There’s an interesting article on Ars Technica about Steam which is an excellent but unwieldy video game downloads service.
Ars Technica has a list of things Steam ought to do to make its service perfect and one of the items is ‘Allow us to sell our games’ -
Once you a buy a game on Steam you can’t resell it and you can’t return it. It’s yours, tied to your account and locked down until the end of time.
The article brings up a suggestion to create a used games marketplace where Publishers can get a cut every time a used game is sold.
In the very next paragraph they realize how unrealistic the idea of a used goods market for digital video game downloads is -
Will this happen? Of course not. Publishers love digital distribution because it doesn’t allow a secondary market for games.
there is almost no reason to move from a perfectly closed system to a more open one from a business perspective.
Which brings us to the topic of our post.
Will there ever be a used ebook market?
The answer is – Probably Not. There is little chance we’ll ever have a used ebook market.
It’s unlikely that the first sale doctrine will carry over to ebooks and it would be great if people just accepted this.
Publishers are already ceding ground
You already get a few benefits with ebooks -
- Lower prices.
- Sharing across multiple devices i.e. multiple family members (or close friends) can read an ebook at the same time.
- Lots of convenience and portability.
It’s a give and take. Contrary to conspiracy theories that Publishers aren’t giving up anything – they are.
Publishers are okay with giving up some ground because ebooks promise some big benefits (to them) -
- Lower costs of manufacturing and distribution (This is 20% or so of costs, not the 80% we’d like to imagine).
- Lower cost of failure (of a published book).
- No used book market.
There is no incentive or rationale for Publishers to create a used books market
Ars Technica pointed it out in their article -
there is almost no reason to move from a perfectly closed system to a more open one from a business perspective.
Publishers are OK with initiatives that are limited in how much damage they can do i.e. family sharing, lending out ebooks once, etc.
They are, quite reasonably, very concerned about things that could completely kill their revenue i.e. removing DRM, a used ebook market.
It’s a big risk to start a used ebook market and there’s very, very little incentive.
What good can come out of a used ebook market?
- Make readers feel they have ownership.
- Maintain the value proposition of a physical book.
- Make $1 off of a used ebook sale of $5.
- Encourage people to buy more new ebooks since they can sell them after reading.
None of these are a big benefit to Publishers. The downside is very high and the upside is either low or unknown.
The standard argument (even the Ars Technica article mentions it) is that people will buy more new ebooks if they can sell them used.
eBooks are already $10 - How much less do we want to pay for them?
What about Competition? Will competition lead to a used books market?
You have to consider the possibility that competition leads to an obviously bad business decision i.e.
- Amazon forcing Apple to remove DRM from mp3s.
- Nook introducing the concept of lending ebooks.
Competition may very well lead to the removal of DRM.
- That would mean you suddenly get unlimited sharing.
- In that case you still wouldn’t have a used books market – in fact, used ebooks would be completely worthless.
There’s probably never going to be a used ebook market. It’s time to accept that some things just don’t translate from physical to digital.
Filed under: thoughts Tagged: | used books
How are publishers going to deal with libraries? Right now, my local library offers downloads of audio books. Haven’t used it because I listen to so many podcasts I no longer have time to listen to audiobooks. But if libraries can do audiobooks, how can they manage ebooks?
No idea. Libraries are a very tough area to consider because of all the things they stand for.
The thing is, $10 is cheap compared to hardcover price points, which I believe tend to hover in the $25-30 range these days, absent some sort of ebook price-matching scheme. And that’s fine. But I have never in my life paid $25-30 for a hardcover book. It just doesn’t happen. I get trade paperbacks (which average $10 on Amazon and arguably give me more value for my money than an ebook at the same price point given that I cannot currently lend or sell ebooks.), or mass market paperbacks (currently averaging $8, though I dislike the format), or I buy used for under $10.
So for me, $10 represents a price -increase-. I don’t necessarily think they need to lower ebook prices much, if at all, but if they’re going to maintain that price point it’s going to be important to replace some of the value I’m losing by going digital. If the Nook lending feature were less hilariously crippled, it’d be a fine start.
I want the price of ebooks to be free and I also want the authors to become very wealthy. Since both of these things are not likely to happen at the same time there has to be some sort of middle ground. I do think $10 a book is too expensive. I want them cheaper and I want them to retain some resale value. An older book should not have the same price tag a new book has.
It´s surprising that the discussion about this subject is almost inexistent.
The secondhand market has always been an important part of the book trade, and suddenly it is at risk of disappearing in the digital enviroment, to the detriment of the readers. But it has not to be that way mandatorily.
First, there’s a distinction that has to be made: digital “products”, digital books in this case, are no objects (physical nor “virtual”) but information “packages”, so they cannot be considered as “used” after being read, but they definitively can be considered as “second hand” products if transferred from user to user -just like a physical book that, even if sealed and not read, is sold or passed by the original buyer (costumer/potential reader) to another person.
Now, a copy of an ebook is another thing. (The book is specifically propitious to copy, since virtuality is part of its nature. I can copy a novel by hand, word by word, and the result will be the same novel, no less, no more.I can copy a PDF book in RTF format, and the textuality at least will be the same, and the reading experience will be the same. Xerox copies are of common use since decades ago).
Just like the music industry years ago, the editorial industry is suffering a panic attack that the shift to a digital enviroment entails. “Will the readers share their readings without benefit to us?” “will the writer become his own publisher without benefit to us?” Yes, of course, this is happening, and will continue to happen no matter what efforts are made by the industry to prevent it. People will copy cultural goods whenever is cheaper and faster and better copying them than buying it.
Why, whitout the print, store and delivery costs, is an ebook almost equal in price than a physical book? Why, being technologically easier to share it is so difficult legally? Because, when in pannic, persons and companies act stupidly. They are mistaking the reader for an enemy, when he’s not. He´s a costumer (that is to say, a kind of partner), a friend, but not a silly one. He will go where he can find the best choice, the best buy, and if he can get the same for free, he will go for it. Because, as the song goes, “information want to be free”.
The current regulations prevent the existence of second hand ebooks, not only by sale/purchase, but by loan or donation also. It is not forbidden (yet) but is, indeed, constrained. If a physical book can be read by an unlimited number of “users”, due to technical and legal (that are not technological or ethical) limitations, an ebook cannot. So, the mere idea of secondhand books is quashed by design.
As a margin note: what about libaries (public, semi-public and private)? There are now experiments (limited in scope an reach) that, despite their shyness, demonstrates that a demand niche exists, more social that commercial.
Books, always, have been read mainly when access is provided. What I mean is: 1) the purchase of a book, is only one -and never the principal- in many ways to “get” a book. And it will continue this way. and 2) just as the gutemberg press provoked at its time a social change that went far further that a simply “printing and reading” revolution, the digital publishing can, and will, and has already spark cultural shifts that will develop with or without the involvement of the editorial industry.
Music and media industries has focused their efforts in prosecution and “re-education” of the public to “teach” them (by exemplary lessons) that sharing is a crime. But they´ll never succeed because the people know that it is a crime without victims (except, of course, of the copyright holders), and there is no real harm nor guilt in that.
Editorial industry will do wrong following the steps of music and media industry (altought we all know they are part of the same conglomerates). Among other reasons, because it has few aggregate bussines opportunities: no live concerts, no merchandising, no franchises.
The industry, in order to survive, has to adapt itself to the new realities, instead of trying to adapt the new realities to their interests. A new model of businnes is needed, and it has to include -technically and comercially- the possibility of re-circulation. Is the reader who has the power to invent it and demand it.
Publishing companies can ride the wave or stay at the shore.
Ok, who has ever hesitated renting a movie for $4.99 on demand, fearing it may not be as good as you might like. However, when at RedBox, you not only will rent the questionable movie, but will even rent an additional one or two — just in case?
Well, I believe the same is true with potential ebooks– I won’t consider some that my initially interest me at full price, just to be dissappointed– but will take a chance if I believe I am getting a value to take the chance.
This is where publishers cannot think outside their a.. To create and acquire a market, hence, a money flow where there is presently none is not what they will entertain. Status quo– but hey, things are-a-changing.
Anyone remember Kazza?– the record companies resisted– until they could not any longer. people were going to share- like it or not. Apple, a very forward company saw the potential, created Itunes- guaranteeing great selection, great quality, and no viruses!– from no market to 0.99 a tune!– and that is just a beginning– the sharing will eventually go the same route- it will eventually happen, either the publishers will create it in the forfront or will be brought there kicking and dragging.