E-Book Prices: Calling B.S. on the Publishing Industry

Reading Time

HarperStudio (of HarperCollins) recently had a post about why they price eBooks as high as they do. There has been a big stink in the e-publishing world lately about the price of eBooks, so hearing a publisher try to explain why things are the way they are is interesting and useful…except when it’s a load of B.S.

Let’s put things in perspective. HarperStudio is arguing that the same production costs should apply to eBooks because they say so. Not because it makes sense or because it sounds right, but because they say so. Most, if not all, of the books being put into eBook form by major publishers are already being printed in dead-tree form as well (or already have been printed that way some time ago).

This intentionally ignores all the money they are saving/making by selling eBooks: no (or lesser) distribution costs, no loss for unsold books, access to a new market, etc. The list really can go on. Essentially, the publisher is saving a lot of money by printing eBooks, and yet those who buy them are still being shafted. Why? I don’t know. Maybe because publishers want to make a quick buck off of a new technology? Or maybe because there’s something else they’re not telling us.

It should be noted that eBook enthusiasts aren’t asking that eBooks be priced for pennies on the dollar; far from it. In fact, all eBook readers are asking is for a price tag that makes some sort of sense, and paying dead-tree prices for a book that essentially has none of the following is stupid:

  • No tangibility
  • No sell back potential (i.e. you can’t sell it used)
  • DRMed (usually)
  • *insert other viable reason here*

Whether this cost is $6.00 or $7.00, eBook readers are asking for a price tag that makes buying eReaders and eBooks worth it. Right now, what’s really the value in paying for an eReader only to pay practically the same price for an eBook as you would pay for a dead-tree version? Almost none, unless you buy a heck of a lot of books. Saving $2.00, as HarperStudio mentions, means you’d have to buy roughly 200 eBooks in order to recuperate the high cost of the various eReaders. That’s a lot of books, and we can suspect that folks using eReaders are in this for the long haul. We’ve even seen sales go up. So what’s the big deal?

And before anyone comments that I just don’t understand how it all works: I understand that there are editors and what not, each with a specific job and each that has to get paid for a service. But I don’t find that as a valid excuse for overcharging for eBooks. That seems like a cop out to me, as if to say, “Well, we paid for the dead-tree version, let’s punish the electronic folks.”

What does everyone else think about this? Am I just flat out wrong? Why? Is there more to this that publishers aren’t telling us? Are eBook prices going to go down, or do you think they’ll remain high until the market dies? Leave a comment with your thoughts!

Email
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Digg
Reddit
LinkedIn

2 Responses

  1. You’re equating value with production costs. They ain’t the same! I’m happy enough with paying a just below paperback price for an ebook as it gives them a value and a decent author %.

    Books aren’t a can of coke!

  2. Except it is. Because why would I pay for an eBook when I can get the same product for almost the same price in real form, and then sell it used and get half or most of my money back? I get less as a reader out of an eBook, yet I pay about the same price. That seems ridiculous, particularly when the cost to produce it is really negligible. I’m not saying reduce the price to $1, but drop it enough to make the eBook worth it. Right now, eBooks really aren’t worth much to me, because I’m going to pay $400 for the product to read it, and then almost full price for all of the books. Why would I waste my money? I get less out of it and it’s not nearly as good on my eyes as a real book.

    At the end of the day, the consumer is the most important entity. If the consumer doesn’t buy, the author doesn’t get the money and neither does the publisher. Reduce the cost to something more reasonable and more people will buy them. That’s all good or the publisher since actual cost of production for eBooks is less, and therefore a far more profitable model. I suspect a lot of people aren’t getting into eBooks because of this: the cost is prohibitive.

Leave a Reply

Follow Me

Newsletter

Support Me

Recent Posts

A Reading List of Dystopian Fiction and Relevant Texts (Apropos of Nothing in Particular)

Why would someone make a list of important and interesting works of dystopian fiction? Or a suggested reading list of works that are relevant to those dystopian works? There is absolutely no reason other than raw interest. There’s nothing going on to compel this. There is nothing in particular one making such a list would hope you’d learn. The lists below are not an exhaustive list. There are bound to be texts I have forgotten or texts you think folks should read that are not listed. Feel free to make your own list and tell me about it OR leave a comment. I’ll add things I’ve missed! Anywhoodles. Here goes:

Read More »

Duke’s Best EDM Tracks of 2024

And so it came to pass that I finished up my annual Best of EDM [Insert Year Here] lists. I used to do these on Spotify before switching to Tidal, and I continued doing them on Tidal because I listen to an absurd amount of EDM and like keeping track of the tunes I love the most. Below, you will find a Tidal playlist that should be public. You can listen to the first 50 tracks right here, but the full playlist is available on Tidal proper (which has a free version just like Spotify does). For whatever reason, the embedded playlist breaks the page, and so I’ve opted to link to it here and at the bottom of this post. Embeds are weird. Or you can pull songs into your preferred listening app. It’s up to you. Some caveats before we begin:

Read More »

2025: The Year of Something

We’re nine days into 2025, and it’s already full of exhausting levels of controversy before we’ve even had a turnover in power in my home country of the United States. We’ve seen resignations of world leaders, wars continuing and getting worse and worse (you know where), the owner of Twitter continuing his tirade of lunacy and demonstrating why the billionaire class is not to be revered, California ablaze with a horrendous and large wildfire, right wing thinktanks developing plans to out and attack Wikipedia editors as any fascist-friendly organization would do, Meta rolling out and rolling back GenAI profiles on its platforms, and, just yesterday, the same Meta announcing sweeping changes to its moderation policies that, in a charitable reading, encourage hate-based harassment and abuse of vulnerable populations, promotion and support for disinformation, and other problems, all of which are so profound that people are talking about a mass exodus from the platform to…somewhere. It’s that last thing that brings me back to the blog today. Since the takeover at Twitter, social networks have been in a state of chaos. Platforms have risen and fallen — or only risen so much — and nothing I would call stability has formed. Years ago, I (and many others far more popular than me) remarked that we’ve ceded the territory of self-owned or small-scale third party spaces for massive third party platforms where we have minimal to no control or say and which can be stripped away in a tech-scale heartbeat. By putting all our ducks into a bin of unstable chaos, we’re also expending our time and energy on something that won’t last, requiring us to expend more time and energy finding alternatives, rebuilding communities, and then repeating the process again. In the present environment, that’s impossible to ignore.1 This is all rather reductive, but this post is not the place to talk about all the ways that social networks have impacted control over our own spaces and narratives. Another time, perhaps. I similarly don’t have space to talk about the fact that some of the platforms we currently have, however functional they may be, have placed many of us in a moral quagmire, as in the case of Meta’s recent moderation changes. Another time… ↩

Read More »