New ways to sell ebooks aren’t easy to implement


A simple and perfectly sensible suggestion emerged on the Brantley email list yesterday but the conversation around it showed that some stark realities about the book world have not yet been taken on board, even in very sophisticated circles (which this list is.)

The list discussed a suggestion from librarian Josh Greenberg  that publishers take note of the “rental” model built into the iTunes store as an alternative way to collect money from readers for ebooks.

Greenberg’s piece calls out a fact that many people in publishing have a great deal of difficulty with: that all ebook sales must be licensing deals. They can’t be anything else. Greenberg says:

“When we think about iTunes, we think about a basic fee-for-purchase model. We’ll just leave aside the fact that you never truly “own” a digital file, you’re just buying a particularly-structured license to use it…”

He’s right. When you deal in printed books, you have a tangible object. When you deal in ebooks, you only have “code”. The first sale doctrine says you can re-sell the book or lend it or share it. But copyright law says you can’t re-sell, lend, or share copyrighted “code.” Many digerati (and many librarians not named Josh Greenberg) refuse to acknowledge this distinction.

But that’s a legal point, one that can be debated until a court or a Congress makes a ruling (and then beyond, actually, since we continue to fight battles even after courts or Congress have rendered their conclusion.) The challenge to Greenberg’s idea of switching to a rental model is not so debatable. It’s practical.

Implementing new models for book sales requires herding cats. It can never be done fast and many business ideas relating to content have foundered because it couldn’t be done at all.

What should be clear to anybody who has been following developments since the days a decade or more ago whenRocketbook and Softbook and Sprout were trying to get publishers to give them rights for their content propositions is that it takes a very persuasive sales pitch to get publishers to do so. That sales pitch must be delivered publisher by publisher, and then the impressive ability of publishers to discuss a problem to death takes over, and the new proposition might itself die before its owner gets an answer. Or certainly before its owner gets enough answers to get the new idea off the ground.

What was further made clear by the participation of agents at Digital Book World, and particularly by the opinions expressed by superagent Robert Gottlieb on the ebook “timing” panel, is that the publishers don’t make this decision without consulting with their upstream gatekeepers. Gottlieb made clear that a) it takes a very small number of lost hardcover sales to make an author’s book slip notches on the New York Times Bestseller list, b) he and his authors believe that a much cheaper ebook, or perhaps any ebook at all not reported as a hardcover sale, can make that critical difference between being Number 1 or being much further down the list, and c) the difference in several places on that list is worth losing some sales over.

So just imagine how Gottlieb and his star clients (and all the other agents and star clients) would react to a rental model!

Let’s add one more point before the next great suggestion is made. The same thing will be true of an even better model than rental (which also has plenty of precedent in media even closer to publishers, audio books): subscription sales.

The switch that Apple has made to the “agency model” is not of equivalent complexity from a business perspective. There we’re still “selling the book” (although we’re really licensing access to a file) and the amount of money flowing to the publisher is comparable. But, even there, the switch will not be simple. Publishers have signed contracts governing almost all their ebook sales (which is a further demonstration that this is different from selling physical books, for which signed contracts between publishers and vendors is by far the exception, not the hard and fast rule) which one could imagine the purchasing party (Amazon, Ingram, Content Reserve, Barnes & Noble, Kobo) believes prevents the publisher from changing the rules in the middle of the game.

What Michael Cader reported last week which we expanded on in a blog post and a CNN interview is that publishers can use the new agency model to hold back books from channels where they can’t control the pricing. This very much underreported exchange between Steve Jobs and Walter Mossberg of the Wall Street Journal makes it very clear that Apple expects vendors who would undercut the pricing publishers set for them will be denied access to the content.

We can look forward to continued battles over pricing and over the terms of sale between publishers and the downstream players in the ebook supply chain. But I think it will be a while before real alternative distribution schemes to the public make any appearances. In fact, they’re likely to occur in vertical niches first, where the big agents are less involved and the number of publishers one needs to get on board is something less than “just about all of them.”

A quick thanks to everybody who attended Digital Book World (and there were a lot of you.) I am hoping that the fact that all I’ve heard is praise and enthusiasm for the two day event is not just a result of people being kind to the guy who put the program together. I think we really did generate discussion on some issues that had previously been neglected. But most of all I’m proud of the job we did selecting panelists; everyone I saw presenting was smart, well-prepared and entertaining. Some we had seen in front of audiences before; some we only knew through our interviews in person or on the phone. But picking them carefully and one by one certainly seemed to work and it is the same formula we’ll use putting together Digital Book World 2011. I hope we’ll see everybody again there next year.


  Back to blog

  • Guest
  • Guest
  • Sorry, Eleanor, but the brick-and-mortar examples don't prove anything to me
    for the ebook world.

    I think rental has shortcomings as a model because reduces revenue for the
    rightsholder; you get less money for the same consumer behavior (reading the
    book within a week or two.) But I don't think you can compare what happens
    when rental or borrowing requires the physical transfer of an object to when
    it simply means the file you downloaded will disappear.

    And, that aside, I still have a Blockbuster in my neighborhood so even deep
    into the age of Netflix and digital downloading, at least a few of the
    dinosaurs are still breathing.

    Mike
  • Guest
  • Eleanor, I KNOW Netflix isn't and hasn't been brick and mortar. That was my
    point. Blockbuster lasted a long time into an era when there were much
    better alternatives. I wasn't suggesting that rental would be a model to
    last 200 years.

    Mike
  • Guest
  • Max Alexander
    Seems like the solution to Gottlieb's complaint (about e-books cannibalizing bestseller list placement) is relatively simple: Throw the old hardcover/paperback list distinction overboard, and simply track all sales, in all media, to arrive at one grand number every week. I realize this would take coordination between Bookscan, Amazon, Apple and publishers (and as an author who is not involved in the daily business side of publishing, I'm sure I'm missing some other pieces of the puzzle), but it doesn't strike me as being all that difficult. The authors, agents and publishers will already know the breakdown (as will anyone who subscribes to Bookscan). Who in the public really cares how many copies of Three Cups of Tea that sold last week are hardcover vs. paperback vs. Kindle? The man on the street just wants to know how many people are buying and reading that book, and in that context the format just doesn't matter.
  • Max, the solution *is* simple to conceive; it just isn't to execute.

    The USA Today bestseller list does what you say (if is format agnostic;
    doesn't have separate cloth and paper lists) and even gets reporting from
    Amazon on Kindle to mix in with the print book sales. However they don't get
    any other ebook reporting (*nobody *gets any other ebook reporting.)

    The NY Times Bestseller List is the gold standard, but they have their own
    secret formula, Amazon doesn't report to them, and neither does Bookscan.

    As ebook sales grow, things will have to change. What we have is okay for
    now when ebook sales are usually single digits and top out at about 15%, but
    if ebook sales double or triple in the next year, it will be ridiculous to
    not tally them in somehow. (One can even imagine cloth, paper, and ebook
    bestseller lists with different titles on them.)

    Mike
  • Guest
  • If ebook sales don't double or triple in the next year then the future is
    definitely postponed.

    Would you care to make a small wager on double? Any stakes you choose. I am
    presuming that I am not suggesting anything illegal with that proposal.

    Mike
  • Guest
  • Eleanor, nothing's changed.

    Amazon is not at this moment selling Macmillan books, physical or digital.
    But no Kindle books have been "recalled."

    I'm still good for the bet. Since ebook sales have been tripling year over
    year every month for the past year, I think doubling year over year is a
    pretty safe guess for the next 12 months. Unless there is some factor that
    will suddenly slow things down even though Apple and Google are about to
    jump into the game, along with a number of device manufacturers, trying to
    speed things up.

    Mike
  • Guest
  • I'll have a post about the Macmillan and Amazon brouhaha up shortly. I am
    aware of the Cader posts and they'll be included in my analysis. We
    absolutely agree on the "bumpy ride."

    Ten percent of "the whole book market" is too ambiguous to measure. What
    would be the standard and authority? Working with an existing baseline and
    methodology makes a comprehensible wager. I'll go to 2.2 and I'll stick with
    triple if you give me 2 to 1.

    Mike
  • Guest
  • Eleanor, Tim McCall's number is a reasonable number but it is just Tim
    McCall's number. I am not sure what his methodology is or how you could get
    the number for Jan 31, 2011 except by asking Tim McCall.

    The standard I proposed using was the IDPF's total market number, which they
    report month by month with a consistent methodology, and have for many
    years.

    Yes, I know about Amazon Encore.

    Mike
  • Guest
  • I don't mean to be a wise guy, but when you say that you "are not impressed"
    with the "accuracy" of IDPF's numbers (which has nothing to do with the
    nomenclature issue which, it turns out, I HAVE sinced talked to their
    Executive Director about...), I sorta wonder, what are your credentials to
    tell me whether I should be impressed with the fact that you are not
    impressed? Are you a data analyst? It's kind of hard to respond to somebody
    speaking with presumed "authority" when one has no clue as to the source of
    their authority. I say that for myself and on behalf of the readers of this
    blog whom I want to read the comments and get value from them. I'm always
    prepared to learn something about how methodologies can be improved, but as
    far as I know, IDPF is the only game in town for measuring the size of the
    ebook market objectively with a consistent methodology. It sure beats the
    Hell out of one man's opinion, which is the standard you proposed.

    Mike
  • Guest
  • I beg your pardon, Eleanor. Most of the exchanges I have everyday -- even on
    the blog -- are with people professionally connected in some way with the
    topics we're talking about. So, yes, blogs are for opinions, but in order to
    even respond to them sensibly, I need to know where they're coming from. I
    now understand very clearly that you are a "civilian" -- a non-combatant
    (except as a consumer.) And welcome, because I don't think there are very
    many of you.

    But take it from me: there is no better authority to the size of the ebook
    market than the IDPF numbers. If anybody tells you there is, ask them what
    it is and let me know. I will gratefully receive new information, but I
    think I'll be sending you back to your skeptic with an explanation of why
    it's not. I know there's plenty wrong and incomplete about IDPF numbers;
    they are just the best available by 100 miles.

    Mike
  • Guest
  • You're welcome to your opinion, but I am not trying to win a popularity
    contest. I'm too old to change in any essential way and when I meet an
    "opinion" I don't like, I challenge it. It's the way my Mama and Poppa
    raised me. If the way I engage displeases you, there is a very simple way to
    avoid it.

    Mike
  • Max Alexander
    Thanks for your reply, Mike. Sounds like the healthcare debate: so simple in theory, but as they say up here in New England, good luck to you and the Red Sox!
  • babetteross
    First off, as your volunteer photographer, my experience at DBW was terrific, I've not felt so energized about my future in publishing for a long time.

    Secondly, the rental model is very attractive to me as a consumer, and instead of calling it rental what if it were termed subscription, and acted a bit more like Netflix. This absolutely not my area of expertise but perhaps something could be structured to be advantageous to publishers and consumers.

    Thirdly, the comments Steve Jobs made about publishers holding content back from vendors who undercut pricing, such as Amazon who are also doing a brisk business selling printed books, seems extraordinarily unlikely to me.
  • Babette, it was a pleasure to meet you at Digital Book World and I've seen a
    lot of your great pictures which, I guess, people can find through the Digital
    Book World <http: digitalbookworld.com=""> site. I'm really happy that it
    energized you; that's what happens when you get to hear a lot of smart
    people talk about what they're up to.

    I think the rental model and the subscription model will be very attractive
    to many customers, but I think it will take real time to work out what deal
    will work for channel-conscious publishers and agents. What might happen is
    that a successful content subscription model grows up with other content and
    then starts adding books later. That's why I suggested that it would start
    in the verticals. In fact, the genre publishers with large direct audiences
    probably do it now.

    And I don't think Jobs is talking through his hat. Remember that the big
    publishers have withheld books from ebook distribution and made it clear
    that their motivation to do that was to protect the hardcover sale and the
    value of the intellectual property. If you're publishing the next Dan Brown
    or James Patterson, you might reason that most of your audience will find
    the ebook if you make it available and any channel that doesn't want to meet
    the terms can wait or do without. That's really the main impact of the
    arrival of
    Apple and Google on the scene. They provide alternative paths to the
    consumer. Everybody that shops at Amazon today also knows how to get to
    iTunes and google.com.

    Mike</http:>
  • Bradley, I would have to disagree with the concept of consumer opposition to rental. As founder of BookSwim.com -- a book rental service (of physical books) -- we've had the most traction recently in this new industry than we've ever seen.

    While I regretfully couldn't attend the Digital Book World conference, I have to thank Mike for not only putting on a great show (from what I hear) but also for embracing a long overdue concept of digital distribution that BookSwim believes could fly.......(or swim).
  • George and Bradley, I personally tend to think that rental would "work" for
    books because most people only want to read them once and often see little
    need to own them. The challenge would be to make that model "work"
    (commercially) for publishers and authors because it simply means getting
    less revenue from each reader. This is less onerous for the publisher in the
    print world for the same reason library lending is less onerous; having to
    take possession of and then give back the physical object creates a bit of a
    nuisance problem that makes it less than automatic that everybody would do
    it. Rental would seem to serve everybody except the person who needs much
    more than the normal amount of time to read the book.

    Mike
  • Bryan
    Mike
    So you know where I am coming from, I am not very knowledgeable about how most of the publishing/commercial aspect works, but as an average consumer I have been looking for a way to rent ebooks for a while now. Wouldn't it make sense that it would work commercially because since people don't have to spend so much money on one book that they'll likely never read again, they will have more money to spend on a variety of books? It seems to me that it would even out for everyone involved.
  • The rental model has made its way to college texts through a company called
    Chegg. It hasn't happened for consumer books. It existed 50 and more years
    ago (Womrath stores did it.) I think the closest that exists now is that I
    recall that some airport bookstores will buy back the books you buy from
    them. Sale and buyback is close to rental. The costs aren't trivial to ship
    a book around the way they are for DVDs. If they were, maybe Netflix would
    do it. Because they're not, I think it would be very hard to make it work.

    Mike
  • I don't think the term "renting" would go over very well with consumers. In anti-DRM circles, "renting" is a derogatory term often used to described protected technology which can be crippled by the distributing party.

    When Amazon removed the Orwell books so many months ago, users and commenters were outraged that they were suddenly not buying their books from Amazon but rather renting access.

    Trying to convince consumers to "rent" books probably wouldn't fly anymore than convincing upstream gatekeepers to go along with it.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Go Back | Top