More big news in the ever-evolving e-book landscape as two publishers, Hachette and Simon & Schuster, told the Wall Street Journal that they would be delaying the e-book release of some of their important upcoming titles, HarperCollins told the New York Times that they would delay “5-10 titles a month,” and Macmillan said they’d delay case by case.
Why are publishers doing this?
Carolyn Reidy, CEO S&S: “The right place for the e-book is after the hardcover but before the paperback.”
David Young, CEO Hachette Book Group: “I can’t sit back and watch years of building authors sold off at bargain-basement prices. It’s about the future of the business.”
One thing this doesn’t seem to be is a short term financial calculation on the part of the publishers. Right now, according to most accounts, including the NY Times, publishers are receiving roughly the exact same amount for every e-book sold as they do for new hardcover sales. Yes, Amazon and Sony and others are selling many e-books for $9.99, but that doesn’t mean publishers are making less money per title. The e-book retailers are taking loss leaders on e-books to sell more devices.
Instead this position seems to be borne out of fear of what’s over the horizon: publishers are nervous that people will begin to feel that $9.99 is what all books should cost, wreaking havoc with print pricing models, and that Amazon and others will start turning the screws and demanding a bigger share of the revenue. (UPDATE: Along these lines, Mike Shatzkin speculates that this is really about controlling Amazon).
So is a long term fear about what’s over the horizon worth potentially alienating some of your most motivated customers, the people who read so much and buy so many books that they plopped down $250 to buy an e-reader?
You tell me.
It seems to me that customers understand that there’s a difference between print books and e-books and that they should cost different amounts – people know that printing and shipping paper and ink should cost more than sending electrons through the ether. It’s understandable that publishers are frustrated that they can’t control what Amazon actually charges, but they can’t control actual retail prices for print books either.
And in the meantime, as we’ve seen repeatedly over the last decade, alienate digital consumers at your peril. People who read e-books want to read on their devices when they hear about a book, and the best deterrent against piracy is making a digital edition readily available for sale at a fair price. Resisting the conversion to digital sure didn’t work for the music industry, and publishers are extremely fortunate they’ve had a decade of breathing room and lessons learned to prepare for the e-book wave.
All that said, authors may well be motivated to delay e-book releases since they may be receiving a better royalty for hardcover sales than they do for e-book sales. So for some authors, it may indeed make financial sense to encourage/force publishers to delay e-book releases if e-book customers will be motivated to go out and just buy the (higher royalty generating) hardcover during the delay period. This probably only applies to the top authors with rabid fans – everyone else will probably want to strike with e-books while the publicity iron is hot. In that sense, a case by case approach may indeed be warranted.
What do you think? Is this savvy business or misguided?
Anonymous says
Writing group buddies edit my novel: $0.0
Beg daughter to design cover art: $0.0
Publish my indie novel to Kindle: $0.0
Not having to compete with hardcover bestsellers: Priceless.
Thanks publishing industry!
AndrewDugas says
Insane. A book should be rolled first as an e-book, then trade, then hard cover for the hard core collectors. Exceptions should abound for big names, but for everything else, why gamble with paper and ink until interest is proven?
Lisa says
I guess I am the lone hardcover fan in the group. I hate mass-market paperbacks and will not buy them under any circumstances. Eventually, I will be moving my reading to an e-reader, and reserving my hardcover purchases for the books I love the most.
I think the publishers are making the same mistake the music industry did. I cannot remember the last time I purchased an actual CD. The music I buy, I download and obviously, lots of people were not willing to wait for easy and inexpensive ways to download. If you want to keep people from pirating eBooks, making them difficult to get is not the solution.
I also think another poster had a great idea: release the eBook first and make the hardcover the equivalent of the DVD collector's edition box set. Add the extras, add the special stuff, and the people who loved it will still buy it.
Charles says
Well, first off, I don't think eBooks should necessarily be priced at under $10.00. (And that's a different can of worms.)
As for a delayed eBook release, that might have worked with older models of publishing (hardcover –> mass market paperback 9 months later) but that's not going to work out in the current climate. There's piracy for example, and while it might benefit less popular authors in the long run, when it comes to the major and famous releases, it's going to draw away customers who are dissatisfied with the publisher's practices.
Anonymous says
Publishers are running scared and, behing a rather backward business, haven't figured out tech's advantages.
On the other hand, I don't always care to shell out for a hardback, so I wait for the paperback. This is the model publishers are using for eBooks, apparently.
And here's another question: apart from author royalties and a modicum of profit for the "brave" publisher, why SHOULD an eBook cost even $9.99? It's ridiculous–the same idea as ATMs charging $2.50 for a withdrawal, when the costs to the bank are minuscule.
Anonymous says
People have always had wait for the paperback after the hardcover (except mass market) so what's the big deal waiting for the e-version? Do you get to see newly released movies right away on your TV? (no, unless you're doing something illegal).
Marva says
I wait for the DVD rather than wasting a bunch of money at a theatre. Heck, I can rent the DVD rather than buy it.
Why should I buy a hardback, when I can wait for the paperback or the ebook?
I'm probably not that uncommon a consumer. Publishers should provide their product in the formats that the public will buy. Holding back on the ebook may only mean that the book itself fades from the public consciousness. Sell it now in whatever format you can. Some prefer hardback, some paperback, some ebook. Why not supply every market?
sex scenes at starbucks says
Publishing seems determined to cut itself off at the feet, despite plenty of hindsight provided by the experience of other media.
It's ridiculous to hold back the econsumer, as if in ten years we won't be reading MOST of our books electronically.
Anonymous says
Savvy business, solely because prematurely changing a large machine can be a disastrous practice. It's a Hobson's Choice business model. The alternatives are go with the flow and change, or make no change, a decision to make no change is still a decision, one that's been rather difficult to navigate of late. The business world no longer dictates the supply-demand curve. Consumers do.
Critical path thinking currently is the physical book is the product. When enough minds wrap around digital books as products, the change will be a timely and accomplished fact.
Meanwhile, what happens to the printers who've been partnered with publishers? More manufacturing business moving overseas to less cost intensive factories.
Donna Hole says
I only buy hard covers for series books I'm reading. I usually end up with several paper backs and the last few as hard backs because I couldn't wait that long to get the paperback.
I think e-books should sell about the same price as a paperback, and I can see the value of waiting until the hard cover has sold out.
Once I can afford an e-reader, I'm going to be all over purchasing everything I can on it. But I doubt I'll give up my bookshelf collections either. I like the look and feel of books.
……dhole
Lea Schizas - Author/Editor says
Misguided is not the word. To put it bluntly, the revenue of higher priced print books compared to lower e-book prices will hurt them.
What they don't realize is that times are a-changing and they need to get in the groove.
Readers love print but are also enjoying their e-readers.
I can understand offering first the print version before moving to ebook about 4 months down the line, that's smart business sense, but to come out and state 'bargain-basement prices' just shows their ignorance and greed as far as I'm concerned.
A business needs to cater to a wide clientele in order to survive. Some will buy print, others will buy e-books. Maybe they should begin considering using POD instead of printing an x amount of books and having them sit or returned. That will cut their costs.
Terry says
I'm with Laura Martone – Befuddled! Perfect word for it:)
I bet a lot of publishers are befuddled too.
Mira,cute little puppy dog.
Anonymous says
yeah i don't care. if the purpose is to sell more physical books, which generate better whatever, then it's fine and makes sense. if it's arbitrary, then it's still fine because at the end of the day they are the publisher and they have purchased the right to decide the release schedule of the book. "Should" isn't really up for discussion.
D. G. Hudson says
It certainly appears to be an effort to control or retain the leverage the publishers now have with the authors and the buying public. Whether it's for the benefit of the authors or for the industry still remains to be seen.
It's the same as issuing the hardcover at a higher cost than the ebook or the paperback. It's a money grab directed at those who always want the next new thing first, whether it's a book or another product. Once that market is drained, then the masses get to have the product at a more reasonable price. Marketing is all about the bottom line – don't mistake that.
I think this is savvy business sense from the industry's viewpoint, but could well alienate the buying public, as Nathan said. I don't like it myself, I'd like the choice up front of whether I buy hardcover, paperback or ebook.
SozinTara says
First off, I'd like to say I am classic, or as many would put it-"old school". I like the smell of fresh, printed books and the glossy covers with pictures on it and all. I love flipping pages(no telling how many trees got chopped for those six hundred page novels I read).
Yet, I am open to electronics, digital media. It frees up bookshelf space, it costs less for the consumer, and its happening…now. If publishers want to delay the e-book releases, so be it. I don't care. It just shows who comes first: the consumers? Or the publishers pockets?
Susan Quinn says
This is a bad decision, exactly in the wrong direction, as the many comments above point out. I second Rick Daly's thoughtful comments.
A customer delayed is a customer lost.
Anonymous says
I have no sympathy for publishers-why? Because they could have built Amazon themselves had they had the foresight.
Janeen says
I always thought the idea of releasing the hardcover and ebook at the same time and charging the same for both until the paperback comes out made a certain amount of sense.
But perhaps the publisher simply cannot wield that much control over the purchase price and is therefore manipulating what it can: the release date.
Marilyn Peake says
I posted something over at Nathan's Forum yesterday that's relevant to the discussion going on here. It’s information about a small startup company that's apparently giving Amazon and Sony a run for their money. Also, Google’s helping them along, probably because of Google’s rivalry with Amazon to control books…
I saw an eReader called the "Cool-er eReader" being sold on QVC this week … and thought, What the…? Haven’t even heard of that! Turns out there’s an interesting story behind it. A writer created the "Cool-er eReader" for his own startup self-publishing business, and now it’s in competition with the Kindle and Nook. Lots more information: here. Google – who’s been competing with Amazon – has apparently made one million public domain books available to the company that’s making the Cool-er eReader to post on their eBookstore site. Interesting.
Anonymous says
Methinketh (yeah that's a word–what of it?) that the hardback (HB) and ebook (eb) retail versions should be released simultaneously, BUT, with the following adjustment:
The HB version will feature a lottery-like number imprinted on one of its pages. A drawing will be held, say, 6 months after the release date, where a number will be drawn from sold HBs, and the winner gets $5,000 or some other amount determined by running appropriate risk management scenarios. That way there's an incentive to shell out for the HB, but for those who want the quick & dirty eb, it's always there for ya, like your drug-dealing "friend" you're glad you know but don't want to hang out with at important social events.
Anonymous says
"If Obama's going to tax us everytime we exhale carbon dioxide, you're damn sure going to stop supporting the rape of the environment with your paper books."
Actually, and we've been down this road before on this blog, it's been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that most paper books these days are printed on recycled paper using farmed trees, and are therefore better for the environment than toxic material containing ereaders which need to be charged using the coal-burning grid and have their database support system run on said grid.
Paper books are greener than ebooks, just as real Xmas trees (since, again, almost all are farmed) are greener than artificial trees (most of which are made from petroleum products, end up in landfills forever and which are imported–shipped burning precious fuels–from China).
MzMannerz says
I think it's a little from column A and a little from column B, because I want to assume publishers are employing someone somewhere who is adept at marking trends and predicting consumer behavior.
People do know the difference, but I think they are trying to force those who just can't wait to buy the pricier version. For example, I only download albums now; my sister buys CDs. CDs are pricier. Would I buy a CD if I were itching for a song but it wasn't available on Itunes for several more months?
Probably. Bitching and moaning all the way. 🙂
Holly says
Hardbacks and paperbacks will eventually go the way of newspapers, and we all know what is happening there. Heck, I subscribe to the local paper because I need something to start fires in my fireplace…
Delaying e-book releases is the bubblegum over the crack in the dike.
I know e-readers are supposed to be greener, cheaper, faster, blah, blah, but I don't care.
There's something to be said for getting off your fanny, walking out in the real world with real weather and real people, and going to a bookstore with all the beautiful cover art and the incredible smells of fresh ink and brand new paper, and standing there, looking at it all.
I have very old books on my shelves that wonderful people gave me, including books with handwritten inscriptions. You just can't have that with e-books. I never thought it would happen, but I guess I have turned into a dinosaur.
Nathan Bransford says
"Actually, and we've been down this road before on this blog, it's been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that most paper books these days are printed on recycled paper using farmed trees, and are therefore better for the environment than toxic material containing ereaders which need to be charged using the coal-burning grid and have their database support system run on said grid."
Uhhh… I've seen nothing but speculation from anons and non-experts on this viewpoint, it's far from proven beyond a shadow of doubt. From what I've read of actual studies, on balance e-readers seem to be better for the environment, though if you'd like to point me to some studies that suggest otherwise I'd be happy to see them.
Kate says
E-books should be made available FIRST if for no other reason than the basic realities of physical manufacturing mean that e-books should logically be ready first.
Then, when the paper books are put on sale, they should INCLUDE e-book copies.
Of course, I should look like Angelina Jolie and be married to a guy who looks like Brad Pitt.
Seriously, though, I have to start adopting e-books because I simply don't have room in my house for any more p-books. There is significant environmental impact to keeping all these books in a nice dry environment.
Anonymous says
Smart business. Amazon is a bully, and it's about time the publishers grew a spine and stood up for themselves.
Next on the agenda: bookstore returns. No other manufacturer of goods allows merchants to "return" items if they don't sell. Why should publishers fall for this nonsense?
Anonymous says
Landfill-wise, eReaders can only be worse than paper books because they never decay and theyeir batteries contain mercury and other toxic chemicals.
Carbon-wise, there are simply too many factors to make a sweeping generalizaiton that 1 is more carbon-offsetting than the other. You can pit 1 specific book purchase against one eReader book purchase, where it depends on the materials the book is made from, but then again then you're ignoring the benefits saved over the life of the eReader negating the need for more paper books. But it is true that the eReaders use electricity, which does in fact come laregly from burning coal. So it is in fact up in the air.
But most people are not even thinking of these complexities when they parrot "eBooks are greener!" because they're assuming that it's only due to the fact that trees are not being cut down.
AM Riley says
I think they are denying the inevitable by delaying release. There are so many excellent books available these days, if an author is not one I would want in hardcover, then I'll just wait for the ebook. There are very few authors whose books are worth carting around, or stacking in my library.
And if they are trying to delay release, along the movie-to-DVD model, as Bane suggested above, I don't think it will really make much of a difference. The fact that I CAN wait for the DVD release to see a movie often means that I don't bother to hire a sitter, pay for parking, and then the lines and expense of tickets, very often.
The future of the business is digital. The publishers who acknowledge and aggressively pursue this will be the ones that survive financially.
Anonymous says
Another point to consider is that, geopolitically speaking, eReaders negatively impact the U.S. more so than paper books. This is because the electronic parts for most of the devices are imported from China–a country with horrendous human rights violations on record, and which competes with the US for foreign resources such as oil imports–and these parts then need to be shipped to the U.S. using oil which is purchased from Saudi Arabia and other countries, including Venezuela, which do not have our best interests at heart.
Most paper book products, on the other hand, are manufactured here in the US of A, largely from receycled materials and farmed trees.
So remember that when you turn pages on your Kindle, Bin Laden is reading over your shoulder!
Kim says
I've said it before here, and I'll say it again. I come from a family with three generations of loggers. Paper is made from waste pulp – the by-product of wood. Books, or paper for that matter, have no impact on the environment. It's like blaming Spam for the problems created by the meat packing industry. You scrape what's left on the floor, and package it rather than throw it away.
Books/paper being bad for the environment is a non-issue.
Anonymous says
That's not entirely true Kim. these days logging companies factor in the expect revenue from the pulp when undertaking new logging operations. yeah, the leftover pulp started out as waste material from logging for lumber, but as soon as people are willing to pay for it, it's no longer waste material.
the same argument applies for the biofuels industry. Cellulosic ethanol–where plant waste such as corn husks and stalks and the like can be burned for energy–originally the ethanol companies figured they would have to pay zero cost to get this feedstock material. Guess what? Wrong! As soon as farmers became aware of a use for corn husks, they put a price on them. A low price, but still. They're not free as was originally supposed. And neither is pulp.
Kim says
I didn't say anything about paper being a waste product as in, no value. All I'm saying is that the production of paper has no impact on the environment.
Anonymous says
the production of white paper most certainly does have an impact on the environment. Even supposing for a moment that there is zero impact from the logging, there is still high chemical usage, such as chlorine that goes into bleaching our modern day bright white paper. Whole lotta toxic chemicals, esp. chlorine.
Kim says
Spam/paper. Both are waste products, both make money, neither is harmful to the environment. That's all I'm saying.
Anonymous says
As you can see, calculating environmental impacts is no simple business. Which is why people have full-time jobs out of preparing Environmental Impact Reports and assessments.
Kim says
Right, then. So e-readers, huh?
Anonymous says
I am a different anon. I'm not sure about the trees, but the production of paper produces a lot of harmful chemical byproducts. I saw How is it Made? or whatever that show is on Discovery. Not recycled paper, but making new fresh white paper uses tons of toxic chemicals which can't be good for the earth.
Anonymous says
I look at it like this:
Environmentally, eReders are about even with paper books overall.
But geopolitially paper books are better for America.
So it's 1 draw, 1 win for paper, so overall I conclude that paper books have a less negative impact (note that less negative is not the same has having a positive impact) for the United States than do eReaders.
Also note, however, that it would take millions of dollars and at elast a couple of years to scientifically verify this assessment.
Julie H. Ferguson says
I want the new fiction releases for my e-reader immediately. I never buy fiction in paper but go to my library
Nonfiction releases – I can wait for if I want to own it after checking it out at the library..
Chantel says
I just got a Kindle for Christmas, and was so psyched to get new books right away. Sigh. There's so much potential with digital books, why derail it? Disappointed by this news.
Anonymous says
Average author royalty per download for an e-book, 25% of 50% price per unit, $1.25.
Per casecover book, 8% of cover price, $2.00.
Per mass market paperback, 8% of cover price $0.65.
DG says
I'm late in commenting on today's post, but I read all 92 comments posted before me.
Several thoughts came to mind.
In the old, old days, record companies feared FM, because of the fidelity. They thought it was so good that no one would have a need to buy records. I won't bore you with the rest of the story.
Meanwhile, the pub industry is wincing just like the record companies did when Apple shook them by the throat. The Pub industry sees the same coming to their neighborhood and they don't like it one bit. In less than a year, Apple will do with the pub industry what they did to the music industry.
Ultimately the consumer will determine what a book is worth, whatever the format. Naturally publishers want to make the most for their books. The days of $27 hardcovers are over. eBooks have forever changed publishing. There is no going back.
And as for the argument about which of the two has the largest carbon footprint, lets face it, writers all want a dust jacketed hardcover of their work placed face out on an end cap at B & N.
Anonymous says
Publishers Weekly, 3/10/2008 7:41:00 AM
"The U.S. publishing industry emits over 12.4 million tons of carbon dioxide each year, or about 8.85 pounds per book, according to the findings in the just-released report, Environmental Trends and Climate Impacts: Findings from the U.S. Book Industry. The study, coordinated by the Book Industry Study Group and the Green Press Initiative, looked to establish industry benchmarks related to publishing’s impact on the environment. The cutting of trees for paper was found to have the most significant impact on the industry’s carbon footprint, although the report says the use of recycled paper and fibers has increased over the last several years."
The average U.S. household produces 7.5 tons of CO2 per year, 30% from energy consumption. 114 million households in U.S. equals 855 million tons CO2. Motor vehicles, 34% of all U.S. carbon emissions.
Rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1780 from 280 ppm to current 387 ppm.
U.S. publishing contributes the equivalent of 1.65 out of 114 million U.S. households' CO2. Seems pretty green to me, comparatively.
Kalika says
@scott g.f.bailey
Spending a lot of money for books is not the same as spending a lot of money for ONE book. Working minimum wages doesn't buy many hardcovers.
Peter Kilkelly says
I agree that its short sighted for publishers to delay e-book releases.
For people who want to buy e-books, I don't see enough of them buying the hardcover instead to justify the decision.
Mira says
Laura, cool. I agree! 🙂
Terry, thanks. I like that picture too. I'll only have him for a week, but I've named him Toby. He just looks like a Toby.
He's not quite as striking as your picture, though. 😉
You know when I was typing about the pictures, it struck me that technological advances have drastically altered the field of photography, too. Digital cameras, shared pictures, pictures of cute puppies I can download for free…
Alittle off topic, but I really liked your article with the Huffington, Nathan. Very interesting problem.
Uncle Gus says
It's called The Free Market for a reason (and it ain't because any thing's free).
Seems to me, the smart play would be for publishers to look at maybe developing their own e-readers, or perhaps some type of proprietary format for licensed sale to e-reader makers . More e-readers = more competition. More competition = lower prices for consumers and developers. Lower prices = higher demand.
It ain't rocket-surgery.
DG says
Mira-
"Striking" is not a bad word for Terry's picture, but for me, I think I like "arresting" more.
Nathan Bransford says
A couple things about the environmental impacts of print books:
– a lot of the anons in this thread assume that print books are made in the USA. Not so for a lot of publishers – some publishers have their books printed overseas. I've even heard rumors that there are some books that are printed in China because the ink that is used is illegal in the US.
– to the people who say that print books don't consume carbon. Uh… not only are these books often shipped from overseas, they are also shipped from warehouses to bookstores in trucks and then sometimes back again. There's a lot of shipping involved. For every single book.
I don't claim to be an expert on the environmental impacts. But again, every study by actual experts I've seen has shown e-books to be better for the environment. I again say that I'd like to see any study that suggests that print books are actually better for the environment.
Anonymous says
My issue about the environmental studies I've seen is they tend to overlook the afterlife of e-readers, which are not fully known, toxic compounds, biodegradability, and they don't sequester any carbon. The studies I've seen of books environmental impact include their afterlives and account for all the real world costs because they're known factors from longstanding practices.
From Publisher's Weekly, by Jim Milliot — 3/10/2008 https://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6539660.html
"Publishing's Carbon Footprint By the Numbers
3.086 billion: Number of books sold, 2006
4.15 billion: Number of books produced, 2006
1.6 million metric tons: Amount of paper consumed for books
25%: Average book return rate
5%: Amount of recycled paper in books
8.85 lbs. CO2 equivalent: Carbon footprint per book
12.4 million metric tons: Total carbon footprint of book publishing
Source of Carbon Emissions in the U.S. Book Industry Segments of the Industry Share of Carbon Emissions
Forest and Forest Harvest 62.7%
Paper Production, Printing 26.6%
Landfill Releases (methane) 8.2%
Distribution and Retail 12.7%
Publishers 6.6%
Carbon Storage in Books and Energy Recovery -16.8%
Source: Enviromental Trends and Climate Impacts: Findings from the U.S. Book Industry."