We have ourselves an e-book debate going on.
The whole to-do was started by a Wall Street Journal article about independent publisher Sourcebooks’ decision to delay the e-book publication of Kaleb Nation’s BRAN HAMBRIC until at least six months after the initial print publication.
Sourcebooks CEO Dominique Raccah stated, “Hardcover books have an audience and we shouldn’t cannibalize it” and also expressed concern about $9.95 e-books. Kaleb Nation’s agent Richard Curtis concurred.
Trident agent Robert Gottlieb was also quoted thusly regarding simultaneous print and e-book publication: “It’s no different than releasing a DVD on the same day that a new movie is released in the movie theaters. Why would you do that?”
The action then moved to the NY Times, where a whole slew of high profile publishing people and authors were quoted as saying essentially, “Thinking about this…… Um, can I get back to you?”
Except for Dominique Raccah, who said, “If you as a consumer can look at a book and say: ‘I have two products; one is $27.95, and the other is $9.95. Which should I buy? That’s not a difficult decision.”
Into the fray jumped Booksquare blogger Kassia Krozser who, after loading her Kindle for a flight, challenged the opinions of Sourcebooks, Curtis, Gottlieb, and the other publishing folk who are skeptical of simultaneous print and e-book publication.
The choice e-book consumers make, she opines, isn’t whether to buy a title in hardcover for $27.95 or as an e-book for $9.99. The choice for e-book users is one $9.99 e-book or no book (or, possibly, a different book).
She writes: “Think about it: all your marketing efforts are getting customers to the point of sale…and then you lose them. These readers are not saying, ‘Well, that format isn’t available so I’ll just buy this one.’
Nope, they’re saying, ‘That format isn’t available so I won’t buy this book at all.'”
Sourcebooks CEO Raccah contacted Krozser, who published Raccah’s guest post. Raccah notes that publishers do not have a great deal of control over e-book pricing, and thus, in her opinion the only leverage at their disposal is when and whether to publish an e-book. She also shares Gottlieb’s opinion that an e-book publication is akin to a DVD edition of a first run movie. Ultimately, she believes the decision about when and whether to make an e-book available should be made on a book by book basis.
Lastly but not leastly, reader Scott Spern pointed me to an article by Slate writer Jack Shafer who cautions the industry about the perils of resisting our coming $9.99 e-book overlords.
Why? The pirates, of course.
Shafer writes, “While publishers, authors, and agents are well within their rights to attempt to maximize profits by forcing e-book prices up, their efforts may backfire. Put off by higher prices, readers who have grown accustomed to $9.99 Kindle editions may choose to flout copyright law and turn to the lush ‘pirate’ markets for books on the Internet.”
So. After all of this, where do I stand?
A step to the center of Krozser and Shafer, but firmly on the ground of simultaneous publication and the land of $9.99 for most titles.
As many of you know, I’m an e-book fanatic and my opinion is partly borne out of my experience reading for pleasure on the Kindle. As a result, I agree with Kassia that 95% of the time my choice isn’t whether I’m going to buy a book on a Kindle or in print. My decision is which book I’m going to buy on the Kindle. (Also I’ve just given bookstore owners everywhere heart attacks.)
That said, for every book there is a percentage of the audience that is so in love with the author or series that they’re going to buy the book no matter what, whether it’s available electronically or in hardcover, and they’re willing to pay whatever it takes to buy it. If Ian McEwan’s next book isn’t available on the Kindle you can bet I’m going to buy it anyway (from a bookstore! Owners, you can breathe again!). And of course, I’d imagine Stephenie Meyer’s legion of fans would still buy the next TWILIGHT installment if it were printed on poisonous razor blades.
So therefore, for some titles with an extremely rabid fan base, it seems like e-books could potentially cut into hardcover sales if there’s a particularly high percentage of fans who are dying to read a title immediately. That’s not necessarily a hard and fast reason to deny these fans the ability to read via their preferred method, nor is it stopping a publisher from trying to derive the same revenue per e-book copy as they receive for hardcover regardless of what Amazon decides to charge. But I also agree with Dominique Raccah that these e-book publication decisions should probably be made on a case by case basis.
Ultimately I’m a bit skeptical that there is a great deal of cannibalization going on when e-books and hardcovers are out simultaneously. Like many people, I have a “books I want to read” list about 10,000 pages long. If something is not available in my preferred format it’s really easy to just move one notch down the list rather than going and buying it in print.
My family only hits the theatre for very special films. Otherwise, we wait for the DVD. The same will happen when we purchase our Kindle this winter, I'm sure…unless it's a very special book, we'll wait for $9.99 and under pricing.
Nathan said: "If something is not available in my preferred format it's really easy to just move one notch down the list rather than going and buying it in print."
Or…you could play a game, or watch television or surf the net or do a hundred other things.
It's hard enough to get readers to read at all, why make it doubly hard for a potential reader to choose your book?
I totally agree with Anita.
We have pay for view, and DVDs. So our trips to the theatre slim.
We also get most of our books from the library, so paying for hardcover usually doesn't happen.
People will pay for the books depending on how they want to read them. As people move to Kindles, that's where the market will be.
There is merit to both sides of the argument, though I would venture to ask, is not there a lot of pleasure found in anticipation?
Maybe I'm old school, but sometimes the best part of a fabulous new read (especially one I've been waiting for an author to finish), is that I must also wait for it to be published.
Even if both electronic and print versions were available simultaneously, I personally would read the print version.
My messily two cents.
Publishers are complaining about the cost of ebooks because they fear they're going to lose money. If there is rampant pirating, that would be possible, but seriously, people, we've been able to get "free" books from the library or by borrowing them from our friends for years!
ebooks that are also being released in print cost nothing to produce, nothing to store, nothing to ship, and most publishers are paying the writers a piddly royalty percentage. Everything else is PURE PROFIT — something that can't be said for print books.
Once the publishers really realize that, they'll race to get those books out. They'd be idiots not to.
Oh, wait….
Heck, you could reduce the cost of e-books further by incorporating advertising – I'm sure google's already lining up something.
Print will become a niche market, which will probably drive prices up higher as manufacturing methods trend digital. Releasing e-books 6 mos after the fact might slow the process, but not for too long (and the analogy to DVDs is specious — if we all had theater-size screens at home, cinema']s would be heading the way of the dodo, too)
Wholeheartedly agree, Nathan. Cannibalization of hardcover sales isn't a threat–at least, not yet. E-book sales constitute a surprisingly low (though growing) percentage of our overall sales.
You wouldn't know it, though, based on the general rancor you hear in the office whenever e-book pricing is brought up.
DVD vs Theatres don't equal Ebooks vs print books.
Seeing a film in a theatre with an audience is a different experience — with the big screen, excellent sound, tan seeing it alone at home. I don't have a digital reader, but suspect that reading a book is reading a book.
Also, the comparison between ebooks and print books should be based not on consumer price, but the profit per unit against fixed cost. And with an ebook there are NO RETURNS.
So are publishers really winning with this strategy? I doubt it. If publishers cannot figure out how to make money from these new distribution channels, if they cling to old ways while the world around them changes, they will soon face the same issues the music industry is facing and we will all be poorer.
Nathan,
A question from the curious, if you have time:
Where does the author stand financially in the print book vs. ebook? Also, are these sales BookScan takes into consideration?
Thanks for your time (today and every day).
Two different formats with, imo, nearly no overlap. So why not simultaneously release e-books with hardcover? I'd like to hear from the sales divisions instead of the editors. I think they'd have a more intelligent take on this debate.
anon-
What the author receives varies greatly, but it's almost uniformly too little at the moment. Publishers aren't generally offering authors good deals on e-books.
I'm not sure off the top of my head if Kindle sales are tracked via Bookscan, but I bet Eric knows.
Surely (surely!) e-books in a variety of formats will eventually be the default. If/when that day comes, then the e-book will be the first edition, and print editions may follow for the most successful titles, aimed at collectors and other weirdos.
I think all this current brouhaha is because we're entering the transition stage, and the industry hasn't figured out how to transition.
Mike H-S:
I DO have an e-reader, and I still love reading books in multiple formats – hard-copy, e-version, and audio (not to bring up that debate again!). So, I would very much prefer that e-versions be released on the same day as the hardcover versions – I'd be more likely to buy the book right then, and not just wait to borrow my friend's copy. As long as writers are getting a decent royalty percentage for e-books, I'm all for releasing them on the same day – and not waiting six freakin' months! Wake up, publishing industry!
I agree that the theater/DVD comparison doesn't work here. My hubby and I happen to have a kick-butt home theater set-up (that's for you, Bane) – with an enormous screen hanging from our ceiling and surround-sound speakers strategically placed around the room – so we LOVE watching films at home, but that doesn't stop us from going to the movies. Of course, if the 6th HARRY POTTER had been released to theaters as well as on DVD yesterday, I might have opted for the DVD experience instead. But that's only because there were two girls next to us who literally would not SHUT UP the entire time. Not to get off-topic here, but what's wrong with movie-goers today? Why pay admission prices if you're simply going to talk during the entire movie, miss important dialogue (especially from quiet talkers like Snape), and annoy everyone around you?! Sheesh.
I did have a few palpitations there, Nathan. Be easy on us store-owning folk. Luckily, though, my store is failing anyway, so I won't worry too much. Viva la Recession.
Idea: What about pricing the e-book the same as the hardcover… but only for the six months (or four months, or whatever). Then it could drop to $9.99 or whathaveyou. Publishers preserve their price points, e-reading folk get their book when they want – unless they want to wait for the cheaper version. Reader's choice. And then we can all have a happy sing-along! Kumbaya… (who's with me? We could do The Lion Sleeps tonight… always a good sing-along song).
I must say I disagree with you Nathan in regard to the pricing of ebooks.
First, Krozner and other pundit's comments that the reading public have decided that $9.99 is the right price is simply inaccurate. The "reading public" doesn't even buy ebooks at the moment, much less comment on the pricing for them. Ebook readers who think $9.99 is a right price represent a tiny but boisterous segment of the reading public.
Second, Amazon sets the price, not publishers, and as they've admitted already they're taking a loss on each $9.99 sale. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, the only reason they're doing this is to get market share and dictate terms to publishers and eventually readers later.
Third, while the marginal costs of digital books are decreasing, at least right now the price to produce that first copy is still the same, and it really does cost money to first build and then maintain a successful electronic sales division. I'm not saying in the long run that ebooks won't be much cheaper for publishers, especially considering that lack of returns, but it's just silly to think that it doesn't cost anything, and right now publishers are telling me that half of $9.99 won't be enough to cover things.
I definitely think that publishers need to get their acts together. The print publishing model is a disaster and simply won't apply to electronic sales, and things move far too quickly in the tech world for the traditionally conservative and slow publisher decision making process. Strict DRM is a disaster too – turning off readers, encouraging piracy, and providing much of the fuel for arguments for the $9.99 lower price. There still has yet to be an iPod-like game changing device and eventually multimedia qualities will be necessary for some types of works (which will be a huge contractual headache to deal with).
$9.99 may end up being the right price in the long run, but I don't think it's healthy to allow a small group of rabid ereaders and the 1200 pound gorilla in the room to make the decisions here, especially with so much still to be figured out. I'm not saying their opinions don't matter, but I think its important to keep the price open to debate so that the imagined eventual ebook market dictates the price.
Huh, that's interesting. I do agree with you, though, Nathan: I only buy classics and bestsellers from the bookstore these days and then wait for the book to come online. My decision is whether or not I should get it at all.
Thanks for the post!
The DVD – Kindle analogy would have made sense a few years ago, before those sales started to collapse. People are no longer buying DVDS in the volume prior to 2005-6 (and which propped up the film business.) Now, Blu-Ray's come in but, in terms of the book business, what would be the equivalent? A better Kindle?
Personally, I think you've described the sweet spot ie., a large fan base is, to borrow that oft used phrase, 'platform agnostic,' some people will only buy Kindle, some people will buy books.
I wonder, too, if demographics (& eyesight) play into this. I don't care for screen reading and, though this may make me an old skool Luddite, will always read books in a paper format. Just like the experience …
This was on my mind, esp. a couple days ago, when I read the NYTimes piece, I would have said, 'Absolutely not' to a Kindle / paper same day release … then, I finished the Times piece and clued into the fact that some people will only buy books on Kindle (and some people won't; I fall into the latter category.)
My question about Kindle/downloadable files has always been – beyond the 'security' features (which can always be breeched) – how does one / a writer / agent deal with the reality that a digital copy, no matter how well protected, can spawn infinite copies? Although immediately used copies of just released books on Amazon fit into a version of this paradigm, there are physical extingencies that forestall infinite.
So going with this theory . . .
Finger Lickin' Fifteen by Janet Evanovich ~ hardcover release on 06/23/2009 for say $27.95 (just to stay in the spirit of things). No e-book release on that date. 2 – 3 weeks later the book becomes available for Kindle for $9.99.
Now, since I have a Kindle, I prefer the whole e-book thing. Had the book been available for Kindle on 06/23/2009, I would have paid the $9.99 that day. Since it wasn't, and since I knew a friend was buying the book, I just waited for her to finish and loan me the book. So, whoever, lost out on $9.99 by having the e-book available the same day as the hardcover. I'm just saying . . .
Thanks for weighing in, Jonathan. What I'd respond is:
1) Yes, Amazon is losing money on $9.99 e-books, but they are making it back by selling Kindles. Whether that's sustainable is a matter of speculation, but provided publishers hold the line on their discounts and downloadable list prices (we'll see) there doesn't have to be a problem with ensuring a fair return to publishers and authors.
2) If publishers can make a $7.99 mass market paperback economically viable I don't see why they can't make a $9.99 e-book edition economically viable. Obviously that ignores that publishers currently make a great deal of their money on hardback runs that may not be profitable in the future, but the fact remains: there's a thriving market for $7.99 original paperbacks that have to be printed, bound, shipped, etc. Surely $9.99 can work.
I guess I just see $9.99 as the fact on the ground. It's here to stay in the near term whether publishers or authors want it or not. Whether it is or isn't the eventual standard e-book price of the future will be determined by how the varying economic winds blow.
Agree 100% with your opinions on these issues, Nathan. Actually have nothing else to add. 🙂
The discussion on Kassia Kroser's blog is enlightening. It seems publishers have at least 2 good points here:
1) To be viable, they need to recoup the high fixed costs involved in publishing a book: the advance, editing, etc. At the $9.99 price point this isn't possible unless there are increased sales. Given the "long tail" effect. It's very possible ebooks won't increase sales. This could put publishers in a real bind.
2) Publishing has "always" released higher price hard backs and then later, for some titles, lower priced paper backs. Why can't this apply to ebooks?
If people continue to prefer print over ebooks, I think point #2 holds. But if ebooks become dominant, as other digital media forms have, then #2 falls apart.
If you ask me, the answer to #1 is simple: lower or eliminate the fixed costs. Change the model.
Perhaps publishers of the future will not even do editing, etc. but merely acquire the best writer/agent produced material and market and distribute it. Forget advances and focus on royalties. When most of the cost is variable, per unit cost, then this might work.
@ Melissa, I maybe wrong, but I recall reading that the costs of E-books are not, in fact, "pure profit" (as you describe.)
An edited and presented book still requires the editorial staff, publicity/marketing and, from what I remember, there are technical formatting adjustments requirements which differentiate a paper/bound manuscript from an e-version.
Also, a publishing executive spoke to the fact that publishing books for $9.99 is not a sustainable business model. And, that $24.99 is a market appropriate retail price.
Correct? Incorrect? Semi-correct?
You can now download movies from the various websites and store them on a media player. The purchase price remains similar but sometimes less than what it is to rent. I'm just thinking as much as I love paper books and used to love DVD's, I see myself leaning toward the digital uploads just like I did with DVD's. Granted I don't have the money for the media player or the Kindle yet. But you can better believe I'll be getting them eventually.
I think books are going to go through the same progression as movies did from film to vhs to dvd to blueray and now digital upload devices (I can't remember which form that is right now). It won't be long before we make the transition. Just a few months ago I chirped that some books needed to be paper and bound (I still love having a library of books), but I think we need to move toward digital. It's healthier for the environment (recycled paper or not!) and availability will be better.
I would think even if its half the price to buy online, maybe you'll get twice as many willing to purchase if its a low price. So you still get your sales.
And by "transition" I meant where majority make the changeover. Not that we aren't doing it now.
This isn't really too different than what the music industry went through several years ago when people stopped buying cd's and started down loading from the internet to put on MP3 players.
I still think there will always be a place for books in hard cover even if they are sold on the internet right after release.
I have read on another agents website that the average person reads 25% slower on the computer than on paper, which might not matter to most but could be a plus for those bookstore owners.
And like you said Nathan, there are some books die hard fans must have. Twilight and Harry Potter are my guilty pleasures and I keep buying more copies of these books (even through I've read and re-read all of them).
I can't resist a new cover or buying the paperback when it comes out a couple years after hardback release.
I'm anxiously awaiting the release of New Moon with the movie cover. How pathetic is that! It's so embarrassing I'm debating submitting this as anonymous.
The $9.99 Kindle book is a rip-off for even those who prefer that format.
Just exactly what is the expense involved in "shipping" a Kindle book? ZERO! Come on. The ebooks shouldn't be over $5.99 for a brand, spanking new big author book.
Kindle users: Look for the good prices. There are tons of Kindle books available for $1.99 and less. Boycott $9.99 big publisher pure profits and go with the little Indy publishers. Way better value for your buck.
I will stay Anon since I have a couple of $1.99 Kindle books out and don't want anybody to see this as spamming for my own product.
anon-
The marginal cost of shipping a Kindle book is close to zero, as in it doesn't cost much more money after the first copy is shipped. That doesn't mean a book costs $0.00 to produce. There is an author to pay, editorial staff to pay, copyediting, marketing, rent, etc., all of whom create a professional, quality book. I wouldn't be so quick to sniff at a $9.99 price point.
There are definitely books available as loss leaders or as exclusive content for $2.00, and by all means, buy them if you want to. But I wouldn't just therefore assume that's a sustainable business model for the vast majority of books.
I know someone who was made an offer by a publishing company to purchase her PHD work in an "On Demand" method. I never heard of this before she mentioned it to me. I guess people order your book online and then the company prints it and sends it to them.
I guess that's not really an ebook but I was shocked to hear this even existed.
Julie, no, that's not an e-book. It's a printed book. It's just a different printing technology.
Print on Demand, POD, has been around for quite a few years now and once seemed to be the Next Great Thing in (printed) publishing.
"Heck, you could reduce the cost of e-books further by incorporating advertising – I'm sure google's already lining up something."
Please, no! I've been afraid this would happen ever since Amazon announced the Kindle.
I hardly watch television anymore because of the ads during the programs. It started innocuously enough with a discreet network id in the corner, but now all kinds of animations pop up, sometimes covering half the screen.
This is another reason to not buy an overpriced Kindle, as attractive as the idea of an e-reader is. I can wait for the paperback or take the book out of the library.
The argument for a simultaneous release in a cheaper format could just as easily be made for paperbacks. Since publishers have mostly found it more profitable to delay paperback editions, it's hard to see why the e-book format would follow a different logic.
What about paperbacks, which are much more closely priced to ebooks? My book is coming out in a $8.99 paperback (no hardcover) with an ebook at the same time.
This is just a guess, but is it possible the really cheap books ($1.99) are only that cheap because they've met their cost and now are only pulling in royalties/profit? So the books that are more expensive are trying to meet cost and (and some profit too)? Maybe they'll be cheaper once costs are met AND sales begin to decline.
Just a guess.
Do e-books have color covers and cover art too?
Do children's e-books have illustrations too?
Just curious.
mike-
The idea behind a hardcover-then-paperback release is that some people will be motivated to buy it in a more expensive format because they don't want to wait, and then another audience will by when it's cheaper.
I think the difference with e-books is that there are many more people who read e-books exclusively and thus aren't as readily motivated to buy a more expensive version if it's not available as an e-book. It's either a sale or a lost sale.
It may be that there needs to be a multi-tiered approach to e-book pricing that responds to demand, which is something that former Random House CEO Peter Olson has written about. But I don't think hardcover to paperback is analogous to hardcover to e-book.
I never thought I would feel this way, but after reading Nathan's comments since he bought his Kindle and today's comments, I am in total agreement with him.
Get things to whatever format people want.
There are songs I buy on i-tunes and ones I WANT the album and album art for and I use both formats. But over the last four years, I have bought 800+ songs on i-tunes and only about a dozen CDs –all impulse purchases (and not even the albums I was especially wanting in album format).
I guess it could be fair to say ebooks should be available when paperbacks are available since pricing is similar?
I personally will always read hardcover/paperback at least some of the time. Isn't that enough?
I agree that paperbacks should be available at the same time as hardcovers too.
(does anyone know how the word verification codes get chosen? Do they respond to the conversation on the blog? they are often so uncanny!)
I have my first Kindle being shipped to me now, so I have not experienced the ebook thing yet. However, I think with hardcovers vs. ebook, I will probably use the same logic I use for hardcover vs. waiting for paperback. The only time I'm ever going to pay the premium hardcover price is when a series book that I'm obsessed with comes out (i.e. Charlaine Harris' Sookie books). Otherwise, even if it's an author I love, I'm waiting for the paperback because there are too many other books I could read in the meantime. Twenty-five dollars for a book in this economy is tough.
I buy e-books and paperbacks at the same time, as there are times I prefer paper in my hands and others where the e-reader is more convenient (not to mention more private.) When I make the decision to purchase a book I have already decided 'how' I want to read it, price doesn't come into play. Lower or bargain prices are just a bonus. I rarely buy hardcovers because of their inconvenient format, even if they have been discounted.
It's all about convenience. Such is the way of the world anymore, we want what we want when we want it.
I read both e-books and paper books. But seldom the same book. Like many others I have a list of books I want to read. This list is long. I have a shorter list of books I want to own.
No this is not splitting hairs. I check-out from the library, borrow from friends and download the books that I want to read, but not own.
For books of authors that I love, I want to own their book. I want to have it on my shelf so that people visiting my home see them. I consider them an investment of sorts, and a status symbol that identifies me as a well read person.
But ebooks and those borrowed and returned, they are not an investment. I don't push my ebook reader in people's faces to force them to see what I have in there.
For me there is the difference in value. I will never feel like paying the same price for the ebook that I am willing to pay for the paper book. Ever. And I don't mind waiting, (except that I might find a way to read it from the library etc.)
The publishing world can do what it wants. But as a reader I don't think that publishers have this figured out yet.
Very informative as usual Nathan.
Where does that leave the debut author? I mean, I'm thinking hardcover is probably out– trade paper along with ebook? I'm curious what kinds of deals are happening now– considering I will go on submission in the fall for upmarket commercial (debut). Trying to hang on to hope–but I feel the walls crumbling around me. Will there even be advances or paper books?
My 8 ball will not comment.
anon-
Don't worry, the publishing walls are not crumbling. They're just moving around a bit.
If publishers are worried about piracy, I think keeping e-books relatively inexpensive is very important. It is very easy to get pirated music on the web, but it only cost a dollar on i-tunes and its legal. Most consumers are willing to pay the musicians for their work and buy there mp3's on i-tunes. I think most readers will be equally willing to pay authors and publishers for e-books buy going through amazon or some other easy to use relatively low cost source. But if e-books climb to $30 a piece people are going to start searching for pirates.
As for the release date issue, I almost think it would be a good idea for publishers to release the e-books before the paper copies for many titles.
There are a few serial type books, TWIGHLIGHT, etc, that people can't wait to get their hands on. If a publisher knows there is going to be a line of people at the books stores on the date a book is released, by all means charge people big bucks for it.
But that only happens for a small handful of books a year. Most of the big name best sellers start buried in the shelves next to everything else. Eventually word of mouth picks up and people are flocking to book stores to pick up copies weeks, months, or even years after the book was originally released.
If titles are released first as e-books for $9.99 the people who read 50+ books a year can gobble them up for a relatively low cost and then start telling their friends about them. Once there is substantial buzz for a book the publishers could launch the paper release, hype it a lot, and the people who only read 5-10 books a year and don't own a kindle can head off to the book store to slap down there $27.99.
When people start talking about paper going away, beware. Look what the digital deluge has done to newspaper and other print media in this country.
When things go to digital, people stop wanting to pay much for them – it's a value perception issue. For example, people are accustomed to downloading music illegally, pretty much with impunity.
Right now the book may cost $9.95 on Kindle, but competition could drive those prices down.
Thanks, Nathan (anon 3:20)
From now on, I'll think of it as the moving staircase in Harry Potter.
Harry always gets there–so will I!
Once again, Nathan ignores the challenge posed by the mere existence of providers such as Scribd.com. When Simon & Schuster gets behind an e-book provider, something's being powerfully validated.
Thanks, buddy! I really was hoping to hear how you weighed in on that.
As I mentioned last month in:
https://www.writers-edge.info/2009/06/ten-buck-books.htm
we've entered the era of the Ten Buck Book, and it's not just ebooks.
andrew-
I apologize that I didn't read your mind, but you're welcome to weigh in yourself on that subject!
I think publishing insiders may be overestimating the size of the Kindle market or its penetration among the wider book buying public.
It is significant that AMazon maintains a separate Kindle bestseller list, but intersperses that list with the paper book list, which gives a false impression of Kindle sales. In fact, the Kindle sales are still tiny.
I agree smart publishers should delay Kindle sales until they have a competing paper book in the same price range.
I also believe it is essential that Amazon's monopoly of Kindle be broken up before publishers commit to widespread e-publishing. Amazon has too much control of market, device, and pricing to be allowed to continue to have such a stranglehold on e-publishing.