[opendais]

Scalzi, like usual is ~90% correct and what little he is off about is easy enough to ignore. ;)

I easily see #3 resulting in the bottom end selling at $5 and the top end selling at $9.99 because I suspect the reason Amazon picked that number is, overall, it generates more total sales [by dollar volume]. One of the few things Amazon is good at is accurately pricing products to maximize gross revenue.

That being the case, I don't think its likely to be the disastrous price point Scalzi thinks it is even if it squeezes the publisher's margins on the higher end books. Ebooks, once created, are a sunk cost...not an ongoing one so maximizing gross revenue works in everyone's favor.

[cstross]

Ebooks, once created, are a sunk cost...not an ongoing one so maximizing gross revenue works in everyone's favor.

What you're missing is that, from the author's point of view, ebooks are not interchangeable. A unit of my sales is not usefully interchangeable with a unit of Scalzi's. To Amazon we're fungible produce, but to us we're suppliers of bespoke one-of-a-kind products. The Amazon move squeezes those of us who are able to sell at a higher price point -- like me (current lead title priced at $12.99 on Amazon and selling jolly well; and at £7.99 in the UK, and doing well there, too).

Amazon's proposed $9.99 guillotine on pricing would basically impose a 30% cut in my income if sales volume of my titles remains static. And I haven't seen any evidence that the price elasticity of demand for novels by Charles Stross will respond to crude pricing signals the way that aggregate demands for all books will do across the board.

[opendais]

> What you're missing is that, from the author's point of view, ebooks are not interchangeable.

> we're suppliers of bespoke one-of-a-kind products

People who make specialty designer products all think this way, it isn't just authors. I'm well aware of the mindset, I just don't subscribe to it. Many software products are as unique as two different ebooks, however, they meet the same general need/desire for products of that category and are ultimately interchangeable under the right market conditions.

> Amazon's proposed $9.99 guillotine on pricing would basically impose a 30% cut in my income if sales volume of my titles remains static. And I haven't seen any evidence that the price elasticity of demand for novels by Charles Stross will respond to crude pricing signals the way that aggregate demands for all books will do across the board.

The number of authors I don't buy on price is a very, very small list compared to the majority of my ebook purchases. FWIW, I've never bought any of your books precisely for this reason.

So, if you accept Amazon's premise that aggregate demand for all ebooks will increase, that leads to the basic question of:

Why should I specifically value the net outcome for Charles Stross over any other author that benefits from the increase in demand?

[mcguire]

"A unit of my sales is not usefully interchangeable with a unit of Scalzi's."

You sure about that? I haven't read anything by either one of you. You both have a bunch of good reviews and some interesting titles. Or, I could just go get a new paddle leash for the price of your book and go kayaking.