Mike Shatzkin says he was mistaken to think that the purpose of the ebook withholding was, as the publishers said, to prevent the cannibalization of print books. He says that the gradual accession to this policy by other publishers, when coupled with the fact that agents must be supporting this move, indicates that there is something else at play.
So this is really about the agents and publishers trying to take control of ebook pricing, and value perception, back from Amazon. Some further evidence of that comes from the reaction of Len Riggio, Chairman of Amazon competitor Barnes & Noble (vendors of Kindle competitor Nook) who is reported in the Journal piece to be quite comfortable with this tactic, which the Journal characterizes as “in keeping with the long-held practice of issuing paperback editions after the initial hardcover.”
If the other biggest bookseller, which also has a dedicated ereader and an aggressive attitude toward consumer pricing, seems okay with this idea, it strengthens my belief that it is about controlling Amazon, not about controlling ebook pricing. The desirability of restraining Amazon is certainly something the big publishers and Barnes & Noble can agree on.
Mike has a lot more to say and I suggest you go over to his Idea Logical blog to read it.
I agree that this seems to be an anti-Amazon pricing move. They believe Amazon is diluting the value of their work by selling it for $9.99–even if Amazon pays them based on the cover price. I’m not sure how this relates to their apparent happiness to let Amazon and others (wal-mart) sell hardbacks for $9.99–unless they believe, as I do, that eBooks have an inherently higher value than do space-wasting, resource-absorbing paper books.
(I just spent two days hauling around boxes of books. And this is after I thinned my collection. No more paper is my new motto).
Rob Preece
Publisher, http://www.BooksForABuck.com
I really don’t care what the reasons are behind a stupid decision, it remains a stupid decision. Delayed titles, huh? Well, I’m a small drop in a big bucket, but I’m looking forward to reading UNDER THE DOME in 2012.
Screw ’em !
I’m not convinced. Mainly because we all know that publishers, like all ‘old media’ companies, are desperately trying to hold the line on (high) prices for their goods, even as new digital paradigms undermine the old rationale for those prices (materials cost, scarcity, transportation costs, returns, etc.)
The notion of selling the book in waves goes back to the 19th century at least, when the serial edition would be first out of the gate, followed by a hardcover. When cheap paperbacks came out on the heels of WW2, again it was (higher-priced) hardcover first, then cheap paperback after a year, or six months, or some other time period.
This is a model followed by other media industries as well.
Simply put, the publishers’ reasoning amounts to: ‘If we can’t sell the ebook edition for just as much as the hardcover, it’s suicide to release them both at the same time.’
I expect this will be the way things will be going forward, unless the other Big 3 see substantially higher sales by releasing ebooks simultaneously with hardcovers.
Perhaps publishers should look to the example of game publishers and start selling other things from inside ebooks to supplement their revenue. (Game publishers are selling virtual goods from inside their games.) There needs to be an infrastructure that supports that, but I’m sure that’s coming, if not already here.