Editor’s Note: The following is reprinted, with permission, from Rich Adin’s An American Editor Blog. Rich is a frequent commenter in the TeleRead forums. Paul Biba
Publishers believe themselves threatened by ebooks, by the idea that ebooks are too easily shared, which will deprive publishers of revenue, and by the prospect of consumer expectations for very low ebook prices that will prevent publishers from recouping costs and making a profit. Many authors, too, are concerned, especially about ebook pricing and royalty share. Perhaps it is time to rethink the current publishing model and move toward a model for the 21st century. Thus, my modest proposal.
The current book model has three lives: hardcover, paperback, ebook. The weak link is the paperback because it is an unwitting benchmark and it should be excised. If we change the lives to hardcover and ebook, a publisher retains what it currently believes is its most lucrative (profit wise) format — the hardcover — and gains the ability to increase ebook profit and revenue (which will, in relatively short order, become the true profit center).I propose that the hardcover precede the ebook by 3 months. When I worked for publishers, my experience was that the window for hardcover sales rarely exceeded 3 months; whoever was going to buy the hardcover as opposed to the paperback did so within that time frame, usually within the first month. I suspect that this remains true today.
Doing away with the paperback version and encouraging the ebook version means several things. First, the publisher doesn’t have to price compete against itself. Consumers expect an ebook to cost less than a hardcover, which in most cases it does, but also expect it to cost less than the paperback version, which often it does not. But if there were no paperback version, there would be no benchmark other than the price of the hardcover. Bingo!!
Second, the publisher would reduce its costs. Without a paperback version, there would be no secondary printing costs, no transportation or warehousing fees, and, more importantly, no returns. It would be difficult for a retailer to return the hardcover copies when there is nothing to replace it with. Even a retailer who sells both the print and electronic versions would need to keep some print inventory. Is this a bingo, too?
Third, with only two forms available — hardcover and ebook — it is likely that a publisher would see an increase in sales of hardcovers – after all, there would be no sense waiting for a cheaper paperback version that won’t be forthcoming — and would be able to charge a higher price for the ebook version because there would be no alternative but the higher priced hardcover version. Is this a win for publishers? Maybe. I’d give it at least half a bingo. But . . .
. . . the price point for the ebook would still be contentious. Convincing consumers to pay a publisher’s “reasonable” price for the ebook has its own problems. It probably wouldn’t be as difficult if it weren’t for DRM (Digital Rights Management) that essentially locks a book into a single device and prohibits sharing. Here’s one solution: Instead of one level of ebook, offer consumers two levels, with one level being several dollars less expensive than the other. Burden the less expensive ebook with permanent DRM and the more expensive ebook with temporary DRM, that is, DRM that will automatically expire 2 years from the date of purchase. A better suggestion: Forget levels and simply sell ebooks with DRM that expires in 2 years, freeing the book for the consumer to do with as the consumer pleases.
What this model requires is the giving up of the idea of a frontlist and a backlist and instead making each book a profit center within 3 years. That will mean other changes in the publishing production cycle, not least of which is the lowering of author advance expectations. This proposal requires both a cultural shift and a paradigm shift. Are publishers and authors ready for a change? It will come eventually. Better to embrace it than to waste resources fighting a war that cannot be won.
Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. Now all we have to do is actually get those curmudgeonly old fat cat publishers to recognize that this “internet thing” isn’t just a passing fad, and adjust themselves accordingly!
Actually, there are four: hardback, paperback, audio, and ebook.
I believe in giving the customer what he wants how he wants it, and killing the paperback would accomplish absolutely nothing. Or worse.
If a hardback, audio, and ebook are all I have to choose from, I’ll go to the library.
If you assume that publishing only involves literary fiction and nonfiction, these ideas might be plausible, but publishing also includes genre fiction where the massmarket paperback and its lower price is a good fit.
If you assume that all readers have unlimited funds and will be happy to spent much more for their paper reading, this might be plausible.
If you assume that brick and mortar bookstores have unlimited shelf space for the larger hardcovers and they have unlimited bank accounts so they can invest much more money in their inventory, this might be plausible.
Since none of these assumptions are plausible, I’m not impressed with this new model.
Well, there is the other problem that it’s impractical to have a timed DRM system. Ebook files are static things, data files. They depend on the computer and its reading program to actually do anything. Since you own the reader, there are infinite ways to spoof the static file into working. The simplest is to change the date on your computer. Not much of an idea, I’m afraid.
Regards,
Jack Tingle
This model only works for a subset of the industry. Those of us in nonfiction publishing rarely if ever see a hardcover edition for an given title. It also assumes that the reader is willing to wait for the ebook, which at least in my experience is not the case.
@Marilynn Byerly
@Chris Webb
Quite right.
To add another. It assumes that a reader will be willing to pay hardback and trade paperback prices for an ebook. As we have seen, the big publishers are unwilling to sell ebooks for less than that.
So, take out consumers unwilling to pay for a hardback and the ones unwilling to pay high prices for ebooks and who do you have left?
@Marilynn Byerly
Well, for the most part, B&Ms don’t invest in inventory at all. They sell on consignment from the publisher and send back what they don’t sell. They don’t buy their inventory directly, as every other retail outfit does.
Ok…
WHY hold off on the eBook for 3 months? Why? Why? Why?
Just sell the eBook and the HardCover at the same price. After 3 months reduce the ebook cost, then at 1 year reduce it again.
I have no problem loosing access to a paperback, since I don’t buy p-books any more that doesn’t matter to me.
BOb
I agree with PilotBob that an eBook now and an eBook in three months are different products which could be priced at different points.
I agree with Rich that the expectation of cheap eBook pricing and the availability of mass market paperback are not always in synch.
I doubt that the 2-year DRM limitation, even if practical, would satisfy either DRM lovers or DRM haters. Which might mean it’s a good compromise, or which might mean it’s a no-starter (or both).
As my eyes get older, doing away with small-print paperbacks bothers me less and less but I remember my grad-school days when the difference between a 95 cent paperback and a $1.25 paperback could be telling and where small print meant I was getting more words for my buck.
Rob Preece
Publisher
OK, you don’t like my suggestion. That’s fine. But what alternative are you (that’s the universal you, not anyone in particular) proposing that will provide profitability for publishers? If you believe that publishers provide no value to a book, then what the consumer wants can wholly prevail. But if you believe that publishers do provide value, then there must be a method for publishers to be profitable.
Rather than being naysayers, make your own suggestion that balances the needs/wants of the consumer with the needs of the publishers. I certainly am open to your suggestions, as I suspect publishers are.
Rich-
I love paperbacks and only purchase hardcovers of books I really, really love. My husband bought me a kindle last year and I sold it because I prefer to read books. I missed the physicality and connection to the written word, not being able to flip back and forth. Not to mention that I mostly found it annoying. I think that hardcovers should be issued when a book reaches a certain amount of copies sold or critical acclaim, or a milestone of some kind- more of a collector’s edition than the starting format that it is today. Because, frankly, when taking a chance on a new book, $25 is a steep price for the uncertainty.
Why not publish all books as paperbacks and reserve hardback editions for those circumstances and for established authors in limited releases?
I’m not interested in providing ideas and plans for publishers’ profitability. You proposed an idea. Some people didn’t like it. Now you want to put the onus on someone else to come up with ideas?
If you look around the web a bit, you’ll see all sorts of people screaming their ideas at publishers, but publishers don’t seem to be listening. There is a commonality in the complaints, even if they don’t say so explicitly: Start thinking of the readers as the customer, and stop thinking of the distributors and bookstores as the customer.
@Carol Kufeldt
Quite frankly, I believe this is where it’s headed–where I HOPE it’s headed.
To add: If you read the comments more closely, there are at least three different suggestions listed here that are chronic complaints across dozens of reader/tech/publishing-interested blogs.
If the paperback were “killed off”, my local bookstore aisles would be pretty empty. Hardcovers occupy several shelves at best throughout the store; and some of the remainder tables. The vast bulk of books are paperback — mass and trade. Dropping paperbacks would effectively force local browsers to buy doubly more expense hardcovers — which is a recipe for no sale at all.
Form factor is important: paperbacks take up less space to store, are easier to hold to read and more portable. Plus, they offer the appeal of having the “physical thing”. For some readers, books are “just about the words”; for book lovers the books themselves have emotional value. Most people do not want to buy a library of Stephen King novels solely in hardcover when collecting his works in paper is so much more economical.
Paperbacks also fit the needs of the “disposable society”: with a limited investment, consumers are much more likely to “throw out”, give away or otherwise dispose of these “read once” books. Consumers know if there’s ever a burning desire to read that Sue Grafton mystery again, they can buy another copy or go to the library.
E-books are a complementary distribution method — not just for hardcover but paperback as well. Releasing e-books between hardcover and paperback release dates might make more sense. Hardcovers remain premium priced and ideal as gifts. Paperback remain available in trade and mass editions, depending on the distriubtion model and lifestage of the publication. And ebook can satisfy the “personal copy” where just the words matter and “urgency” where timeliness matters, with the ebook edition creating further buzz encouraging others to buy the physical thing.
But the blogger would have us kill off paperbacks instead. E-books actually have the ability to strengthen the paperback and publishing model, not weaken it.
On the face of it this post sounds like it’s trying to be “forward-thinking” but it isn’t. In actuality this proposal is the same kind of crap music publishers tried to pull when music went digital… trying to limit the customer’s options in hopes of controlling them and “making them” buy what you want to sell them. (Coming to mind right off the top of my head is record labels who won’t let Amazon sell individual songs in Mp3, but insist on selling the entire album. Epic fail, people will pirate it if you don’t separate the songs out for them. It’s just too easy to do.)
In a global digital economy the reader has unlimited entertainment options and he/she will exercise the right to get what he/she wants. For me, and many other readers, my preference is paperback. Hardbacks are too bulky and cumbersome for relaxing reading, and I’m still not converted to e-books and probably won’t ever be 100% converted. There will always be books I want in print… and that usually means paperback.
In fact, my preference is trade paperback because it’s nicer than mass market but less expensive than hardback. Should publishers take the advice to cut out paperbacks, there will still be plenty of other people producing paperbacks and readers who want that will just buy books that come the way they want them. (Not every publisher is going to go along with any plan. And if some stop producing paperbacks, it creates more opportunity for higher paperback sales for publishers who do keep putting them out.) The only people who lose are the people who refuse to cater to certain customers.
There is a such thing as picking your customer and determining that you won’t cater to a certain customer, but you have to know going in you’re going to lose people, not expect to convert them to what you want them to buy. It just doesn’t work that way. We are beyond curated content now, and we are beyond micro-managing of formats to try to control the buyer.
As for coming up with new ideas. I personally don’t care if the big publishers live or die. That’s up to them to figure out. It’s their business model. I only have to worry about MY business model.
Moriah Jovan summed it up best:
“Start thinking of the readers as the customer, and stop thinking of the distributors and bookstores as the customer.”
This is their biggest error and it will sink them. Because they REFUSE to step outside that box.
As a technologist, I must disagree with Jack Tingle’s assertion that “timed” DRM wouldn’t work. It’s pretty trivial to defeat simple time spoofing, although, as with any lock, you can’t repel the most determined and resourceful attackers. I think it’s reasonable, for purposes of discussion, to assume that if such a model provides value to both producers and consumers, then it could be implemented. On the other hand, it’s probably easier to just implement time-variable pricing instead.
From the economic point of view, I really don’t see how taking away the paperback can improve the efficiency of the market. Also, part of the value of an ebook, from the publisher’s point of view, is to prevent pirates from having a monopoly on the digital version of a book. Holding back the ebook just gives pirates a monopoly market window.
I will never support any DRM system if I can avoid it. Period.
When I buy holiday gifts, I buy what’s available — this means anything from trade to mm to hc. When I like an author and want to collect her works, I hunt for hardcover 1st editions.
Anything else and the format depends on three things: longevity, cover art/style, and price. I’ll choose trade over mm for books I’m pretty sure I’ll like in a series. If I’m wary, it’ll be a mm.
If I have to read something before I forget, I want an ebook.
Publishers are going to have to deal with the fact that consumers can read a LOT of prose, poetry and nonfiction, for free, 24/7/365. If I had to, I could spend the rest of my life avoiding new bookstores. I wouldn’t like it, but it would be possible to do and still read a lot of good fiction and good journalism.
That feeling is only going to increase in popularity over time. Publishers need to adapt or die.
But people like paperbacks. Like me. This is a dumb idea, IMHO.