Why Publishers Should Embrace Ebooks

“We do not agree with their pricing strategy. I don’t believe that a new book by an author should ipso facto be less expensive electronically than it is in paper format.” Carolyn K. Reidy, chief executive of Simon & Schuster (New York Times, Feb. 10th, 2009) in reference to Amazon’s Kindle book pricing.

What? You seem to be a little out of touch with reality Ms. Reidy. There are several reasons why ebooks should be drastically less expensive than DTBs (dead tree books). Here are a few:

1. Overhead on ebooks is almost zero. There is no paper, manufacturing, shipping and inventory costs.
2. Bandwidth is cheap. Publishers can transmit an electronic version of a book for almost nothing.
3. Digital Rights Management (DRM). Because of DRM I don’t really own my ebooks; I’m only renting them. I can’t give them to a friend, donate them to my library, or sell them after I’m done. If Blockbuster told me it was going to start charging me $30 to rent a DVD, I’d tell them to stick it where the sun don’t shine.
4. My DRM riddled ebooks are only viable as long as the ebook seller supports the format. Although I don’t think Amazon is going anywhere, consumers who have purchased other DRM merchandise from larger companies than Amazon have been left high and dry (see Walmart’s DRM music store).

If anything, the publishers should be jumping at the opportunity to capitalize on a less expensive way to distribute their books. If done properly, the publishers could enjoy increased profits from the lower overhead, while still drastically lowering the cost for consumers. Who knows, this may actually may lead to an increase in the number of ebooks purchased – resulting in even more profits for the publishers.

I want the authors to make money and I want the publishers to make money, but I won’t pay an equal price for a book that I own, and can loan and do with what I want, and a digital copy that I don’t have any rights, or the ability to transfer ownership if I choose.

Binaural Bullsh*t

It’s bad enough you call yourself a technical expert and that you dispense your “wisdom” to those poor unsuspecting people who think that AOL and the Internet are the same thing, but come on Ms. Komando – do you really need to stoop to this level of half-assed journalism to drum up some more traffic to your site? Your article about digital drugs is nothing more than a tactic to scare those that are less tech savvy (your entire audience).

These people look to you as their “expert” to guide them and explain the technology that they may not understand. It’s your responsibility to at least ensure that you know more than they do. I’ve had the misfortune of stumbling across your radio program a time or two, and I must say that I usually cringe at your half-assed answers. Please take the time to learn about the subject for which you claim expertise before running around like Chicken Little. By the way, do you have any sources for the claims you make in your article?

Well, that’s enough about this subject. I’ve got to go load up my iPod with some more of this digital smack.