Thanks--in arguing against me, you are proving me right. I'm not sure why youre trying to disagree with me, except that you don't seem to see the implications of your own statements:
Okay…
This artificial price/monopoly stuff is just flat-out false, sorry. Traditional publishing is not and never has been a monopoly. At worst, it was a cartel, but even then, it never enjoyed monopolistic power because there are far too many small, medium and independent presses exerting their own pressure on the system, not to mention all of the independent book store chains that have only recently disappeared.
As for windowing, it’s an old strategy used to squeeze the most out of a market by stratifying the demographics by income and desire, (it also leverages the long tail really well). Scarcity is real in a non-zero marginal cost market. Print books
are scarce, especially when there were far fewer of them. Windowing is, and was, genius.
However, it should be mentioned that it was this very principle of scarcity that allowed the second hand markets to flourish. They also sold books that were out of print or otherwise difficult to obtain. The second hand market benefited from high retail prices because a rising tide lifts all boats. As I said before, they were separate distribution channels, the new being largely unaffected by the used, but the used market was profoundly affected by new release pricing because they still represented poles of a single market. It’s one of those
all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares things.
I said all of that hardcover/paperback stuff to say I have a lot of books. I bought some at full price, some at a discount, some at second hand stores and some at science fiction conventions, which means I bought some of them at a significant premium. I've even stood in line to buy books. And to be clear, I'm not some special snowflake. Lots of readers have favorite writers whose books they buy when they come out - even at full price.
Additionally, we need to account for the fact that price is not the only consideration involved in the consumer decision process, it’s not even the most important. This is a fact, a common sense one. Even when all of the candy is free, we still pick through the pumpkin to find the candy we prefer.
When I said a
'significant percentage', I was referring to enough demand to maintain high prices.
As to the question:
how many books are sold? Again, enough to maintain these high prices - which is a direct response to satisfying existing demand. Excess demand would result in even higher prices, at least temporarily, a shortfall would bring downward pressure on pricing. So the demand for new books was stable (pre-Indie disruption) because it was enjoying an equilibrium of sorts.
And yes, some books were discounted, but that had more to do with prevailing retail theory/practice than any decline in demand. By the early 2000's, Cosco and Sam's Club were a thing, so were Outlet Stores. We can't look at publishing in a vacuum; there were other forces at play, but none of them were the used book market. Additionally, 'charting' new releases were often discounted to improve velocity and other non-revenue specific goals, such as gaining market share, as well as remaining competitive with warehouse and new release discount stores.
To be fair, these new retailers did affect pricing strategy, but the demographic these stores served was the mature market, not the early adopters. Sure, once a book broke out, it was everywhere, but not until - mid-listers need not apply. So it would be inaccurate to project one price-point based upon a single distribution channel catering to a single demographic as defining an entire industry.
Anecdotes and echo-chambers don’t define markets either.
So we can throw as much anti-traditional publishing rhetoric at it as we want, but the reality is that traditional publishing was extremely good at making money and the reason their business model worked is that there was enough demand to support it. It really is just that simple.
Also, I’m confused by this natural value price point. We had books selling on Amazon last year - 10 for 99 cents or even 20 for 99 cents. That's a nickel to a dime per novel. Is that the natural value you're talking about? That's about what a paperback novel was worth in 1939. By 1970 they were worth a buck, and we got all of the way up to $2.99 by 1980 or so - 38 years ago.
You're getting hung up on the packaging. The book is the experience, just like a movie. We don't pay for the film. Movie prices didn't go down when they switched to digital. And the prevailing price (natural value) for experience is whatever demand will support.
As for the tragedy of the commons, you're being too literal. Books are not the resource being discussed, this whole discussion pivots around consumer expectations. And the number of authors making bank has nothing to do with the analysis. We're talking about the change in consumer expectation (potential demand vis a vis price elasticity) from pre-Indie disruption to post-Indie disruption. Indies didn't exist yet (at least not as a primary player) so they have no role in defining market conditions prior to their arrival.
For those unfamiliar, this is how supply and demand works: you set your price as high as demand will allow, not as low as Amazon will let you get away with. It's called the equilibrium point, where demand equals supply at a specific price. It's a one to one correlation from the consumer perspective: as demand increases, so does price, as demand decreases, price follows. But on the supply side, it's an inverse relationship: as supply declines, prices go up due to scarcity. And the one we're all waiting for - as supply increases, price falls. Which is what has happened and what we would expect to happen, especially as books adopt commodity status.
However, we hit bottom long before the e-book market was saturated. And that is the crux of my argument. Amazon would never have started the KDP program if they had an adequate supply of e-books to promote their new reader. Full Stop. That is also a fact.
But, as we all know, they didn't, so they pulled down the gates and let us in. So when Indies raced to the bottom, there was still a shortage of digital content for readers and the prevailing price for traditional digital was $17. Supply and demand did not justify undercutting the market by ~1,600%. Full Stop. That’s yet another fact. But no one cared, because Indies only cared about undercutting each other. And we're back to not outrunning the bear, just your BFF.
As a general guide, we should never allow the rules printed on the peeling wooden sign over the entrance to the flea market to dictate industry pricing. Indies could only do what Amazon allowed them to do.
I did not say that everybody was better off before. I did imply traditional publishing was better off - and they were, without question. I have also said that we'd all be better off if Indies had not devalued their own market, which is also true. That's what led me to say you might have made more money.
But no,
we're not necessarily all better off. Some of us are, yeah, and that kind of brings us back to the tragedy of the commons. We've all done way more than our fair share of f*cking creatives for generations to come. Yes, lots of creatives are making money, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to earn enough to do it full time - and the Arts suffer for that, and will continue to suffer. Say what you want about the old ways, but they actually nurtured artists and we got amazing results. Now, the mainstream is nothing but recycled, plasticized, low-risk fan service. We have to work to find original content, and I'm not just talking about books. It's really great we have more players, more outlets and opportunities - awesome in fact, but it sucks that consumers increasingly believe we should be doing it for free.
Indies have told readers that our novels are worth somewhere between a nickel and a dime a piece. That's the new price floor. It's a fact, do the math. 10-20 books for 99 cents. Our $2.99 go-to pricing is based on the 70% return set by Amazon, not market forces. If Amazon had set the 70% return at $1.49, then that would be the go-to price. Conversely, if the cutoff was $5.99, that would be the hot price point Coker would be talking about. I'm afraid our discussion is at an impasse if you can't understand this. The market did not readjust based upon supply and demand or natural values. Once we get past pro-Indie bias, the truth is obvious.
We did this, not uncontrollable market forces. As I said, it's happened to other industries and the narrative lines up just the same, the book industry isn’t special. The data is really really clear.
I'm discussing the point because it's really important that we find a way for creatives to do what they do full-time, not after work, you know, if they’re not too tired. We have to stop this second-class mindset that perpetuates this sh*t. And promoting the belief that our books are worth pennies, because the market says so - is as bad for business as it ever was, not to mention writer expectations.
It's also important that we find a way to bypass the current pay to play bullsh*t visibility scheme. We are writers, artists - we create experiences, call it whatever you want. We need to start thinking out of the box and incorporate new distribution and repackaging strategies that improve the monetization process. We have to find an independent way to connect with our readers, so we don't have to play by the flea market rules.
I mean, Jesus…what happens if the flea market closes?
