On 10/11/10 08:17, Neil Greenwood wrote: > On 9 November 2010 19:53, richard<rjs1...@u.genie.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 09/11/10 15:40, Neil Greenwood wrote: >> >>> On 9 November 2010 13:13, pmgazz<pmg...@gmx.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Most of all, I'd love to know how it is that digital book production and >>>> distribution - which has to be much cheaper than print surely - wants £16 >>>> per copyrighted book when I can get a print copy physically mailed to me >>>> for >>>> less than 25% of that price? Well, I mean, if you don't want people to >>>> steal >>>> stuff . . . >>>> >>>> Paula >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Most of the costs are not down to distribution and printing (think >>> editing, marketing, copy-editing, artwork, etc., etc.). Also, there >>> are economies of scale that bring the price of physical books down. So >>> the actual differential is much smaller than you'd expect. There can >>> also be differences in the contract with the author that affect the >>> price of the digital copy. >>> >>> I agree that the example you quoted is extreme though. The price >>> *should* be about the same. >>> >>> >>> Cofion/Regards, >>> Neil. >>> >>> >>> >> All the editing etc has to be done for the print copy anyway, and an e >> book has none of the costs of physical book. Such as distribution, >> handling, printing, staffing the shop, pulping the ones that don't sell! >> E books should be considerably cheaper, only trouble is the book world >> is scared stiff of them. >> >> > That's not how it works though. The publisher will amortise the costs > of editing, copy-editing, marketing, artwork, printing, warehousing, > distributing, author advance, etc. across the expected print run > (including physical and digital editions). Then of course, they add a > healthy profit on top. A significant chunk of the profit they attempt > to make on one title goes towards acquiring future titles (kind of > like R&D expenses in software development). > > There would be no point in a publisher applying the costs of the > physical book just to the physical book and then trying to sell the > electronic version for the unique costs it attracts (which still > include some production costs, distribution, marketing, etc. Bandwidth > is not free), since they would shoot themselves in the foot, sell > maybe 50 physical books at $10 and thousands of electronic ones at > $0.10 (random figures, and very poor sales), and make a massive loss > on the title. > > The major problem *is* that a lot of publishers are scared, but a > minority have actually learned something from the debacle that the > music industry went through (and is still suffering). O'Reilly and > Apress, among others, publish electronic versions of technical books. > Some of them even come without DRM. In the fiction world, Baen, Tor > and Subterranean Press - OK, I'm a sci-fi geek :-) - are doing good > things for readers and authors alike. > > A lot of this is just my opinion after reading blog posts from various > authors (Cory Doctorow, John Scalzi, Neil Gaiman, Wil Wheaton, maybe > others) who have gone through the process. And it has a very > US-centric bias because of that. I'm not aware of any UK publishers' > actions, good or bad, when it comes to electronic books. > > > Cofion/Regards, > Neil. > > I know nothing about publishing but if you look at the banks, an online account is usualy a better deal because the costs are lower. There will always be sales for paper books, because sometimes it is nicer to hold a nicely made book in your hands, but when there are enough kindles etc out there e books will be a market on their own, selling at a discount. That is just my prediction, and what do I know? The other aspect that occured to me was that the distribution of books is in fewer hands every year, with a small number of shops choosing the titles that they think will make them the most money. If you are an e book only seller you have a usp right there.
-- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
