Getting a Kindle this week

[golfgal]

It is a plus, but not the main thing for us. I love the free books feature mainly because it will free me to try books that I'm really not sure I'll be crazy about. Like a lot of older books. We're not really library people so getting ebooks from our library is not top of our list. When we go to book stores and the library(if we hit the library) we always find ourselves looking for the same authors and genres. So I think the free ebook sites will really free us that way. Its just fun to know there really is so much out there in the public domain though.

This has been my experience, in fact, I have only read 2 books that I would have normally bought in the store since I started reading ebooks. There have been a couple books that 2 pages into them I deleted but most have been at least good enough to finish and a couple have turned me on to different authors that I probably would have never picked up before.

Perhaps, but I cannot believe that anyone actually has forgotten that publishers are in business to make profit. Using their offerings in a manner inconsistent with their business plan must evoke a comprehensive response. Since the value being derived is so much higher (due to this new value being derived from their offerings), one approach would simply to average that new, additional value into the price. Do people really want libraries paying so much more? Probably not, so another alternative is to place restriction on the use of the offering, so its value stays more in line with its current pricing.

Yes, publishers are in the business to make money, but a book sold to a library cost about 4 times what the general public pays (yes, I know there is a reinforced binding, blah, blah, blah). How is a library lending an e-book any different then a library lending a paper book? Do the publishers put restrictions on how many books you can check out of the library each year? Sounds like any publishers that put restrictions on library lendings are only going to cause libraries NOT to buy their books.

Our library system has about 35,000 ebooks. Are the publishers REALLY going to try to dry up this market?

 

[bicker]

Yes, publishers are in the business to make money, but a book sold to a library cost about 4 times what the general public pays

Do you want to make it 6 times as much, instead?

(yes, I know there is a reinforced binding, blah, blah, blah). How is a library lending an e-book any different then a library lending a paper book?

Electronic copies require less maintenance to libraries, and effectively could last forever, while physical books in heavy circulation get damaged, and perhaps may eventually need to be replaced, to keep a serviceable copy in circulation. Beyond that, the ability to control the terms and condition of use of electronic copies represent an opportunity for publishers to rectify past inequity imposed on them by the marketplace and government, due to how everything had to be handled the same way.

Do the publishers put restrictions on how many books you can check out of the library each year?

Again, do you want to make libraries have to pay 6 times as much? The restrictions represent a trade-off against a higher price, as limitations always do in situations like this.

Sounds like any publishers that put restrictions on library lendings are only going to cause libraries NOT to buy their books.

I think it might be useful to determine just how much more profit a publisher makes from selling books to libraries versus not selling books to libraries, thereby prompting more of the folks who "really" want to read a book to buy it. There is no question that for some books there will be a business case to be made for selling library copies, but for others, perhaps what you're realizing is that there isn't - that the publisher would be better off relying on direct sales only, rather than essentially being forced by a communalistic principle to provide a cut-rate means of obtaining what they sell. There is no right answer to this that will apply to every book. Electronic books finally open up the door to righting the wrongs of the past, with regard to publishers doing what's best for them, perhaps even on a book-by-book basis.

Our library system has about 35,000 ebooks. Are the publishers REALLY going to try to dry up this market?

Doubtful, but your question presumes that readers are going to be permanently willing to draw their reading material solely from whatever pool of books are available from libraries - that they will put aside the matter of what they want to read and instead just read what's there in the library. That is not the way human beings work.

No extreme is going to be correct here. Already we've seen how valuable "exclusives" can be, in the realm of IP, such as "iTunes exclusives" (a major annoyance for us Zune folks, but a fair and profitable marketing approach despite the fact that it annoys us). This is just part of this overall trend in IP in our society.

 

[MrsJackSparrow4Life]

Publishers seem to really hate ebooks so it wouldn't surprise me at all if they tried to dry up the market.

They started with agency pricing and charging more for ebooks than they do physical books, now they are moving on to library ebook restrictions.

I could understand charging a yearly licensing fee, since they are correct when they say physical books wear out over time and new ones need to be purchased occasionally. But 26 times . I know for a fact there are books at our library that last longer than that, heck I think there is a book that I have checked out more than 26 times just myself and it is still going strong (and I know it is the same book because of some markings)

Publishing companies are doing the exact same things the music industry tried when digutal music files became popular. It didn't work in the long run for the music industry so I doubt it will work for the publishing companies either but in the mean time we have to deal with their temper tantrum.

 

[golfgal]

Publishers seem to really hate ebooks so it wouldn't surprise me at all if they tried to dry up the market.

They started with agency pricing and charging more for ebooks than they do physical books, now they are moving on to library ebook restrictions.

I could understand charging a yearly licensing fee, since they are correct when they say physical books wear out over time and new ones need to be purchased occasionally. But 26 times . I know for a fact there are books at our library that last longer than that, heck I think there is a book that I have checked out more than 26 times just myself and it is still going strong (and I know it is the same book because of some markings)

Publishing companies are doing the exact same things the music industry tried when digutal music files became popular. It didn't work in the long run for the music industry so I doubt it will work for the publishing companies either but in the mean time we have to deal with their temper tantrum.

I am just at a loss of WHY they hate them so much. Yes, they are more expensive NOW but as the technology becomes more popular cost would go down just based on laws of supply and demand. It isn't any different then a new tv coming on the market. The TV we bought last year for $330 is now regularly priced at $250 and will probably be on someone's Black Friday list this year for under $200. 5 years ago that same TV was probably $700.

 

[bicker]

It didn't work for the music publishing industry because they started too late, and took only impotent measures to protect their assets. By disregarding the digital marketplace too long, and allowing consumerist forces to essentially dictate the terms, they left themselves open to be eviscerated.

By contrast, both the video publishing industry and the book publishing industry are taking aggressive steps to have a major role in defining the parameters of how their assets will be brought into the digital age. They aren't just rolling over and allowing their profits to be decimated, without a fight. That really upsets consumerists.

In a way, the digital revolution can be viewed, in part, as an attack by consumer electronics manufacturers on the profits of the content publishing industries. Conspiring with consumers, the consumer electronics industry is in the process of waging a very successful conquest of some of the profits that the publishing industries used to claim for themselves. Both industries are going to lose some ground no matter what - that's an inevitable conclusion from how much more readily content can be stolen (among other things) when the content is digital. However, by taking aggressive steps now, the video publishing and book publishing industries can both try to limit how badly the digital revolution will undercut the value of their assets.

 

[golfgal]

It didn't work for the music publishing industry because they started too late, and took only impotent measures to protect their assets. By disregarding the digital marketplace too long, and allowing consumerist forces to essentially dictate the terms, they left themselves open to be eviscerated.

By contrast, both the video publishing industry and the book publishing industry are taking aggressive steps to have a major role in defining the parameters of how their assets will be brought into the digital age. They aren't just rolling over and allowing their profits to be decimated, without a fight. That really upsets consumerists.

Both industries are going to lose some ground no matter what - that's an inevitable conclusion from how much more readily content can be stolen when the content is digital. (In a way, the digital revolution can be view, in part, as an attack by consumer electronics manufacturers on the profits of the content publishing industries. Conspiring with consumers, the consumer electronics industry is in the process of waging a very successful conquest of some of the profits that the publishing industries used to claim for themselves.) However, by taking aggressive steps now, the video publishing and book publishing industries can both try to limit how badly the digital revolution will undercut the value of their assets.

I can see where the music industry had a legitimate beef though-ANYONE could take a cassette tape, put it into one side of their boom box, put a blank tape into the other side and copy the whole thing and give it to their friends. With a library e-book, they "can't" be copied. I am sure there are hacks out there that can certainly do this but for most people, this will not be the case. Any 3 year old could have copied a cassette tape back when.

 

[bicker]

I can see where the music industry had a legitimate beef though-ANYONE could take a cassette tape, put it into one side of their boom box, put a blank tape into the other side and copy the whole thing and give it to their friends. With a library e-book, they "can't" be copied. I am sure there are hacks out there that can certainly do this but for most people, this will not be the case.

Precisely my point. The video publishing and book publishing industries learned a lot from the mistakes made by the music publishing industry, in terms of copy protection as well as licensing terms.

A great example of something the video publishing industry is doing, along these lines, is the 28 day delay they impose between the release of a title on disc and when the title can be rented/streamed (or, alternatively, how much more a title costs to a rental/streaming service if they choose to make it available before that 28 day point). This is a condition that never existed before a year or two ago, but has been shown to be very effective at reducing the negative impact on overall profit renting/streaming of titles has, due to the impact renting/streaming of titles has on disc retail sales. Rental/streaming consumerists are, naturally, up-in-arms about this, but what we're seeing here is a very clearly balanced marketplace, with the flexibility being managed by supply and demand. Consumers have always had the ultimate power in the whole realm (music/video/book publishing) - they could just refuse to make the purchase - but now publishers recognize that they can take responsible and creative steps to buffer the overwhelming power consumers have wielded in the past to extract from publishers more than fair value.

 

[MrsJackSparrow4Life]

You just have to look at JK Rowling to see that their policies are not going to work in the long run. They refuse to make a legitimate ebook copy of any of the HP books but there are copies of them all over the Internet non the less (and some of them have better formatting than official ebooks ).

Publishing companies would do better to work with Amazon, B&N and libraries rather than try to crush them.

 

[golfgal]

Precisely my point. The video publishing and book publishing industries learned a lot from the mistakes made by the music publishing industry, in terms of copy protection as well as licensing terms.

A great example of something the video publishing industry is doing, along these lines, is the 28 day delay they impose between the release of a title on disc and when the title can be rented/streamed (or, alternatively, how much more a title costs to a rental/streaming service if they choose to make it available before that 28 day point). This is a condition that never existed before a year or two ago, but has been shown to be very effective at reducing the negative impact on overall profit renting/streaming of titles has, due to the impact renting/streaming of titles has on disc retail sales. Rental/streaming consumerists are, naturally, up-in-arms about this, but what we're seeing here is a very clearly balanced marketplace, with the flexibility being managed by supply and demand. Consumers have always had the ultimate power in the whole realm (music/video/book publishing) - they could just refuse to make the purchase - but now publishers recognize that they can take responsible and creative steps to buffer the overwhelming power consumers have wielded in the past to extract from publishers more than fair value.

I have zero issues with this policy-even for ebooks. If I REALLY have to read a book on release date, I will buy the hard copy. Jean Auel's last book is FINALLY coming out next month. I already know I will buy the hard copy because, one, I WANT to read it on release date because I have been waiting 30 YEARS to read it and two, I have all the rest of her books in hard copy and just want a complete set. I would do the same if JK Rowling released another Harry Potter book. The rest of my favorite authors, waiting another month isn't going to make a difference to me or not.

 

[bicker]

Publishing companies would do better to work with Amazon, B&N and libraries rather than try to crush them.

Let's dig into this a bit, then: What do you mean - specifically - by "work with". Please explain how what you're suggesting will help ensure that they retain more of the profitability that they have today than the alternatives you're claiming that they should not pursue.

And I think we can ignore the "Amazon, B&N" bit of this - the publishers are absolutely working with those retailers. So just focus on libraries in your reply, please.

Thanks!

 

[MrsJackSparrow4Life]

I'm not a business person so I can't come up with specific plans right off the top of my head but I do know charging more for your books (26 times give me a break ) and then taking away a portion of their income (geographical limitations) is not going to work.

And they are not "working" with Amazon and B&N like you say. Telling a retailer what they can and can not sell an item for and telling them how much their profit margin on that sale is going to be is not working with them They don't do that with the physical books, why should they get to do it with the ebooks?

 

[golfgal]

I'm not a business person so I can't come up with specific plans right off the top of my head but I do know charging more for your books (26 times give me a break ) and then taking away a portion of their income (geographical limitations) is not going to work.

And they are not "working" with Amazon and B&N like you say. Telling a retailer what they can and can not sell an item for and telling them how much their profit margin on that sale is going to be is not working with them They don't do that with the physical books, why should they get to do it with the ebooks?

Actually they do do this with physical books and a lot of companies do this with other things too. Jockey underwear and Gold Toe socks ONLY go on sale when those manufacturers allow them to (usually they are on sale for the same days nationwide).

 

[MrsJackSparrow4Life]

While some things work that way, a large portion of retail does not. Retailers buy from wholesalers and then sell the product for a price that they think gives them the best return.

Amazon (and I would assume other book sellers as well) are allowed to sell the DTB's at their price point which is why they are selling for less than the ebook prices. They purchase the books from the publisher and then sell it for what they want. I certainly never paid the suggested retail price for any DTB that has come out in the last decade or so, I was always able to get 40% off.

They can't do that with the ebooks from the Big 5 publishers, which is why Amazon has the disclaimer by the book that states "this price was set by the publisher." They are not even allowed to accept coupons anymore or do the whole "buy 3 get the 4th one free" promotions that book sellers can do with DTB's.

But I'm not really surprised because the whole agency pricing thing got started by Apple and they are huge on setting the price their items can be sold for.

 

[bicker]

I'm not a business person so I can't come up with specific plans right off the top of my head but I do know charging more for your books (26 times give me a break ) and then taking away a portion of their income (geographical limitations) is not going to work.

You seem to be saying that your own personal gut-feel is more important than years of experience, professional expertise, and market research (theirs, not necessarily mine). That makes no sense whatsoever. Wanting something to be true doesn't make it true.

And they are not "working" with Amazon and B&N like you say. Telling a retailer what they can and can not sell an item for and telling them how much their profit margin on that sale is going to be is not working with them

Yes it is. Business is always a matter of negotiation. You're simply mistaken about business if you believe that terms and conditions on things means that someone isn't "working with" someone else.

They don't do that with the physical books, why should they get to do it with the ebooks?

Golfgal outlined how they actually do. Also, earlier I explained why it makes sense to do it more with new offerings.