after we are gone.


----------



## Morpheus Phreak (May 6, 2009)

Ah, and now we reach the crux of the whole thing.

I now see where you're not getting it.


Ok I'll spell it out simply since you've missed it a few times, and it may have been my fault for not explaining it more carefully.

These contracts means that those books MUST sell for no lower than what Apple sells them for.

Apple doesn't know the meaning of discount. They don't understand the point of having a 'sale', even if only to clear older stock (in the case of their physical hardware).

That's just not their business model, in any market they've entered.


They don't get the whole, if x hasn't sold many units lower the price. That's just not what they do.



As for the physical books argument...actually that's exactly my point, even though you're using it sarcastically. If you have one retailer who is still selling those books at the original price point, then by contract no one else can lower the price to sell off the remainders.

That's the problem with this model.  There's no provisos that I've seen that allow for the remainders scenario for the physical copies...and believe me this will affect physical book sales as well as eBook sales.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

Morpheus Phreak said:


> These contracts means that those books MUST sell for no lower than what Apple sells them for.
> 
> Apple doesn't know the meaning of discount. They don't understand the point of having a 'sale', even if only to clear older stock (in the case of their physical hardware).
> 
> ...


The only way that would matter is if Apple is setting the prices, everything about the Agency Model has indicated that the publishers are setting the price, in which case Apple would have no more say about the actual price than the guys over at Entourage Edge, it just has to be the same.

If there's some indication that the publishers are allowing Apple to set the prices and they're simply forcing everyone else to match then we're dealing with a situation which is completely different from what I thought it was, not to mention that they would have effectively proven to me that they are not capable of running their own companies.

Better by far to let Amazon run things than some dumb ass that doesn't think people read anymore.



Morpheus Phreak said:


> As for the physical books argument...actually that's exactly my point, even though you're using it sarcastically. If you have one retailer who is still selling those books at the original price point, then by contract no one else can lower the price to sell off the remainders.
> 
> That's the problem with this model. There's no provisos that I've seen that allow for the remainders scenario for the physical copies...and believe me this will affect physical book sales as well as eBook sales.


The Agency Model is not about the actual price, it's about control, a single switch in which all prices change one way or the other for any given book. To effectively use this model requires balance. It's not about setting the price to the highest that a single store/chain can successfully sell, nor setting the price to the lowest that a single store/chain can successfully sell, but setting the price to a point in which the most stores can sell the most copies and make the most money.

In your example, the publisher would need to have enough feedback from retailers to know that the price point is not working, at which point they would tell the retailers what the new price point is. Since the profit for a retailer is included in the price they sell at, rather than based on what they make minus what they paid for the book, there is no reason that any retailer should have an objection to lowering the price since their cut of the sale is the same.

As for remainders, the biggest reason they have them is that a retailer can order as many as they want without any consequence, so it would be up to the publishers to determine how much stock to send, the ideal being neither sending too little or too much.

I'm not sure that they're up to the task but they're not going to shut up until they've given it a go. If they cannot make it work they can always switch back to the wholesale model, and if they open up their mouth to complain about how a retailer is pricing a book everyone will be able to point out how poorly they did when they set the price.


----------



## luv4kitties (Aug 18, 2009)

Selcien, please correct me if I'm wrong here (and no offense is meant by this question), but didn't I read in one of your posts (or somewhere) that you are in the publishing business?  Was it just for ebooks or does your company do paper books too?


----------



## hsuthard (Jan 6, 2010)

With the agency model, isn't the retailers profit generally set at a specific percentage, say 30%? Is that the same across the board, for all types of books (textbooks, romances, paperbacks, hardcovers, etc.)? If so, it would be in a retailers best interest to promote the most expensive books in their stores, as they would provide the most $$ profits, right?


----------



## vickir (Jan 14, 2009)

Is it true that some libraries are going to have subscriptions so you can download a book on to your kindle through the public library? Or am I just dreaming?


----------



## drenee (Nov 11, 2008)

It's not up to the libraries.  It's whether Amazon allows an application, or whatever they need to do, to permit the library books to be loaded onto our Kindle device.
deb


----------



## BruceS (Feb 7, 2009)

My family ran a general store for over a hundred years.

During that time, the only wholesaler that we allowed to tell us what price we should sell their merchandize for was the oil company that was providing the gasoline that we sold at our pumps.

If any other wholesaler tried to tell us the minimum price for which we could sell their product, we stopped buying from them immediately until they came to their senses.

It may not apply to e-books, but for any other products you could get a much lower price when you ordered a large amount at a time.

Since almost no wholesaler is willing to buy back their product when you can't sell it, most retailers would go bankrupt if they are not allowed to hold sales. You may not get back the full amount you had to pay the wholesaler, but anything you can get by holding a sale is better than nothing.


----------



## angelad (Jun 19, 2009)

vickir said:


> Is it true that some libraries are going to have subscriptions so you can download a book on to your kindle through the public library? Or am I just dreaming?


I would actually not be opposed to paying a little fee if required, as the service would be very beneficial.


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

Two quotes:
"Is it true that some libraries are going to have subscriptions so you can download a book on to your kindle through the public library? Or am I just dreaming?"

"I would actually not be opposed to paying a little fee if required, as the service would be very beneficial."


You can borrow ebooks from libraries through your computer now, but not with Kindle.  Devices that handle EPub (and certain other book formats) are usable for it now.  I get them on my Bookeen Cybook Opus.  Others on this board use their Sony and Nook readers for it.  There are other ebook readers that also work with EPub.  There are also Mobipocket and PDF books at libraries, but the DRM doesn't work on Kindle.  There are some other threads on these boards about library ebooks.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

First off, I found a very interesting article on pricing, it has nothing to do with my viewpoint, it's just that I think that people looking at a thread like this will be interested.

http://blog.kobobooks.com/2010/02/04/when-publishers-set-prices-with-pictures/



KindleUndecided said:


> Selcien, please correct me if I'm wrong here (and no offense is meant by this question), but didn't I read in one of your posts (or somewhere) that you are in the publishing business? Was it just for ebooks or does your company do paper books too?


I can't imagine what you read that'd make you think that. I do like the sound of it but no, I do not, nor have I ever, had any kind of company/business.



hsuthard said:


> With the agency model, isn't the retailers profit generally set at a specific percentage, say 30%? Is that the same across the board, for all types of books (textbooks, romances, paperbacks, hardcovers, etc.)? If so, it would be in a retailers best interest to promote the most expensive books in their stores, as they would provide the most $$ profits, right?


*disclaimer: I've only done a couple of searches on this and I haven't found much of anything, so this is pure speculation.*

I'm thinking that Apple is going to set the margins as I can't imagine that they would be pleased if a publisher dared give another retailer a larger margin than they got (this did not occur to me until today).

It could be a flat 70/30 for everything/everyone, which, if I understand correctly, is the percentage they have with their Apps. Or they might do deals with individual publishers, but with Amazon offering a 70/30 split for any publisher pricing their e-book from $2.99 to $9.99 I can't imagine that Apple would be able to get many of the smaller publishers to agree to give Apple more than 30, especially if it's a margin they'd have to use with every other retailer.



hsuthard said:


> If so, it would be in a retailers best interest to promote the most expensive books in their stores, as they would provide the most $$ profits, right?


That would bring them the most money for a single sale but not necessarily the most profit as you have to take into account the number of units that is likely to be sold. A $20 book would bring in twice as much money as a $10 book, but the $10 book is much more likely to bring in more sales than a book that costs twice as much. In addition to this, someone that buys a $20 book might only buy that one book, someone that buys a $10 book might buy more than one book.



BruceS said:


> My family ran a general store for over a hundred years.
> 
> During that time, the only wholesaler that we allowed to tell us what price we should sell their merchandize for was the oil company that was providing the gasoline that we sold at our pumps.
> 
> ...


The price of the Agency Model is independence, you know, pretty much the reason that people start their own businesses, as a retailer effectively becomes an employee when they agree to it. The upside is that it brings the same benefits that being an employee does. If you sell product you make money, if you don't sell product you don't make money, any losses incurred are the responsibility of the "employer" (publisher) as it's their property, their responsibility.


----------



## VictoriaP (Mar 1, 2009)

Selcien said:


> First off, I found a very interesting article on pricing, it has nothing to do with my viewpoint, it's just that I think that people looking at a thread like this will be interested.
> 
> http://blog.kobobooks.com/2010/02/04/when-publishers-set-prices-with-pictures/


Definitely interesting, thanks for linking this one!


----------



## artsandhistoryfan (Feb 7, 2009)

Selcien said:


> ...
> [quote author=KindleUndecided ]
> Selcien, please correct me if I'm wrong here (and no offense is meant by this question), but didn't I read in one of your posts (or somewhere) that you are in the publishing business? Was it just for ebooks or does your company do paper books too?


I can't imagine what you read that'd make you think that. I do like the sound of it but no, I do not, nor have I ever, had any kind of company/business. [/quote]

Selcien,
KindleUndecided asked if you hadn't said earlier that you were "'*in*" the publishing business.

The question was *not* whether or not you ever 'had' any kind of company/business.

I have no idea whether not you ever worked in or for a publishing house or have/had any freelance dealings for any but wanted to make it clear the question was not whether or not you'd had your own business.

I do know that though you seem vastly interested in the dynamics of the pricing from a publisher's viewpoint, you showed zero interest in reading what I wrote at http://bit.ly/kwmacm8 in our earlier correspondence -- you showed interest only in telling me what you already thought about one aspect of it.

I was going to stay out of this after that but then you turned this other question into something that had not been asked.


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

Off topic, but I noticed through the Kobo link Selcien provided that Kobo announced its ereader today and has it all over their ereader website.  Engadget has a review today and it's on Kobo's Facebook and Twitter pages.


----------



## luv4kitties (Aug 18, 2009)

Well, I've been doing a little research and I think it was bardsandsages that I was thinking of who has (or works for) a small publishing company.  The little photo that is below bardsandsages' name is similar to one that I remembered (or at least thought I remembered) Selcien using.  I think I've been mixing up the two because of similar icons and also due to similar sentiments regarding books/pricing/publishers.  My apologies for the mixup.  

On a slightly related topic, I really do have to question why anyone would support this agency model or, rather, I have to wonder what anyone who supports the agency model thinks they have to gain from the implementation of this system.  People don't tend to support things that hurt them...  I've noticed that anything that interferes with competition and the free market typically (with a few exceptions) is no good for your average consumer.  So...why?  Why would any average consumer support higher prices for themselves?  No one really thinks that the prices under the agency model are going to go anywhere but up, do they?  I've already noticed that the prices on many of the books that I wanted to purchase are higher in the past couple of weeks.  None of the prices of the books I want are lower.  

From what I've seen of the agency model at work (from my observations of the prices of Apple products like ipods), there are never any sales and the prices never go lower; they stay the same or go up.  Has anyone ever seen a good deal on an ipod?  I sure haven't ever seen them on sale.  I've noticed that they are the same price everywhere thanks to Apple's minimum pricing requirements.  I really can't see how this is good for the average consumer.  Speaking of Apple, I'm not going to buy any more of their products.  I got my husband an ipod for Christmas in 2008 and this is the only Apple product in our family.  We've already decided (the hubby and I) that, when it wears out, he'll get a different one...something not Apple.  We've decided that supporting Apple is a bad thing because of their minimum pricing requirements/love of the agency model and we're just not going to do it in the future.  We can easily live without Apple products especially if the price of those products is living with their minimum pricing requirements for all retailers.


----------



## cybergeezer (Jun 29, 2009)

Quote from unknown original source repeated in this thread:

"Is it true that some libraries are going to have subscriptions so you can download a book on to your kindle through the public library? Or am I just dreaming?"
...

Probably just dreaming for now but there is a library in Belmont, MA that has 10 Kindles that can be borrowed. To listen to an interview with the two librarians conducted by Len Edgerly on The Kindle Chronicles podcast click on the link and download:

http://www.thekindlechronicles.com/2009/09/18/tkc-61-maureen-connors-emily-smith/ or subscribe for free to

"The Kindle Chronicles" podcast on iTunes and listen to episode TKC 61.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

artsandhistoryfan said:


> I was going to stay out of this after that but then you turned this other question into something that had not been asked.


It wasn't deliberate.

I've never worked in the publishing industry, nor have I had contact with anyone who has.



artsandhistoryfan said:


> I do know that though you seem vastly interested in the dynamics of the pricing from a publisher's viewpoint, you showed zero interest in reading what I wrote at http://bit.ly/kwmacm8 in our earlier correspondence -- you showed interest only in telling me what you already thought about one aspect of it.


I agree with you about the New York Times being slanted. If anyone was guiding the publishers to a price point it was Amazon. Apple is the aggressor, Amazon is just fighting for their own turf.

I disagree with you about Amazon not having an effect on publishers. You get people used to a price point and they will have difficulty paying more. $12.99 isn't expensive for a brand new bestseller, not when paper backs go for $10, but it sure looks pricey after seeing them for $9.99.

Quotes from your blog:

"They should wake up and realize that most e-reader buyers are NOT going to go get new hardcover fiction books after buying e-readers."

It's quite possible that they expect people to come back to buying new hardcovers, but I think it's more likely that they're trying to reduce the incentive for people to purchase the e-reader version while not completely killing e-books. Speaking of which and I hope you don't mind, but if publishers wanted to kill e-books why wouldn't they just not make them available for purchase like the way Macmillan prevents people from checking their e-books out of a library?

"Adding another layer of normal business manipulations was the discovery that Apple is inserting language into the Agency plan that insists that THEY be able to sell "hottest" books or bestsellers at $10 if they want (!) I'd love to see the publisher reactions to that, but the last I read they were still "in negotiations" on that."

Considering that the prices of bestsellers in Macmillan's not a price pledge that looks like a price pledge are going to be priced at $12.99 or less, this would be a discounted price in comparison to the price for a regular new release. I remain skeptical.

As for the "guarantee that no other competitor will get lower prices or better terms.", it's rather worrisome that they're not agreeing to this. The Agency Model, a true Agency Model, is about keeping things the same, that's what Amazon wants, so why would they not promise the thing that they should be ensuring? Very suspicious but still skeptical as I don't think that publishers are this foolish, and it's quite possible that Amazon is asking for something that we're not aware of, just like Apple.

"publishers' lament that they earn practically nothing much on e-books because of the expenses they need to charge against them."

I understand their logic as the costs of books involve other things than just printing, and they'll obviously want to split the costs between the paper and electronic versions, but it's still laughable, I mean, who exactly goes "Hey, we got money coming in, oh wait a minute..." *calculates how much the e-books would have cost if they were printed on paper. "Hey, we're not making enough, let's reduce what we get so that we'll, uh... make less?"

They're trying to prevent people from getting conditioned to $9.99, understandable, they just need to stop saying things that anyone with a computer would laugh at.



KindleUndecided said:


> My apologies for the mixup.


Not a problem.



> On a slightly related topic, I really do have to question why anyone would support this agency model or, rather, I have to wonder what anyone who supports the agency model thinks they have to gain from the implementation of this system. People don't tend to support things that hurt them... I've noticed that anything that interferes with competition and the free market typically (with a few exceptions) is no good for your average consumer. So...why? Why would any average consumer support higher prices for themselves? No one really thinks that the prices under the agency model are going to go anywhere but up, do they? I've already noticed that the prices on many of the books that I wanted to purchase are higher in the past couple of weeks. None of the prices of the books I want are lower.


It depends on which stores you're looking at. Amazon and B&N will go up, Sony will be going up and down, the Fictionwise Rebate program will most likely be neutralized, at least with books that are sold under the Agency Model, so they'll also be going up and down, however, most every other store should see a pure price drop. The result should negate the power of the big three, Amazon, Sony, and B&N, and free people to choose the e-reader they really want rather than the one tied to the store with the best prices (I'd rather they compete with hardware than content).

I also want e-books to have the kind of structure that paper books have, a predictable price structure, not this bouncing all over the place pricing thing that Amazon likes to do. I don't care if a new release costs too much at release (a reasonable "too much" like $15 as opposed to an unreasonable too much of $20 and higher) as long as it comes down, if it's not worth paying the asking price to get a new release right away, or to wait for a price drop, then it wasn't worth reading anyway.


----------



## artsandhistoryfan (Feb 7, 2009)

Selcien said:


> It wasn't deliberate.
> 
> I've never worked in the publishing industry, nor have I had contact with anyone who has.


Thanks for bearing with that and giving such a clear statement.



> I disagree with you about Amazon not having an effect on publishers. You get people used to a price point and they will have difficulty paying more. $12.99 isn't expensive for a brand new bestseller, not when paper backs go for $10, but it sure looks pricey after seeing them for $9.99.


 It is expensive for many of us and we tend to buy more books because we can get and read them so easily now, so we'll look for those not priced very high. Already, with the reader, it's all a luxury we have to try to justify. My own limit would have been there or below because after initial costs are recoup'd, e-copies are so cheap to make. I helped with publishing and distribution of some academic books and we loved the pdf's because they cost us practically nothing to make more of and sell for a decent price. The cost was essentially the disk and, frankly enough was made from volume of those to make up for labor. Offices were maintained by all kinds of activities.



> Quotes from your blog:
> 
> "They should wake up and realize that most e-reader buyers are NOT going to go get new hardcover fiction books after buying e-readers."
> 
> It's quite possible that they expect people to come back to buying new hardcovers, but I think it's more likely that they're trying to reduce the incentive for people to purchase the e-reader version while not completely killing e-books.


 It's more than possible -- they have said that e-book sales cannibalize the sale of hardcovers (those were their words).



> Speaking of which and I hope you don't mind, but if publishers wanted to kill e-books why wouldn't they just not make them available for purchase like the way Macmillan prevents people from checking their e-books out of a library?


Why would I mind?
Macmillan IS the main culprit - hero to the other large publishers. A spirit that will not allow a copy of an e-book in the library says a lot to the common man (and woman). The fear is palpable in that case -- or maybe mere stinginess. They make them available because it's done by all, and there are usually people in a company smart enough to know it would be the highest stupidity not to offer them at all. Compromises are made within companies on things like that.

We've been talking about NY Times bestsellers here -- which means VOLUME and then some. Not involved are the rest of the e-books and we've all seen how pricey an e-book can be once off the NYT bestseller list. The loss leaders make it necessary to get as much possible out of other e-books while still encouraging purchase.

I bought two books on Ted Kennedy (including his own) after the Macmillan brouhaha, in case they would no longer be $9.99 -- and now one is $19.25 and one is $15. Amazon never promised $9.99 for any but the NYT bestseller list and there was the caveat "unless otherwise..."



> "Adding another layer of normal business manipulations was the discovery that Apple is inserting language into the Agency plan that insists that THEY be able to sell "hottest" books or bestsellers at $10 if they want (!) I'd love to see the publisher reactions to that, but the last I read they were still "in negotiations" on that."
> 
> Considering that the prices of bestsellers in Macmillan's not a price pledge that looks like a price pledge are going to be priced at $12.99 or less


 It's $12.99 to $14.99



> ... this would be a discounted price in comparison to the price for a regular new release. I remain skeptical.


 About which aspect?



> As for the "guarantee that no other competitor will get lower prices or better terms.", it's rather worrisome that they're not agreeing to this. The Agency Model, a true Agency Model, is about keeping things the same, that's what Amazon wants, so why would they not promise the thing that they should be ensuring? Very suspicious but still skeptical as I don't think that publishers are this foolish, and it's quite possible that Amazon is asking for something that we're not aware of, just like Apple.


 They do, as companies generally do, want to favor one company over another. Apple has promised them the world, so they want to lean towards them. I don't think integrity of a thought or concept has much to do with business.



> "publishers' lament that they earn practically nothing much on e-books because of the expenses they need to charge against them."
> 
> I understand their logic as the costs of books involve other things than just printing,


 NEVER as much as it will cost when it's only on paper. I know that from the other side. But as an incentive to buy the one that cost us more to print and therefore costs the buyers more, we 'throw in'
the PDFs at times for people who bought more of the hard copies.

I pointed to an excellent analysis of the publishers' lament at fair.org -- *http://bit.ly/fairnytpubl*
which speaks exactly to the claims of costs being as high as said.



> and they'll obviously want to split the costs between the paper and electronic versions, but it's still laughable, I mean, who exactly goes "Hey, we got money coming in, oh wait a minute..." *calculates how much the e-books would have cost if they were printed on paper. "Hey, we're not making enough, let's reduce what we get so that we'll, uh... make less?"


 I didn't understand what you were saying there -- "we're not making enough, let's REDUCE What we get?"

I'm lost there  unless you mean they should charge just as much for an e-book version so as not to reduce income. The cost is neglible compared to printing costs. Printing costs these days are FORMIDABLE. The cost of a CD-ROM or DVD-ROM or, better yet, just having it downloaded from the Net is nothing in comparison. They should never overcharge for a product in making it particularly close to the more expensive-to-make version. People won't buy it.



> They're trying to prevent people from getting conditioned to $9.99, understandable, they just need to stop saying things that anyone with a computer would laugh at.


 Yes, we fully agree there. I don't even disagree with prices being over $10 when the book is BRAND new and hasn't reached the bestseller lists yet. But if Amazon or any company wants to take a loss on the bestsellers, let them -- Amazon's thriving so I figure they know how to make up for it from other books and other areas.



> It depends on which stores you're looking at. Amazon and B&N will go up, Sony will be going up and down, the Fictionwise Rebate program will most likely be neutralized, at least with books that are sold under the Agency Model, so they'll also be going up and down, however, most every other store should see a pure price drop. The result should negate the power of the big three, Amazon, Sony, and B&N, and free people to choose the e-reader they really want rather than the one tied to the store with the best prices (I'd rather they compete with hardware than content).


 We are free to decide and it's based (for me) on how the e-reader functions as well as the way the store is run. IN NO WAY would I *ever* justify price-fixing as you are doing.

The COST in labor and chaos and unhappiness from trying to get all the stores to do the same on every book is absolutely beyond stupid. As is taking the Agency plan when they got more money from the wholesale one, done in fear of Amazon having too much power. The power is in the market. Apple is already learning that. I also wonder if, since they have been investigated recently by the Feds if they didn't get word that they might not want to keep all prices above $10 after all.

I'm speaking of Apple's suddenly making all the NYT bestsellers $9.99 if that "leak" is valid (if Apple wasn't just testing how people treat the NDA for the preview).



> I also want e-books to have the kind of structure that paper books have, a predictable price structure, not this bouncing all over the place pricing thing that Amazon likes to do. I don't care if a new release costs too much at release (a reasonable "too much" like $15 as opposed to an unreasonable too much of $20 and higher) as long as it comes down, if it's not worth paying the asking price to get a new release right away, or to wait for a price drop, then it wasn't worth reading anyway.


 You sound drawn to authoritariansm. I prefer that retailers be able to give incentives to shop at their places. Otherwise, it's like wishing for all gas prices to be higher so you know what they'll be and not have to choose from the varying ones we see (within the narrow range that we do).

It's not only what 'Amazon' (as head "Awful") does, but all bookstores.

Macmillan's never did come down at Baen, even after over a year, so people are skeptical that they'd bring them down now.

Thanks for taking the time to read my gathered blog thoughts.

I've now added a monster one on the 'leaked' pricing and what it might all mean and the general Kindle vs iPad thing. But am not giving a link as I'm not feeling sadistic right now. '-)


----------



## luv4kitties (Aug 18, 2009)

Selcien said:


> It depends on which stores you're looking at. Amazon and B&N will go up, Sony will be going up and down, the Fictionwise Rebate program will most likely be neutralized, at least with books that are sold under the Agency Model, so they'll also be going up and down, however, most every other store should see a pure price drop. The result should negate the power of the big three, Amazon, Sony, and B&N, and free people to choose the e-reader they really want rather than the one tied to the store with the best prices (I'd rather they compete with hardware than content).
> 
> I also want e-books to have the kind of structure that paper books have, a predictable price structure, not this bouncing all over the place pricing thing that Amazon likes to do. I don't care if a new release costs too much at release (a reasonable "too much" like $15 as opposed to an unreasonable too much of $20 and higher) as long as it comes down, if it's not worth paying the asking price to get a new release right away, or to wait for a price drop, then it wasn't worth reading anyway.


All I can say is that, based on my personal experiences with products that are sold by Apple and it's agency model/minimum pricing requirements, you cannot find them anywhere for less. The prices do not go up and down at stores. There are never any sales. Prices are not dropped as the product "ages." I believe that this is what will happen with the agency model for e-books. So far as you saying that, "if it's not worth paying the asking price to get a new release right away, or to wait for a price drop, then it wasn't worth reading anyway," I strongly disagree. I have read many, many books that were not new releases (because they were old books or because I waited for the paperback to come out) and, of those books, many have been excellent. You don't have to pay the publisher's "asking price" for a book in order to have it be a good book or worth reading.

Anyway, I still don't understand why you want to let corporations stifle the free market? Other than a predictable pricing structure (and I agree that prices will be predictable--the same everywhere, no sales anywhere, and I do not agree that prices will decrease much as ebooks "age"), how do you think the agency model will help you as a consumer? Why is it a problem for you if book prices fluctuate a little, as they do with Amazon and other book/ebook sellers? So, you buy an ebook and then, the next day (or whenever), it is a couple of dollars less... You didn't have to buy the book at that price if it seemed like too much for you. So, someone else gets a better deal... With a free market, sometimes things are available at better prices/deals than at other times. Haven't you ever bought something and then it went on sale a few days later (at the same store or a different store)? That's the way of the free market. Sometimes you get a good deal, sometimes you don't. In my opinion, it's no big deal. I don't agree that we need to stifle the free market with something like the agency model in order to stabilize prices so that everyone pays the same price for everything. I also disagree that paper books have a predictable price structure. You can always find "deals" and sales on paper books. You just have to look around and be a smart consumer.

Selcien, I just don't think I will ever understand your point of view with this. I'm really trying to understand (which doesn't mean I will ever agree as understanding doesn't mean agreeing), but I am just bewildered by what you are saying. Maybe we'll just have to agree to be on different "wavelengths."


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

artsandhistoryfan said:


> It is expensive for many of us and we tend to buy more books because we can get and read them so easily now, so we'll look for those not priced very high. Already, with the reader, it's all a luxury we have to try to justify.


The way that I interpret this is that you're referring to an e-reader as being a luxury. For me an e-reader is not a luxury, it's an essential as it's the only way that I've been able to motivate myself to read anything that wasn't Harry Potter or part of The Wheel of Time series.

I was never going to save money by purchasing an e-reader and when you consider that it took purchasing three of them before finally finding one that truly matches me, that I bought three Oberon's for the e-readers that I don't use, it's cost me quite a premium.

If I hadn't needed the device, if I had been happily reading paper books rather than letting them sit around neglected, I would be no more capable of justifying purchasing an e-reader than I am at justifying an I-pad, nice devices but my money would be better spent elsewhere.

I've seen people make comments about pricing and simply assumed that they were being cheap, when in actuality views on e-book pricing simply reflect personal value. The closest that I've been to valuing digital content enough to buy a device but not enough to pay the same amount as the physical equivalent is with music downloads, but I never would have bought an iPod if I couldn't load it up with music off of the CD's that I've purchased. So I don't think that I could understand why anyone would buy an e-reader if they didn't value e-books at least as much as they do the paper books.

I think that my logic with the pricing of the Agency Model is sound, for those that have the same personal value that I do, any lower though and the pendulum swing will likely remove e-books from their range, doesn't matter if it gets rid of truly expensive books if the resulting price is still too expensive (I had posted "(a reasonable "too much" like $15 as opposed to an unreasonable too much of $20 and higher)", after really thinking about that I realized that it's *exactly* what everyone is complaining about, it's just that I'm higher up the pricing scale. [face_bloody_idiot].



> It's $12.99 to $14.99


http://blog.macmillanspeaks.com/macmillan-ceo-john-sargent-on-the-agency-model-availability-and-price/

"Generally e-book editions of hardcover new releases will be priced between $14.99 and $12.99; a few books will be priced higher and lower."

"E-book editions of New York Times hardcover bestsellers will be priced at $12.99 or lower while they are on the printed list."



> About which aspect?


It doesn't matter. You had a link in your blog which I had previously ignored (I thought it led to an article I had already read). For whatever reason I took another look at your blog, followed the link this time, and found something that I had not read before, which is that the original price had been $12.99 - $14.99 for *all* new releases. The first prices I had seen was in the blog that Macmillan posted, the one that I keep linking to. Now, taking the original pricing of $12.99 - $14.99, following it up with Apple wanting to be able to discount bestsellers, and then adding in the info Macmillan posted and it becomes quite clear that Apple is setting prices. There's the proof that I wanted.



> I didn't understand what you were saying there -- "we're not making enough, let's REDUCE What we get?"


I was attempting to make fun of them. They say they're not making enough money because of the way they calculate the costs only to turn around and make a decision in which they'll make even less money, and they're acting as if it makes sense.



> IN NO WAY would I *ever* justify price-fixing as you are doing.


*Was* doing. I won't condemn it, not yet, but I won't continue arguing in it's favor either. We'll see how things play out, when it's been around for a little while I'll post an update on how I think it worked out regardless of whether it's good or bad.



> You sound drawn to authoritarianism.


Quite the opposite actually.



> Macmillan's never did come down at Baen, even after over a year, so people are skeptical that they'd bring them down now.


Did they ever release anything indicating that they would lower the prices over time?



> Thanks for taking the time to read my gathered blog thoughts.


And I have to thank you for jumping back in 'cause if you didn't I wouldn't have taken a good look at your blog.



> I've now added a monster one on the 'leaked' pricing and what it might all mean and the general Kindle vs iPad thing. But am not giving a link as I'm not feeling sadistic right now. '-)


I'll keep it simple then. Is there anything indicating whether the pricing will only apply to Apple's store or if it will apply to all stores?



KindleUndecided said:


> So far as you saying that, "if it's not worth paying the asking price to get a new release right away, or to wait for a price drop, then it wasn't worth reading anyway," I strongly disagree. I have read many, many books that were not new releases (because they were old books or because I waited for the paperback to come out) and, of those books, many have been excellent. You don't have to pay the publisher's "asking price" for a book in order to have it be a good book or worth reading.


Did you miss the "or to wait for a price to drop" part?

If I cannot justify the price point of a new release, or if I cannot justify waiting however long it takes for the book to get to my price point, then it wasn't worth reading anyway otherwise I wouldn't give up on it. I said it because there are people that post in Amazon reviews that they're not buying an e-book because it costs too much at release, or because they refuse to wait for it. What they're really saying is that they're not truly interested in reading the book otherwise they wouldn't just dismiss it.



> Anyway, I still don't understand why you want to let corporations stifle the free market?


It's not like we have any choice in the matter, they're going to do what they want to regardless of whether anyone likes it.

Also, I completely disagree about it stifling the free market since the e-book market is not a free market, the DRM ensures that.

I had never thought about DRM as being anything other than an inconvenience but posting in this thread has made me think about it again, and I've come to realize that it is the root cause for a lot of my issues.

One of the things that I dislike about Amazon and B&N is how they can use their e-book pricing to push their e-readers as all the other e-readers cannot access stores that have pricing that is as good (that I'm aware of). Take away the DRM and everything changes. E-readers would not have an advantage or a disadvantage because of the stores that they can access, rather, we'd have an environment in which anyone owning any e-reader can purchase/use e-books from any store. If a store dumps some e-books and raises prices on other e-books people could come in buy the cheap ones, and then go look to see if another retailer has a lower price for the e-books that had been raised. If a store sets a ridiculously high price on an e-book a person could simply visit other stores until they find a price that they're happy with. That would be a free market as it ensures unhindered competition.

The Agency Model strips away any advantage from the hindered competition, but obviously does not provide a real solution as it just adds another hindrance.

As for my idea of a minimum price to prevent dumping, I've changed my mind. It doesn't matter if a store takes a loss on their products or use the money towards other ways of getting people in their store as they have an advantage either way.



> Other than a predictable pricing structure (and I agree that prices will be predictable--the same everywhere, no sales anywhere, and I do not agree that prices will decrease much as ebooks "age"), how do you think the agency model will help you as a consumer?


By pricing structure I meant hardcover stage, paperback stage, and mass market paperback stage.

Take Stephen King's _The Stand_, it has a digital list price of $25. The paper version has reached the mass market paperback stage who knows exactly how long ago, and that's where the e-book should be as well. That is what interested me in Macmillan's spiel, that they'd be following the structure they use in paper books.

"For physical books, the majority of new release hardcovers are published in cheaper paperback versions over time. We will mirror this price reduction in the digital world. It is too early to estimate the timing of the price reductions for those cases in which we do not issue a paperback edition. If we do issue a paperback, we will drop the digital price to $9.99 or lower at publication date (if not before). The price differential between the book and the e-book will become smaller at the lower price points."

Now, whether they will deliver on these price reductions is something that we will have to see when it goes into action.



> Why is it a problem for you if book prices fluctuate a little, as they do with Amazon and other book/ebook sellers? So, you buy an ebook and then, the next day (or whenever), it is a couple of dollars less... You didn't have to buy the book at that price if it seemed like too much for you. So, someone else gets a better deal...


I always make sure that I never pay more than I'm comfortable with, if the price goes down after I buy something, well, that's just the way it goes.

I don't know know why it bothers me, it just does, and it bothers me with Amazon in particular because it's the store that I pay the most attention to. Just call it a pet peeve.



> Selcien, I just don't think I will ever understand your point of view with this. I'm really trying to understand (which doesn't mean I will ever agree as understanding doesn't mean agreeing), but I am just bewildered by what you are saying. Maybe we'll just have to agree to be on different "wavelengths."


It's likely a very unusual point of view. For me, cheap is, in some ways, even worse than too expensive is. Take _The Lovely Bones_ and _The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo_. I got each e-book for $5 from Amazon but here's the thing, if I hadn't already wanted them when they were priced higher I would have ignored them because of how cheaply they were priced. It's not that I want to pay more, it's just that I cannot judge my true interest level with something that is priced cheaply, whereas I can when the price is good to expensive, no point in saving money if it's not something that I'm truly interested it.

What I see with the info that Macmillan has provided is a pricing scheme that should come very close to matching me, neither too cheap nor too expensive.

I do understand where people are coming from now though 'cause if most e-reader owners have a lower value than I do this could severely harm e-books while allowing the Apple Five to appear as if they're trying to make things work. Is there any word that adequately describes just how sneaky this is?


----------



## VictoriaP (Mar 1, 2009)

Selcien said:


> I've seen people make comments about pricing and simply assumed that they were being cheap, when in actuality views on e-book pricing simply reflect personal value. The closest that I've been to valuing digital content enough to buy a device but not enough to pay the same amount as the physical equivalent is with music downloads, but I never would have bought an iPod if I couldn't load it up with music off of the CD's that I've purchased. So I don't think that I could understand why anyone would buy an e-reader if they didn't value e-books at least as much as they do the paper books.
> 
> ...
> 
> I do understand where people are coming from now though 'cause if most e-reader owners have a lower value than I do this could severely harm e-books while allowing the Apple Five to appear as if they're trying to make things work. Is there any word that adequately describes just how sneaky this is?


One thing to note in your analogy about buying an iPod--you CAN load CDs onto it, which is precisely why you (and I) bought it. I have 20+ year old CDs that I've loaded onto my iPhone...and they still work in a CD player too. But you can't load already printed books from your personal library onto your e-reader. If I want to get my entire Agatha Christie collection onto my Kindle, I have to repurchase every single book in a format that cannot be physically shared or resold. The way I see it, I'm being screwed three times--once in having to repurchase what I already own, once in having to make that purchase in a format that holds no resale or lending value, and a third time in DRM making that file legally useless to me 10 years from now when .azw/.epub/.whatever is no longer a viable format.

So no, I'm not being cheap. I don't care all that much about a specific $9.99 price; I've bought new ebook releases at prices above that in order to get them in their first day or so of issue. I do care, however, that an ebook file be priced according to its value, and its value absolutely IS less than in whichever predominant paper form that book is currently being printed. And that value is lessened by a significant amount. I take extreme issue with the MacMillan-stated possibility (from their spokesmouth's blog posted somewhere earlier in this thread) that _perhaps_ the ebook price should be above paperback value but below hardcover pricing, and that _perhaps_ it should stay that way without ever dropping. The convenience factor of ebooks doesn't outweigh the three disadvantages above UNLESS the e-book is priced less than the paper book in its current release.

And even as an Apple fan, no, there's *no* word to describe how sneaky they (and the publishers) are being. This is the main reason we didn't join the fanboy club in buying two iPads for the household. On the day of the announcement, we planned to. By the time the ebook war began a day or so later, it was pretty clear that I wasn't going to side with Apple on this one.


----------



## Meemo (Oct 27, 2008)

luv4kitties said:


> From what I've seen of the agency model at work (from my observations of the prices of Apple products like ipods), there are never any sales and the prices never go lower; they stay the same or go up. Has anyone ever seen a good deal on an ipod? I sure haven't ever seen them on sale. I've noticed that they are the same price everywhere thanks to Apple's minimum pricing requirements. I really can't see how this is good for the average consumer. Speaking of Apple, I'm not going to buy any more of their products. I got my husband an ipod for Christmas in 2008 and this is the only Apple product in our family. We've already decided (the hubby and I) that, when it wears out, he'll get a different one...something not Apple. We've decided that supporting Apple is a bad thing because of their minimum pricing requirements/love of the agency model and we're just not going to do it in the future. We can easily live without Apple products especially if the price of those products is living with their minimum pricing requirements for all retailers.


I've seen sales on iPods - I know Target has Nanos & other iPods on sale from time to time, or buy one & get a gift card, which is a discount of sorts. For some reason Target jumps to mind - maybe because it's the one Sunday flyer that I check regularly where they sell iPods. Not huge sales, but markdowns.
As far as that goes, I haven't seen a whole lot of sales on Kindles either.


----------



## Casse (Oct 16, 2009)

VictoriaP said:


> And even as an Apple fan, no, there's *no* word to describe how sneaky they (and the publishers) are being. This is the main reason we didn't join the fanboy club in buying two iPads for the household. On the day of the announcement, we planned to. By the time the ebook war began a day or so later, it was pretty clear that I wasn't going to side with Apple on this one.


Love my I-touch and planned to purchase a MacBook Pro to replace my HP laptop when the MBP's are refreshed... but if this crazy pricing crap is in part due to Apple.... then no more Apple products in this household! Definitely going to be looking in to this


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

VictoriaP said:


> The way I see it, I'm being screwed three times--once in having to repurchase what I already own, once in having to make that purchase in a format that holds no resale or lending value, and a third time in DRM making that file legally useless to me 10 years from now when .azw/.epub/.whatever is no longer a viable format.


The first one "having to repurchase what I already own" is the typical problem that comes with format shifts. I don't think pricing should be based on the assumption that a person is re-buying something. I never bought any Terry Pratchett books prior to the e-book version, no reason for me to get that discount on them. It would be nice if they (the publisher) could find a way to give those that are re-buying a discount, especially if they've bought the paper version more than once. But without that a person must simply weigh this into any of their purchasing decisions. For me this is rather easy as most of the money I've spent on paper books is money that I spent more than a decade ago.

The second one "having to make that purchase in a format that holds no resale or lending value" has never been an issue for me as I have never resold or lent books, however, a guy at work had wanted to borrow Twilight, and if I had that e-book I would have been unable to legally lend it out even if he had a device that it would work on (he doesn't even have a computer), but that's the only time I've ran into a situation in which I would have loaned a book out.

The third one "DRM making that file legally useless to me 10 years from now when .azw/.epub/.whatever is no longer a viable format." is where my personal value is likely to be different as I refuse to play by their rules (I can use any of the e-books that I've purchased on any device that I choose to). I do think that people can legally break DRM if there are no current devices that support the file type but I'm not 100% sure on it (I read something somewhere but that's obviously not reliable).


----------

