Today’s topic: E-books, the Amazon Kindle, and the popularization of reading material
For a great related article that inspired this topic check out Nathan Bransford’s blog.
And, for a different take, be sure to go to our resident intellect Jay Solomon’s blog.
Here goes.
My first thought was that the advent of electronic media was nothing but good. It gives authors another medium in which to sell the work. It makes reading more accessible to more people. It is a cheaper way for publishers to publish more titles.
All good things.
Yeah. I thought so, too. Until I did a little research.
Paul Krugman seems to be quite the authority on the subject and he brings up a great comparison: mp3s and e-books.
The creation of mp3s has forced bands to use merchandise and concert tours as their main source of revenue. Krugman and Bransford speculate that at some point authors may turn to website ad revenue and appearances to make money. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want a bunch of ad banners every time I visit my favorite authors’ sites. (Now, if it will make me money to put them here, then…just kidding.)
Further, because of the ease of transmission of electronic media, prices are driven downward, thus narrowing profit margins for authors and publishers alike. Ugh.
However, there is a silver lining (I apologize, I forgot where I found this comparison).
If e-books/print books become more comparable to the price of magazines perhaps reading will increase.
Let me explain.
Consumers do not feel as much guilt buying a magazine at the price of $3 and flipping through it, then throwing it away and buying a new mag. However, a $17 book, they feel like they MUST finish before they allow themselves to purchase again. So, it might be possible that if book prices became cheaper due to downward market pressure people would feel more comfortable buying titles outside their “comfort zone” and buying more of them.
My $.02.
Status: Starting Magic Lost, Trouble Found today. Working on a series proposal for the new book. A different avenue. I’ll let you know how that pans out!
Chelle Cordero tomorrow!!
4 Comments
June 10, 2008 at 5:56 pm
While I appreciate the comparison between MP3s and e-books, I am a little skeptical, only because musicians have always made money only from concert tickets and merchandise. Record companies have always taken the lion’s share of the booty, except for choice royalties, that is. MP3s didn’t change that dynamic – they actually allowed greater access to more obscure bands thereby allowing them to sell concert tickets and merchandise. This is why Ani Difranco got so rich when she created her own label, produced her own stuff and kept 100% of the profits.
But since the issue is e-books, I would combine what I’ve just said from your first point and your point about magazines and conclude: exactly! Right now publishers take a chance on new authors but reap so much benefit from successful books. The ease of publishing an e-book by oneself, without a publishing house, will allow authors to keep most of the revenue they generate, even if they’re selling their books for the prices of magazines.
But that’s just my two cents…
June 10, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Thus putting downward pressure on the market, forcing prices lower, and narrowing profit margins for author’s as well…
Ok…and increasing the amount of god awful writing/books that we need to wade through to find a good one…
Same with mp3s, most those new bands that now are able to put out their own stuff are pretty awful and hurt my ears
June 10, 2008 at 11:42 pm
but this kind of cures the problem that we talked about in earlier posts. By making it easy for new authors to self publish their own work, they are able to build up their name/resume making it possible for their names to be recognized on book shelfs. I new author doesn’t have to be so new, building a fan base online before switching over to hardcopy sales
June 11, 2008 at 12:31 am
But then isn’t that breeding quantity of titles over quality?