The tape recorder eroding the sale of LP's. The MP3 eroding the sale of CD's. There is a revolving merry-go-round of business outcry that profits are lost by emerging technologies. In April this year, the Guardian reported:
'The US Department of Justice (DoJ) has accused Apple and five of the country’s six largest [book] publishers of colluding to fix prices for electronic books (e-books).'
They go on to explain that Amazon's policy of keeping prices for eBooks below $9.99 was harming sales of hardback books, and went on:
'The publishers decided to team up with the only other company that could break Amazon’s stranglehold on the market – Apple. The plan was that Apple could use its iPad, set to launch in 2010, to compete with the Kindle. But, unlike Amazon, Apple was unwilling to sell e-books at a loss.'
Three of the five publishers have since settled out of court with the DoJ in a $69m deal, while two continue to fight it out in court. Traditionally, profit on an item was the difference between the sale price and what it cost to bring to market. Profit though is not always immediate. Online bookseller Amazon.com was founded in 1994 and did not produce its first annual profit until 2003. Now our very own Bloomsbury are, in some cases, selling paperback books online cheaper than the eBook version.
Book publishing is undergoing a transnational period, and the future is not sure. Should the eBook cost as much to buy as a paperback or even a hardbook, when their respective production costs have nothing in common?
Why can't publishers do what online sellers are doing. I would like to see the biggest publishers pool some of their resources and set up an online shop. Authors and publishers would gain, if there were fair prices for novels in every format. I believe authors would flock to support an international cooperative. With enough support, publishers could compete with the likes of amazon.
It seems to me that, like the current issue with milk prices, large retailer chains were allowed to dictate to publishers what price they would pay for print (amongst other things) after the net book agreement was scrapped, simply because of their buying power. Ebook prices are artificially high to prop up publisher margins as one consequence, and they'll stay that way until the book supply chain gets a drastic overhaul.
I'd expect to pay more for a paper book than a download, especially since I don't really 'own' the latter in the accepted sense.
I tend to agree with Victoria about freebie downloads. I've not given mine away at all and hope I never have to. Mind you, at 77p a copy it's almost free ;)
I think what we are saying is that intellectual property rights have a value, and should be reflected in the sale price, regardless of production costs. But still that isn't everything. On a hardback book, an author could probably expect what, around 50p per unit sold? If I sold my novel on Amazon, they take 30% of the cost price that I set. At £1.00, I would get 70p.
Obviously people would take the cheaper option, wouldn't they, except that many, like myself, actually like to hold a paper book. If we don't want the paper book to go the way of the video and CD, the prices must be - balanced. Reduce the cost of paper books, increase the cost of eBooks, and release them together, The books I mentioned on the Bloomsbury site were just over £6 per format, with bizarrely the paper book the cheaper.
As for the future, I think book shops will only exist online and you will download a book cheaply. If you want a hardback copy, with 3D printers the way they are going, you will have one printed on demand, complete with colour sleeve. Perhaps even on your own printer at home. That though is for another time.