Books: Paper and otherwise

I love to read, in fact, I probably love reading as much as I love surin’ round the ‘net in search of news and happenings worthy of my attention.

Since I love reading so much I tend to spend a “certain” amount of money on them each month.  I actually have a “book allowance” because, if left to my own whims and fancy, I would spend funds in excess of our food budget [and have].  Now, don’t be misunderstand, my “book allowance” is plenty enough to keep me well supplied and my “current stack” generally in danger of an avalanche. 

I also have a Platinum subscription with Audible.com which “feeds” my commute time [because I haven't figured out how to read and drive at the same time].

And, when the KindleDX came out earlier this year I was finally able to convince my husband that I absolutely had to have one and, “Oh, by the way“, Dear Husband, “think of all the money I will save….” But, more about that later.

Today the UK’s Financial Times offers us this piece:

Hardback books could be killed off if Amazon’s e-books and Google’s digital library force publishers to slash prices, Arnaud Nourry, chief executive of French publishing group Hachette, has warned.

Mr Nourry said unilateral pricing by Google, Amazon and other e-book retailers such as Barnes & Noble could destroy publishers’ profits.

He said publishers were “very hostile” to Amazon’s pricing strategy – over which the online retailer failed to consult publishers – to charge $9.99 for all its e-books in the US. He also pointed to plans by Google to put millions of out-of-copyright books online for public use.

“On the one hand, you have millions of books for free where there is no longer an author to pay and, on the other hand, there are very recent books, bestsellers at $9.99, which means that all the rest will have to be sold at between zero and $9.99,” Mr Nourry said.

There was a real and “muscular” debate in the industry in the US, he added. Retailers were paying publishers more than $9.99 for each e-book, so were selling them at a loss: “That cannot last . . . Amazon is not in the business of losing money. So, one day, they are going to come to the publishers and say: by the way, we are cutting the price we pay. If that happens, after paying the authors, there will be nothing left for the publishers.”

I don’t know if I’m “weird” or not, OK… I know I am, but as far as reading habits go I do not know, but my KindleDX has not  saved me any money.  In fact, it has actually cost me more.  You see, I have purchased a number of books that after a certain way through I decided I also wanted a “hard copy”… and so I ordered one… from Amazon of course.  And, by the way, a few of the Kindle books were in excess of the $9.99 flat rate mentioned in the FT piece.  I have also purchased traditional books and decided that I also wanted an electronic version [for portability].  So, you see, e-books have actually cost me more money, and because it has cost me more money that means publishers are receiving more of my money than they would have otherwise.

As for my Audible.com audio books: That’s mostly books I have already read but wish to enjoy again.  So, again, the publishers are “double-dipping” into my wallet.  Publisher’s profits are padded… not diminished… at least for me.  But, surely, I’m not alone in this Paper and Digital cross-over and overlapping.  And… if I am… please don’t tell my Dear Husband.

On the subject of publisher profits: If there is some “Bottom Line” issue for publishers perhaps they should address the mediocrity they deliver more often than not.  Readers who do not read the Chick Lit or Vampire genres are often left hungry, and on the verge of starvation, because of the dearth of anything new outside those two less than mentally nutritious categories.  To state it plainly: It’s often a damned desert out there.

Posted via web from sophiazoe’s posterous