There was a big dustup between Macmillan and Amazon over ebook pricing this weekend. Here is Macmillan CEO John Sargent’s take. And Amazon’s announcement that they were backing down. And Charlie Stross’ great outsider’s view.
Whoever won, ebook pricing is a hot, tough topic. I’ll guess this chess match isn’t over yet, so we’ll be watching this space.
But in the mean time, I must say, I like Macmillan’s stance on pricing: new releases between $12.99 and $14.99, and backlist ebooks as low as $5.99. To me, that $5.99 is the key number, and I think it might be very smart.
Price your new release ebooks high, along with hardcovers; and then drop below paperback when the book is no longer commands the cultural hype/attention.
This does a whole host of interesting things:
- it implicitly explains to people that what you pay for when you buy books is not the paper & print, or electrons, but the cultural value of the book itself
- it addresses the famous cannibalizing worry, so that your margins on ebook sales can be high enough, without pissing off your e-buyers
- it lets cheapskates like me (who already have a backlog of dozens of books) wait till prices get reasonable before buying
If I interpret Macmillan’s stance on Aamzon, the problem is that in the current pricing scheme, Amazon is setting prices:
a) so that Macmillan has no control over cashflows
b) so that Macmillan’s had no ability to convey messages about the value of books
(My knowledge of the ins and outs of book pricing are pretty sketchy, so apologies if I got that wrong).
But: as long as we see commitments to low backlist ebook prices, I think this is a win for readers, as well as writers, and publishers. Amazon, I’m not so sure.
2 Comments
Why is an ebook different than a physical book? Macmillan doesn’t tell Amazon how to price their physical books. The publishers are trying to assert more control in this new arena than they have in the old one.
Do they stop Walmart from selling bestsellers for $9.99? Does this lower the perceived value of bestsellers? Not in my opinion. I think they should worry about adding value to their products, not controlling the retailers.
hugh said:
> I must say, I like Macmillan’s stance on pricing:
> new releases between $12.99 and $14.99, and
> backlist ebooks as low as $5.99. To me, that
> $5.99 is the key number, and
> I think it might be very smart.
sucker. :+)
it’s easy to see macmillan’s e-book pricing philosophy,
right now, at amazon. if you check it out, you’ll find that
they charge more for their e-books than their paperbacks,
often substantially, such as $15 e-book vs. $8 paperback…
(try another bookseller if you like, the facts won’t change.)
it’s a pretty safe bet you’ll never see $5.99 from macmillan.
but hey, it _sounds_ really good, doesn’t it?
> Price your new release ebooks high, along with hardcovers;
> and then drop below paperback when the book is no longer
> commands the cultural hype/attention.
> This does a whole host of interesting things:
ok, let’s take a look…
> it implicitly explains to people that
> what you pay for when you buy books
> is not the paper & print, or electrons,
> but the cultural value of the book itself
why would “the cultural value of the book itself” be
a marker with such a high degree of variability in it?
on the contrary, the higher price assigned to a hardcover
seems to me to be saying “we’ll rip you off while the book
is still new, but hey, we’ll include a couple pieces of wood.”
you’re paying extra for the wood cover, not the book itself.
and, likewise, the file that constitutes an electronic-book is
unchanged from one minute to the next, one year to the next,
the words being the very same, so why should the “value”
change from $15 to $10? that doesn’t make any sense to me,
other than publishers _can_ get away with it, so they’ll do it.
> it addresses the famous cannibalizing worry,
> so that your margins on ebook sales can be high enough,
> without pissing off your e-buyers
are you _sure_ it’s not going to piss off your e-buyers?
music-buyers got pissed off when the one hit they wanted
was bundled into an album for which they had to pay more.
but at least they _got_ “more” — more songs for the money.
but if i’m getting the same file this year for $15 that others will
get next year for $10, you don’t think i’m gonna feel ripped off?
> it lets cheapskates like me (who already have
> a backlog of dozens of books) wait till prices
> get reasonable before buying
as opposed to getting “reasonable” prices from the get-go?
> If I interpret Macmillan’s stance on Aamzon,
> the problem is that in the current pricing scheme,
> Amazon is setting prices:
> a) so that Macmillan has no control over cashflows
i’m not sure what you’re saying here, hugh.
macmillan gets paid when books get sold…
> b) so that Macmillan’s had no ability to
> convey messages about the value of books
so?
they still received the full amount of money from amazon,
according to the suggested list-price that they themselves set.
-bowerbird