When we consider the ebook model we’re always working off of the reality that defined creation and selling of physical books.
Basically, we’re assuming that all the things that define and restrict the physical book model also limit ebooks. Our thinking revolves around -
- How can we save money on the physical book model when we use ebooks?
This is, actually, the worst possible approach to take.
Is it time to cut out 85%?
Cutting out everything except the author’s share is so radical it makes a lot of sense. It revolves around two questions -
- Is there anyone other than the author and the reader who is absolutely essential to the process?
- How can we leverage the Internet, crowdsourcing, and technology to cut out as much of the 85% non-author cost of a book as possible?
Lets look at the assumptions that are true for physical books and yet might not be true for ebooks -
Assumption #1: Publishers are necessary and should get a big cut
Well, there are self-published authors who become successes – so publishers couldn’t be absolutely irreplaceable. Perhaps their expertise and clout and the other things they bring to the table are crucial. However, if one or more authors can succeed without a publisher, there’s a possibility for a model where a large number of authors succeed sans publisher.
Assumption #2: Retailers are necessary and should get a big cut
Its a discoverability and selection thing – retailers and publishers and distributors bubble up, arguably, the best content and that provides value. As does the fact that physical books have to be transported, and stored, and taken care of, and put into pretty displays and onto shelves, and moved around.
eBooks don’t.
The big element retailers still provide for ebooks is discoverability. However, nearly all the other costs – staffing, risks, rent, electricity are greatly reduced. And discoverability is a solvable problem.
Assumption #3: A model without publishers and retailers couldn’t possibly work.
Actually, that’s an assumption that doesn’t hold up. Scribd and Amazon are already allowing self-publishing of blogs and books and cutting out publishers entirely (for those books). What’s stopping the book world equivalent of Craig Newmark or Jimmy Wales from creating a mix of a book text scanning, sales data crunching, crowd intelligence leveraging site that bubbles up the best self-published books?
The site takes 10%. Author can choose to give referrers a certain cut (say 10%). The rest is the author’s cut.
Assumption #4: Costs of physical books will get replaced by ebook equivalents
We always get hit by these assumptions that old costs don’t get cut much (marketing, etc.) and that new costs come up (formatting, DRM). However, fundamentally we’re creating a book and selling it.
Its not that different from writing a blog and selling the ideas and content therein. Its a battle about getting noticed, and capturing mindshare, before its about profits.
Perhaps we should look at the costs and model for starting and running a blog and contrast that with the physical model for book publishing – Which is the better starting point for ebooks?
An 85% price-cut is ridiculous
The more you think about it, the more the idea that ebooks could cut out 85% of the costs of physical books sounds incredible.
We are stumbling towards it without even realizing it. Amazon with self-publishing is offering authors 35% instead of 15%. Scribd is offering 80% instead of 15%.
How long until we see someone offer 100% to authors?
- Perhaps in exchange for running ads in book search results? That is actually exactly what Google offers, via its search, to blogs and websites. Why not translate that model to books?
- Perhaps free? A discoverability site that offers book reviews, ratings, and recommendations.
Filed under: evolution, publishing Tagged: | 85% overhead, kindle book cost
I believe that there is one “cost” associated with book writing that you have omitted- the editor. An editor is essential, especially for a new writer. Frankly, a new writer really can’t self-edit. An independent editor is very important (not what i do by the way- I’m an attorney). They help shape, streamline, focus and create the final book.
Having said that, there are inedpendent editors that one can use. The writer does NOT need a publishing house to find and use one. But I do recommend that any writer (even an experienced one) use an editor.
thats a good point.
it makes sense to work upwards from author and then figure out the absolutely key pieces like editor that need to be added.
got to agree with the editor…my biggest qualm with self-published books are often the lack of editing…so bad sometimes I am VERY wary of self published titles now.
People often forget that publishing houses do another essential job. Marketing. Discoverability, as you call it, is essential to success and as much as I love Amazon I can’t stand looking for new material on it…have you noticed how hard it can be to find new releases?? I go to book stores to find my books. I buy a cup of coffee at their coffee house and then i go to amazon and find my book. This is something Amazon needs to greatly improve to fully capture book readers.
Marketing is something that many authors don’t have the upfront cash to take care of. This is something publishing houses are very good for: up front costs.
I have to agree that an editor is a big part of the process and one that needs to stay in place. How many published bestsellers do you read and think to yourself about how the writer needed a better editor?
Even good writers get self indulgent and need a good editor to keep them in line.
And marketing needs to be part of the process also. I agree completely about the difficulty of finding new material on Amazon. With book review sections disappearing from papers, writers really need something to get new books in front of the readers.