Aaron Pressman
on Aug 3rd, 2009
@ 6:23 am: 

I think you may be off-base here on your assessment of what Amazon is up to by not including results for dead tree versions of books when you search the KINDLE STORE either from a Kindle or the Kindle section of Amazon’s web site. Originally, Amazon did display print versions available on the Kindle pages for books. From the point of view of customers, there’s both a good and a bad reason explaining why Amazon changed the layout and neither is really about losing sales. Amazon is not in business to forgo any sales. They constantly change and tweak everything on their web site to maximize sales.

First, the positive. Almost always when I’m on my Kindle and I want a new book, I want a Kindle ebook to start reading. I don’t want search results showing me non-Kindle books because I’m looking for something to read on my Kindle. It’s actually annoying to click through to a search result that isn’t available on the Kindle. When I’m on Amazon’s web site and I go to the trouble of limiting my searching to “Kindle books,” I REALLY only want a Kindle book. In a minority of cases, when I’m looking for a specific book, it’s trivial to broaden the search by clicking on the “any department” line.

I think there is also a nefarious rationale for why they changed the policy. Amazon has been creeping up the prices of ebooks and frequently displaying a made-up “digital” list price. With some older books, they’ve actually priced the ebook edition above the price of available paperbacks. By “hiding” the prices of those competing, dead tree editions, Amazon is hiding information about relative pricing and doing a disservice to its customers. This is tilting a sale towards digital and away from print but only in cases where there’s a Kindle edition available. It’s not forgoing a sale completely, as you suggest.

You final point about the coming wave of competitors is right on. I think the growing and, hopefully, heated competition will improve things for us customers.

[Reply]

Scott
on Aug 3rd, 2009
@ 12:20 pm: 

Great post. I too have noticed the absence of other versions on the Kindle side of the Amazon store. I wonder if it is an attempt to show publishers/authors that if a book is not in Kindle edition then it won’t be seen (and therefore won’t be purchased) by a growing set of consumers. While some consumers (those who know exactly what book they want) will then search and buy on the print side of Amazon or search for the book elsewhere, others may simply find an alternative book in the Kindle format.

[Reply]

Anthony S. Policastro
on Aug 10th, 2009
@ 12:34 pm: 

I would have to agree with Evan’s assessment of Amazon. Now wouldn’t it be nice when you searched for a book on your Kindle and it said not available in Kindle format you could order the print edition right from you Kindle and have it delivered anywhere you want?

Because of the small and slower access to the Kindle catalog on a Kindle, I would keep the catalog with Kindle books only. But, if the book was not in the Kindle format I would have just those books presented as print books and be able to purchase it from the Kindle.

[Reply]

Dan Holloway
on Jul 20th, 2009
@ 3:51 am: 

I’ve come across this topic a lot in the past week. It seems that whilst the e-book is in its relative infancy we have a chance to get things sorted out properly so as to avoid falling into the endless problems that beset paper book pricing. Of course, there’s a problem, because “sort out” will instantly smack of cartels and price-fixing like the ludicrously protectionist Net Book Agreement. In fact, therefore, the only thing that can really sort the issue out is the market.

And what that means is that we have to debate lots, and try lots, and see what readers respond to. Thsi is the one thing that’s missing in this whole debate – a real focus on readers – on what they want and how they behave. I think the people who really engage with readers in the bottom-up market of e-culture are the ones who will succeed quicker.

To throw my opinion in as a writer – I give e-books of my novels away for free, and I always will. I am thoroughly committed to the 1,000 true fans model, and am also committed to my readers. I want as many people as possible to read my work. And I genuinely believe that if they read it and like it, enough will buy the paper book to help me earn a living – eventually. And if they don’t like it enough to buy the paperbook – at least I gave them the chance to find out before they spent their cash on something they really do want – which has to be good for them (and as a writer, my first thought is always for my readers), and for me, because I haven’t hacked someone of by getting them to shell out for something they then don’t enjoy. Win-win.

There is currently a lot of fear in the industry about e-books being free. I am at a loss to think of any reason other than the good old protectionism at which the industry is so good (always done in the name of the author, ironically – listen up, I don’t WANT someone fighting my battles; I’m gnarly enough to stand up for myself, thank you). If free books are no good, people won’t come back – so established authors have nothing to fear. If they are better than the works of establihed authors, then those authors don’t deserve their slice of the pie.

Thank you, Evan, for another very informative contribution to such an important debate. My blog on the matter is at: http://agnieszkasshoes.blogspot.com/2009/07/free-is-not-four-letter-word.html I will watch the discussion here with interest.

Very best
Dan
http://www.danholloway.wordpress.com

[Reply]

Karen Syed @ Echelon Press
on Jul 20th, 2009
@ 6:00 am: 

The solution here is to understand that each business works on its own model and there will never be a solution to the problem that fits every publisher or retailer.

Amazon can work on a loss with their eBooks because it makes up it’s lost revenue in big ticket items like computers, cameras, other electronics, etc. They don’t bottom line those items, because they are tangible.

There is no middle ground when you have different publishing houses with different needs and requirements.

The eBooks I sell at http://echelonpress.com average $6.00 and they are every bit as good as the best sellers, in some case, I think better. That price works for us and we make money. But we don’t have the overhead that a much larger publisher might have.

It is difficult for anyone who does run a business to understand a businesses needs.

As for the demand. People also need to realize that there is a 90% chance that if a reader buys an eBook they never intended to buy the hardback so there is actually an increase in revenue, not a loss.

Karen Syed
http://klsyed.com

[Reply]

Phil
on Jul 20th, 2009
@ 8:48 am: 

You’re reading your Amazon/Kindle publisher contract incorrectly, Evan. They are paying publishers on net, not list. The contract I’ve seen is 35% of net, or $3.50/sale. Even though the publisher is not incurring PPB, inventory and warehousing costs, none can survive on $3.50/Kindle copy sold.

[Reply]

Aaron Pressman
on Jul 20th, 2009
@ 10:21 am: 

Phil – that’s the self-publishing term sheet. Major publishers are not selling to Amazon on those terms. They are collecting a fixed percentage of the retail list price they themselves set, and it’s been reported that it varies but is usually around 50% of the retail list price. That means on many $9.99 Kindle ebooks, Amazon is paying out more to publishers than it collects from the customer.

[Reply]

Jussi K
on Jul 20th, 2009
@ 12:20 pm: 

This is a bit of a waste of time, isn’t it? Everyone with an eye to the future understands that all e-books will be pirated and distributed for zero dollars. Even if you set the price to 99 cents or whatever you are WISHING for.

Meanwhile, all the 5-to-10 dollar pricing strategies are just a marketing opportunity for the not-big and not-published writers and/or publishers to have their share of the limelight.

[Reply]

The Sourcebooks experiment with Bran Hambric: publishers in the early “establishment” stage of ebook adoption - The Shatzkin Files
on Jul 20th, 2009
@ 7:57 pm: 

[...] Evan Schnittman makes the point that holding back the ebook has consequences. It dilutes the impact of the publisher’s marketing efforts. It could encourage piracy. Evan’s solution is an introductory promotional price that is raised when initial demand has ebbed and he has a notion (which I don’t quite understand) of how publishers can get retailers to collaborate on that. I don’t think that’s the answer. First of all: it strikes me as backwards. The ebook price should be a dollar more than the print book for the 3 weeks or so before the print book comes out when an ebook could be available. Then it should be the same as the print book for the first couple of months so that it doesn’t disturb the bestseller list possibilities. Then it should drop sharply to reflect the lower cost (to publisher and retailer) of providing ebooks. [...]

Dear Author: Romance Novel Reviews, Industry News, and Commentary » Blog Archive » Link Round Up Tuesday
on Jul 21st, 2009
@ 7:57 am: 

[...] Schnittman of Oxford University Press disagrees with the delayed [...]

Creating experiences out of content | Digital Business
on Jan 5th, 2010
@ 3:11 pm: 

[...] being generated in the publishing sector continues to build when it comes to the pricing of ebooks (Evan Schnittman’s post in July) and digital rights management (DRM) where the publishing sector is seeking to [...]

Jeroen
on May 6th, 2009
@ 3:04 pm: 

You’re asking two things here:
1) The question is whether we can deliver immersive reading in a manner that is relevant to Generation On-Demand.
2) What will we need to do as an industry to make that happen?

You already gave the answer: put it in the “clouds”. This will automatically lead to a “usage fee” instead of a “buying fee”. For the consumer than it is important to know what they’re paying for. Is it a product I’m paying for or is it the usage of the content? And is the content mine? Can I resell it or lend it to a friend? No, why not? Next to changing the contract structures I think the transition to e-reading involves a lot of communication to the consumer about what is possible and what is not.

[Reply]

Jeff
on May 6th, 2009
@ 8:50 pm: 

Good analysis, though I think issues of reading need separating from issues of access.

Immersive reading might be slippery to define. Those of us who value long-form prose have always been in the minority throughout history. We just hate to confront that reality for fears of being called elitist. As far as “immersive reading” in digital media goes, everyone should look more towards documentary films than print as a content model though there’s obviously not much of a revenue model there. Intellectual property constraints will do more to limit creativity or new forms of “writing” in digital media than on reading and distribution.

I think you’re absolutely right in that the future is about on demand access to material. And that can be in the format of one’s preference (be it digital or print via print-on-demand or even traditional bookstores).

[Reply]

Bradley Robb
on Apr 6th, 2009
@ 8:44 am: 

With all due respect to you(r) position, the belief that pirated content is the source of the decline in the music industry is a flawed one, and one that placing DRM on compact discs wouldn’t have helped. While the finger is often pointed towards Napster and the programs which followed as the cause of the decline, they are more accurately described as a harbinger of change.

The rise of the CD represented the start of a bubble for the music industry in which many people rushed to replace their aging LP collection with a medium that captured the same sonic fidelity, or to upgrade their tape collection. This collector’s motivation was one of the key sources of increased sales numbers.

A second noticeable increase was that the compact disc largely killed off a large previous sales leader – the single. Prior to the early 1970s, the concept of a “full album” was indeed a rare one, the multitude of bands recorded 45 RPM singles, while earning their income from touring. With the rise of the compact disc in the middle 1990s, there was no technical difference between a full length CD and a single, and so bands were encourage to put together entire albums consisting of two or three singles, while padding the rest together with filler material. While returning greater profits for the labels, the perceived value of the album was reduced.

Putting together full albums, however, was more expensive for the record labels. Pair that fact with the number of labels shrinking into four global conglomerates, and there was a drastic reduction in risks that the labels were willing to take. This lead to cyclical trends where each label would push out copycat bands, pitting similar bands against each other in the media in order to enhance sales across the board. During the rise of the blond pop tarts in the late 1990s, it was actually common for a single label to have several essentially identical singers competing for sales. This lead to market place confusion for listeners and a further degraded the value of music.

With the onset of a digital music, listeners were able to once again upgrade their music libraries, and had access to extensive back catalogs. However, this time around, music listeners were able to purchase individual songs, which left record labels footing the bill for continuing to churn out LP-length song collections which only contained a handful of songs which the listener actually cared about.

The real harm which was done to the music industry was not downloading, or even the shift to digital, but rather the belief that the compact disc bubble would extend indefinitely, when since the dawn of the wax tube, music format shifts have been happening at an increasingly rapid rate.

If the record labels had put DRM on the compact disc from it’s inception, one could make the argument that customers would have likewise been forced to repurchase all of their favorite music over again in digital format. However, as the real world has shown, music listeners have grown disinterested with the major labels willingness to pad singles into LPs, and given the option, will purchase just the single.

The other major stumbling block for the belief that placing DRM on the compact disc would prevent people from ripping their own CDs is the very real fact that no DRM scheme has ever lasted. True, some require a certain amount of tech-savvy amongst the user, and current law makes the act of removing DRM a criminal one, but that has yet to stop people. Even the flaunted DRM schemes attached to the Blu Ray disc, claimed to be unbreakable, are broken with rapid success each time the format is updated.

[Reply]

Marshall T. Vandegrift
on Apr 6th, 2009
@ 9:33 am: 

I’m afraid I have to disagree with your assertion that the Kindle’s DRM scheme is “smart,” or that a “smart” DRM scheme is possible. Amazon has made it easier to read a book on multiple devices linked to the same account, but this feature is present in various forms in all the existing commercial e-book formats and viewers. The Amazon system is still DRM, and still contains the two fundamental flaws of DRM: (1) it inherently treats the reader like a criminal and attempts to lock the content into a system which prohibits legitimate fair use and uses possible with print books; and (2) it is inherently ineffective, providing no true barrier preventing actual pirates from decrypting the content and distributing it as they wish.

[Reply]

Kirk Biglione
on Apr 6th, 2009
@ 1:30 pm: 

What you’re talking about in this post is transparent DRM. That’s pretty much the holy grail for anyone trying to sell content protected by DRM. The ideal is that DRM should be so unobtrusive that consumers don’t notice it. To achieve this goal content publishers need to minimize friction during the initial purchase and media transfer process, and provide consumers with freedom to use their legally purchased digital media in a variety of ways. For Apple that meant allowing consumers to transfer songs to a certain number of devices and the ability to burn songs to CD. For Amazon that means the ability to transfer ebooks to multiple Kindles, and now to the Kindle iPhone app.

The problem for consumers is that this freedom is illusory. DRM protected songs purchased from iTunes will only play on an Apple brand media player. DRM protected books purchased from Amazon will only play on the Kindle or Kindle iPhone app. Consumers are not only locked into a specific brand of device, they’re also locked into a specific marketplace where content may be purchased.

The real challenge is not so much creating a transparent DRM scheme (Apple and Amazon have both demonstrated it can be done), but rather creating transparent and *interoperable* DRM in an *open* marketplace. The market leaders aren’t about to provide any assistance.

Apple could have licensed Microsoft’s DRM for use on the iPod, but there was no reason to. Why willingly make your device compatibility with rival digital music retailers when you’ve already built the industry leading marketplace for digital music?

Amazon could easily build support for Adobe DRM into the Kindle. They won’t. Again, there’s no reason for them to.

The real reason iTunes went DRM free is because the recording industry eventually realized that the only hope of overcoming Apple’s dominance in the marketplace for digital music was to eliminate the one thing that locked consumers into iTunes — DRM.

As publishers consider these issues it’s important to fully understand the many ways that DRM shapes the marketplace for digital content.

[Reply]

Aaron Ardiri
on Apr 6th, 2009
@ 7:58 pm: 

As a swede – i had to say something *g*

I think DRM in its current form is flawed because it doesn’t adapt to the changing environment of the end-user. DRM should be transparent; it should not be an inconvenience. Instead of putting anti-copy measures in place; why not turn DRM into a validation environment – is that a real CD you are extracting that song from? are you person X, trying to use item Y – on devices A, B and C?

In today’s model; we are living in a connected world and digital signatures should rule the DRM scene. if the device isn’t sure your allowed to use it; make a network request and validate/generate a new digital signature. if someone copies the file; they’ll have to revalidate and hence, fail validation.

One of the biggest issues is that the audio/video format’s were designed first; then DRM came into play. what needs to be done by these “giants” if they want to provide a fair-play environment is to re-design the audio/video formats so they include DRM. sony tried this; and failed. does this mean doom for anyone else who tries?

i think the minute someone realizes they can make money of something; it’s just too late – proof of concepts are typically DRM free and they form the foundations of anti-DRM (once free, always free)

every DRM system will eventually be beaten – so, there is no ultimate solution; just a delay.

// Aaron Ardiri

[Reply]