Recently, the New York Times published a story about changing prices for books in print and how those prices compare to prices for electronic books.
In particular, the story focused on comparison pricing occurring at Amazon.com for books published both in paperback and for the Kindle, a very popular eBook reader manufactured and sold by Amazon.
The story teaches a very valuable lesson. It starts by quoting customers who automatically assume a lower manufacturing cost for an electronic book, since the incremental cost of producing extra copies appears to be (or close to) zero.
Customers, unaccustomed to seeing a digital edition more expensive than the hardcover, howled at the price discrepancy, and promptly voiced their outrage with negative comments and one-star reviews on Amazon. â??Really, James Patterson?â? wrote one reader from Elgin, Ill. â??Why would it possibly cost more for a digital download than printed and bound ink on paper?â?
Nowhere does anyone say anything about the fact that the reader gets the same VALUE from both books.
Nowhere does anyone say anything about the fact that the reader can read the Kindle version on their PC, Jerry’s iPad, Dad’s Blackberry, Joe’s iPhone, Sandy’s iPod Touch or their brother’s Mac.
Nowhere does it talk about the ability to share comments/annotations, read a page on one device and find it in that same place when they start reading the next time on a totally different device.
For that matter, nowhere does anyone note that the value of the book has nothing to do with the cost of ink, paper, binding or electrons.
Neither should the author of a book, regardless of the means used to deliver it.
Oh the cost of it all
Yes, I realize that the printed book seems like it ought to cost more.
After all, someone had to put it in a box, put it on a truck and deliver it to the local bookstore. There’s the cost of the driver, the truck, the fuel, the paper, the ink, the brick and mortar that built the store and so on.
The difference to most is that people typically don’t see the costs invested to deliver the electronic form, all they see is that 1 copy costs no more than 2 copies because it’s just another download.
When people howl about the price of an electronic book, no one considers the amount (much less the cost) of research and development necessary to design the Kindle device and have it manufactured and shipped to the U.S.
They don’t marvel at the costs of the servers and software to support the book’s transport to a wide range of devices and software viewers.
They don’t consider the boardroom and engineering efforts to work out deals with cellular carriers so that the device can download newly purchased books and sync anywhere in the world without so much as a login.
But none of that matters. It’s great evidence. Great talking points.
But it doesn’t matter one bit.
The value of the content inside the book is what matters.
What if you opened that book and in two hours of reading learned something that changed your life, changed your business or cured a problem you’ve had for years?
Is the allegedly zero incremental cost of that electronic book in any way relative to the value you received from it? No way.
Are professional baseball bats priced like a 2×4? Are a PGA champion’s golf clubs priced like stainless steel and graphite you might find in an auto parts store? Of course not.
So why is it so easy to assume that a printed book is worth more than an electronic version?
Because no one put any effort into convincing you that the electrons (or the paper and ink) don’t even begin to set the value.
Your body is worth about 98 cents in “ingredients”.
Going by that measure, Winston Churchill and Einstein are each the equivalent in value of mass murderer Charles Manson.
I don’t think so.
Never let your products/services get to the point where the value you deliver is calculated primarily by the container it’s delivered in and/or the material it’s made of.