I was going to post this as a comment on Facebook, but it kind of got out of hand... DISCLAIMER: I am not an industry insider. These are just my opinions based on my understanding of the facts, such as they are. *sigh*
I'm so torn about the whole changing of ebook policies that the publishers are coming out with. I understand they need to update their policies, since those in place were created when no one knew what the hell an ebook was. As the ebook industry grows, everyone needs to adapt.
As a bookseller, I want publishers to stay in business and put out product for me to sell. If they start bleeding money because of the cheapness of ebooks, then that'll affect everyone from the CEO to the author to the everyday reader. Publishers saw what happened to the music industry. Digital kicked big record companies in the balls.
As a reader, however, cheap is always a nice thing. Truth is that I'm not paying more than twelve bucks for an ebook. If I'm paying more, I'm buying the print version. I'm also intrigued by the idea that publishing might go the same route that music and film has in recent years, in that being indie doesn't mean being a failure. Because of the ease of digital distribution, indie authors and publishers will have an easier time of releasing their own content, thus making the Big Six unnecessary.
As an author, I have to say it's all about the royalties, which they're getting screwed out of no matter how you look at it. With ebooks, there's very little production involved from the publisher's point of view and the author still gets saddled with a small percentage of royalties, even though they did the hardest part of all!! The thought of getting paid that puny royalty on a 5.99 ebook is very underwhelming, especially considering the price of print books in comparison.
On the library front, I understand the budget concerns of libraries. I have budget concerns when it comes to filling up my gas tank. But I do understand the way publishers are treating ebook libraries. If they didn't put restrictions on how their books are lent out, then no one would ever pay for an ebook again. Why bother buying it from a retailer if the library is stocked full of all the ebooks you could ever want? It seems like the same reasoning behind the 28 day Netflix thing. I wonder if publishers will ever consider this idea, where libraries can get their books, but only once they're in paperback, thus ensuring ebooks are actually being bought, not just borrowed. Sounds like an awful idea, though.
It seems to me the biggest part of the issue is the whole instant--and more importantly, FREE--gratification the internet has instilled in our brains. There's this idea that just because it's digital, it should be free, which is complete nonsense.
Here are the articles that spurred these thoughts:
Librarian Unhappiness Over New Harper e-Book Lending Policy Grows
Amazon's E-Book Price Reversal: A Mixed Blessing
I'm so torn about the whole changing of ebook policies that the publishers are coming out with. I understand they need to update their policies, since those in place were created when no one knew what the hell an ebook was. As the ebook industry grows, everyone needs to adapt.
As a bookseller, I want publishers to stay in business and put out product for me to sell. If they start bleeding money because of the cheapness of ebooks, then that'll affect everyone from the CEO to the author to the everyday reader. Publishers saw what happened to the music industry. Digital kicked big record companies in the balls.
As a reader, however, cheap is always a nice thing. Truth is that I'm not paying more than twelve bucks for an ebook. If I'm paying more, I'm buying the print version. I'm also intrigued by the idea that publishing might go the same route that music and film has in recent years, in that being indie doesn't mean being a failure. Because of the ease of digital distribution, indie authors and publishers will have an easier time of releasing their own content, thus making the Big Six unnecessary.
As an author, I have to say it's all about the royalties, which they're getting screwed out of no matter how you look at it. With ebooks, there's very little production involved from the publisher's point of view and the author still gets saddled with a small percentage of royalties, even though they did the hardest part of all!! The thought of getting paid that puny royalty on a 5.99 ebook is very underwhelming, especially considering the price of print books in comparison.
On the library front, I understand the budget concerns of libraries. I have budget concerns when it comes to filling up my gas tank. But I do understand the way publishers are treating ebook libraries. If they didn't put restrictions on how their books are lent out, then no one would ever pay for an ebook again. Why bother buying it from a retailer if the library is stocked full of all the ebooks you could ever want? It seems like the same reasoning behind the 28 day Netflix thing. I wonder if publishers will ever consider this idea, where libraries can get their books, but only once they're in paperback, thus ensuring ebooks are actually being bought, not just borrowed. Sounds like an awful idea, though.
It seems to me the biggest part of the issue is the whole instant--and more importantly, FREE--gratification the internet has instilled in our brains. There's this idea that just because it's digital, it should be free, which is complete nonsense.
Here are the articles that spurred these thoughts:
Librarian Unhappiness Over New Harper e-Book Lending Policy Grows
Amazon's E-Book Price Reversal: A Mixed Blessing
No comments:
Post a Comment