BOOK PUBLISHERS SHOULD PREVENT E READERS FROM UNDERCUTTING THEIR BOOKS RECOMMENDED RETAIL PRICE.

Macmillan has won a battle with Amazon, creator of the kindle, on the pricing of its books online. The intent is to try to prevent readers from buying their books online and instead purchase traditional style books. However the lessons of the music industry would seem to imply that in order to prevent pirating electronic content needs to be priced as competitively as possible. Are publishers making the same mistake as the music industry in battling paid online versions of their content?

Book publishers should prevent E readers from undercutting their books recommended retail price.

Yes, because... New Directions

 

Ebooks are a new direction for the publishing industry that publishers should interact with. Small independent companies like Winged Chariot Press[1] have started to produce works for the iphone and ebooks through their own website.

By fighting the actions of ebooks larger companies like Macmillan are going to make the same mistakes as the music industry and if they embrace the notions of the ebook and possibly try and compete with sites such as amazon the larger companies would benefit. With the price of e-readers being reasonably high at present these is not a strong market for ebooks and with the portable nature of books and the physical ability to enjoy and flick through a book there may not be the same competition as the music industry.

It seems that ebooks are a natural development in the publishing industry and this can be embraced by publishers.

  1. ^ http://www.wingedchariot.com/

 
 

Book publishers should prevent E readers from undercutting their books recommended retail price.

Yes, because... It is purely RRP

 

Whether as an ebook or as a book publishers have a recommended retail price, if places like amazon want to sell things cheaper then they should. They make less profit at the end of the say so why shouldn't it happen. There will be cases of piracy but the same principle applies to used books, books once read decrease in value so why shouldn't others be able to make money from ebooks in the same way?

The price that publishers place on a book does not necessarily place a value on the book. If a book is expensive it is usually due to manufacturing costs, places like amazon are not going to undermine this as they still need to be able to make a profit. If they can challenge other companies then they should be able to just as the music industry does.

 
 

Book publishers should prevent E readers from undercutting their books recommended retail price.

 

No, because... Tradition

If books are truly more portable and enjoyable than eBooks, there will be more of a demand for them than eBooks.

Why are audiobooks acceptible if ebooks are not? They are the written word in a different format. A small palmtop computer is no less portable than a tape recorder or average book.

 

The tradition of creating and reading a book has been present within our world and culture for many years why should this change? Books are portable and enjoyable. There is no need to develop a technology that changes the way we read books. Audio books were a development for books as they allow books to be more accessible. This is not true to ebooks. The nature of an ebook goes against the tradition of reading and the ways that we have always read.

 

Vote on this point: Tradition

Absolutely Yes
Strongly Yes
Mostly Yes
Partially Yes
Neutral
Partially No
Mostly No
Strongly No
Absolutely No

Book publishers should prevent E readers from undercutting their books recommended retail price.

 

No, because... Devalues the book

If an eBook is so different to a book, it should be viewed as a separate product altogether.

 

Ebooks would change the very nature of the way that we read. They take away from the physical nature of a book and they way that we read. As an electronic source of displaying a book an ebook it devalues the very nature of a book.

Books are an object that are designed and made differently, the very nature, shape and form of a book makes it interesting. An ebook cannot display these differences and the ability to feel and interact with a book. The devaluation of the book is not just placed by companies, such as amazon, but, through the nature of an electronic device the value of a book as a physical object of design as well as a narrative source.

 

Vote on this point: Devalues the book

Absolutely Yes
Strongly Yes
Mostly Yes
Partially Yes
Neutral
Partially No
Mostly No
Strongly No
Absolutely No

Book publishers should prevent E readers from undercutting their books recommended retail price.

 

No, because... Lower Interaction

Different interaction is not the same as lower interaction.

 

Especially where children's books are concerned the interaction levels of ebooks are not of the same quality as books. This is true due to touch and feel books as well as lift the flap books, books that require interaction and should still be available cannot be produced in ebook form. There may be slight variables on interactive books, but, books such as lift the flap and textured books are useful and educational for children.

This can be true to adult books as well as children's the interaction is not the same. Being able to turn the page of a book and have it as a physical object mean that the way we read would change. It is the interaction that we get with a book without having to scroll down, zoom in or change the size that makes an ebook less interactive. With this in mind the valuation of online books merely uses the content and should be valued at the same price. Where content is the same, price should be the same even if there aren't the same interactive features that a book can offer.

 

Vote on this point: Lower Interaction

Absolutely Yes
Strongly Yes
Mostly Yes
Partially Yes
Neutral
Partially No
Mostly No
Strongly No
Absolutely No

Vote on this debate: Book publishers should prevent E readers from undercutting their books recommended retail price.

Absolutely Yes
Strongly Yes
Mostly Yes
Partially Yes
Neutral
Partially No
Mostly No
Strongly No
Absolutely No