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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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 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...
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.
(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.)
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.
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.
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.