?

Log in

No account? Create an account
c is for cat

Rules for Anchorites

Letters from Proxima Thule

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
One Art, Please. I Have 99 cents.
no
catvalente
So haikujaguar  posted Novelr's post about 99 cent ebooks. She's in favor. I'm not, but that's going to get obvious. I'll just continue the dialogue here because it's too much to go into on Twitter.

Novelr gathers links about the inevitability of 99-cent e-books. I think they're right on this one. Songs are 99 cents. Why are novels $15? (Please don't tell me that songs don't take as long as novels to write. Some novels are written in a week; some songs take years. It's all art.)

Whoa. Let's back that truck up.

Here's the thing--the argument here is not that novels are somehow higher art than music--no one makes that argument. And a 3 minute song with pro mastering and recording probably takes a lot longer than people think, likely as long as it takes fast writers to create a novel. Not the point--the hours that go into something are not printed on the label.

The point is that the unit value of "song" is not the same as the unit value of "novel." The comparison is more song ==> short story or song ==> chapter, and album ==> novel.

Go on iTunes. Most albums? Are still about $10-$15.

A song is a part of a whole. A novel is a whole. They do not equate. Sure, there are singles, but most people still put out albums, not 14 singles all in a row. It takes three minutes on average to listen to a song. It takes hours, and often days or weeks, to read and enjoy a novel. The entertainment output is enormous. It takes longer to read a novel than to play some video games--and if you want to talk about price gouging, let's break out my XBox, shall we? Now, of course, one listens to songs more than once, and so you might end up with several hours worth of pleasure out of a single song. Many people also read novels more than once, and you can never tell when you click the buy button if this book/song will be one you love forever and read/listen to over and over, or one you get bored with and forget about after a week.

Ultimately, I'm a little tired of people telling me my work isn't worth very much. That we should accept Apple--APPLE--price points without hesitation or consideration, that all units are the same units, all art is the same art. Obviously, sculpture, paintings, murals, and jewelry should also all cost 99 cents each. Actors should only get paid 99 cents per performance. Dancers should only get 99 cents per dance. Architects should get 99 cents per building. Concerts should also charge 99 cents admission. It's all art--the units are all interchangeable, and should all be tied to iTunes pricing.

This is madness, to me.

Because of the 99 cents model on iTunes (and piracy), most musicians who are not the Black Eyed Peas or some such have moved to a donations model to support themselves and continue to make albums. Writers do this too--we all have tip jars, but far fewer people throw in because writing in general gets a bit shat upon as an art form. (And the fact that it takes longer to consume means many people just download a file and never look at it again. Don't think your piracy figures equate to actual readers.) Anyone can do it, obviously. They're all greedy hacks. That's why Amazon users figure ebooks should be free. You're not doing anything special, how dare you ask for money for it? That's like begging.

Do I think ebooks are priced too high? Probably. I think the price should be more like a mass market paperback--which is not 99 cents, you'll notice.

You pay 5.99 for a mocha, dude. Why would you not pay it for a book?

Moreover, why would anyone insist that everyone charge the same for their books, that the "market" settle out to conform to Apple's idea of pricing circa 2001? What that's actually saying is: no one should make more than a little bit of money from writing. It's a hobby, not a job anyone needs to be compensated for. You need that skilled barista to make your fancy mocha, but a writer? Unless the idea is that publishers would still pay advances as they do now, but only charge 99 cents for the ebooks. Which does not compute. Or that publishers should vanish altogether, which point we have already discussed ad nauseam. Of course even at 99 cents, some people will be successful, but that number will be even smaller than it is now.

No one benefits from a field that is bled dry of talent and especially risk-taking talent so that downloads can be brought down to 99 cents. I am not cool with this, and you shouldn't be either. I will happily overpay for every ebook if it means writers get to eat and feed their families. I overpay for shit all the time without making righteous judgments about what it "should" cost in some impossibly ideal world where everyone has insurance and no one is hungry and everything in the entire universe costs 99 cents.


(Deleted comment)
What you said. I've written the $1.29 ebook (ok, not 99c, but close) and it was never over 5000 words.

I like being able to buy single songs or single short stories for a buck or two or three. Saves me buying a whole album or a whole anthology just to get what I really want. (Of course, in my spending $15 to get Robert Bloch, I also got introduced to Karl Edward Wagner's work)

But a whole novel for 99c? Not outside of a yard sale.
And I don't see making it up in volume, or maybe that's just me.
37c off each book. I average 400 copies sold. That means I make $148/book. Fine pay for a short, suckworthy for a novel.

Yes. Yes. I have been trying for the longest time to figure out how to say this that wouldn't come off as "I'm poor! Give me more money!", so, yes.

I don't think the people talking about Amanda Hocking and how you can sell 99-cent ebooks and make it up in volume have the right end of the stick, because the limit for how much most people are going to read is... rather low. There's room in my budget to buy two or three books a month at $10 each, and I'll get the rest from the library or public domain. At 99 cents, I might buy five or six books a month, but I certainly wouldn't buy twenty or thirty -- I'd run out of time to read them. And most people read less than I do.

If you pay for writing as a commodity, you will get commodity writing. I'm not willing to accept that.

(Deleted comment)
The right price is (I would guess) the one that keeps things sustainable: keeps artists fed enough to keep writing

The current system already fails in this first regard. A great plurality of authors, especially in the US where health insurance or healthcare are not a right of residency, subsidize their writing with other jobs—especially teaching—or other household income.

(Deleted comment)
I have to say you have totally misunderstood the economics of publishing and epublishing both here, Cat.

The value—or even price of your work—is not the price paid by an individual purchaser, but the price you are paid by a publisher, or the royalties received in total. Most of the emotional response follows from this error, so we'll just put that aside.

Can people make as much money from 99c (or, charitable 2.99 ebooks) than they can from "traditional" publishing? Of course. Even leaving aside outliers like Konrath and Hocking, it's easy enough for me to name a dozen or more authors—some very minor midlisters with a bit of an online platform, some utter unknowns—who are making living wages from ebooks these days. These include folks such as Lee Goldberg, who was until this year a great opponent of self-publishing, ebooks, fanfic, and the usual raft of "non-traditional" stuff.

Publishers don't want very inexpensive ebooks because they would have to change the way they do business. Many people make the error of confusing the momentary interests of the Big Six with the interests of publishing in general. During the paperback revolution, there were dozens upon dozens of publishers in New York—decades of conglomeratization destroyed most of them. Now indeed, overhead and the like are very high in New York, so they are loathe to cannibalize their paper sales for ebook sales, but that's not a problem with ebooks, that's a problem with the Big Six. The same forces that once made conglomeratization a rational move—why have twenty publishers doing the same thing at the same time in near identical offices for the exact same audience when you can have two?—now makes conglom publishing increasing irrational. Why have an office in Manhattan when you really only need a cubicle in Jersey City? Why spend $3000 on cover art when $10 will do as well—and plenty of commercial publishers do have $10 covers. Here's one I did.

The 99cent ebook pays a 35c royalty. The 7.99 paperback pays anywhere from 31c to 56c royalty, depending on the contract. (Yes, there are mass market paperback publishers out there offering 4% royalties to authors, and they're suffering from problems on the margin even then.) Is it easier to release books more quickly via ebook than print? Yes. Is it possible to sell more books via ebook than print? Yes, especially these days when in the last three months about 400 bookstores either closed or announced their closure. So for authors in the mass market sector, the ebook actually does make economic sense at those prices. The people who want 99cent ebooks aren't deranged, or callous, or evil—they're just buying a book with no physical nature to it. No surprise that the ebook finally found it's "true" price—the price of a used book at a secondhand shop, where the physical shape of the book is often the last concern.

Edited at 2011-03-20 06:20 pm (UTC)

I'm not sure how any of this means the price of novels should be tied to the price of songs. Nor is it quite fair to mix case studies of authors with no publishers vs. authors with publishers. My quibble is not that ebooks shouldn't be cheaper, but that there is no reason on earth that 99 cents should be the holy price point.

(Deleted comment)
A venti mocha at Starbucks is about 5.00, add in an extra shot, flavor, or special milk and you can easily get over $6.

(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
I look at it on a time to consume basis. Yes, a song is $0.99 on i-tunes. It takes 3-5 minutes to consume. I can read a short story in 5-1o minutes, ergo a SHORT story I can see $0.99 as a fair value, if we are biased towards the worth of music.

Now, a novel typically takes between 4 and 48 hours of reading time to complete. That is 240 to 2880 minutes, or at $0.99 / 5 minutes, $47.52 to $570.24. If you look at it in this sense, novels and writing are UNDERVALUED.

The argument that a song is worth more because you can listen to it over and over is a red herring, as there are many novels I read over and over again to enjoy the richness of the story, characters, or prose.

(Deleted comment)
I don't know why e-books get compared to music so often. Especially if you're going with the Apple thing, their movies would be a much more accurate comparison, and those all cost around $10. I also think a similar cheap "rental" option would be a good idea for e-books. Most people will only read the books once anyway, this will give publishers greater profit than the library options which they're so keen on restricting, and I think a lot of people would be more willing to pay say $4.99 for a limited-time (say, 2-week) rental of a book they haven't read than $9.99 or $12.99. But, since there isn't anything comparable in the world of print books, no one seems to be exploring this idea. I'd also love a "Netboox" type thing (which would totally need a new name, because that one's awful), where you pay a monthly rate and can read one e-book at a time, and some plans would only give you 3 books a month while more expensive plans would give you unlimited numbers.

Seriously, books need to be seen more as a parallel to movies than to music. Also, the music industry kind of collapsed under the influence of the Internet - why on Earth would publishing want to emulate them in any way?

I'd love some sort of lending library for eBooks. Overdrive does this for libraries, but there's only a few books, for the most part, and you can only read on your computer or an ePub-compatible reader, so it's not ideal.

I love the library to bits, but if there were a subscription service where I could pay $5/mo for a bunch of eBooks, well...HOORAY. I have a nasty tendency to not purchase books that I don't KNOW I'm going to re-read, and I'd probably read much more if I had an eBook lending service to draw on.

Too bad figuring out how to do the royalties/etc. for something like that is really, really prohibitive...

The 99 cent/Apple benchmark is humorous to me because everyone FREAKED OUT about Amazon attempting to set $9.99 pricepoints. How is Apple different again? Oh yeah, they make trendy devices and won't let you play their items on other devices. WAIT...

(Deleted comment)
Generalizing yes--but there are vast forums on Amazon where authors are trashed for "pricing" their books too high, and concerted campaigns to give one star reviews to any ebook priced over 9.99. I'm an amazon user too, but the Kindle vocal userbase can be really unpleasant.

Going back to the thematic principle of albums/cds and the price of a song vs the price of an average album. I could see a comprimise..a return to Dickens, That is..releasing a book chapter by chapter.

Now I admit I would hate it on a personal level, but I am a glutton reader. But I know most people do take time to read a good chapter. This way the marketing end of an ebook (author/publisher/etc) would still be making the amount they desire,while people would not have to make a significant contribution. And perhaps distribution could work in an either or fashion. One could buy a 10 chapter book chapter by chapter at 99 cents a chapter, or wait and buy the entire book for..oh..say nine dollars. For that matter what they might end up doing in a loved story is buying the ebook chapter by chapter and then buying..well..a book.

Well, I'm presently experimenting with this as we speak. We'll see how it goes.

(that is, eBook will be available a la carte for 99c/chapter, or you can purchase a subscription at a substantial discount, or you can purchase a "bundle package" subscription with neat goodies for more cash...OR you can wait until the serial run is completed, and then buy the finished book for a price somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.)

hear, hear. All that you said, and more besides.

I've got so MUCH more besides that it might turn into a blog post all of its own rather than clutter up your comments here. But I just wanted to say, you nailed it.

I regularly read media commentators condemning the cost of Premier League football games (typically £30-40). My response is you can go watch a park team free, a lower league side for £10 etc. Similarly a West End play can cost £30-40 it the village amateurs £5. There is room for both, and nobody would argue that seeing David Tenant in Hamlet should cost as little as me in that role in a draughty village hall.

Why do some people have so much trouble equating things they're happy to pay for with their equivalents that they're reluctant to pay for?

BTW I recently paid $60 for a collection of stories all of which I already read, and all of which are free online. I wanted that book. And hopeful that the publishers will achieve enough sales to convince them to put his next book out.

Which book? That's a powerful testimonial there, and it sounds like I might have just found a new author to try.

My data set is small, but so far, I am making *more* money with my eBook priced at .99 than when it was priced at $3.99. In addition to the money, I love the idea that a wider variety of people are purchasing the book, and that more people have the chance of remembering my name when my next traditionally published book comes out.

It was emotionally difficult to set the price to .99, but the rewards -- in terms of my career and my emotional satisfaction -- quickly obliterated my doubts.

That said, I fully respect the authors who don't want to go this route. It's working for me, a person with no following, and that's all I can really comment on.