I share David’s surprise that the Sony Reader didn’t result in a nice bump-up in sales, although Sony didn’t make it very affordable for small publishers (like BooksForABuck.com) to play in that area.

Rob Preece
Publisher, http://www.BooksForABuck.com

No question that $100M is a small number, but it is not insubstantial and not unattractive from an investment opportunity standpoint. An interesting comparison can be made to the digital audiobook retail market, de facto owned by audible.com. Audible.com’s reported revenue through Q3 2007 was $78.8M or projected to be almost exactly the same as the extrapolated retail numbers reported by the IDPF/AAP for eBooks. Amazon.com clearly sees growth multiples here and paid three times revenue ($300M) for the company. I don’t see how one could argue that a similar growth multiple (3X) couldn’t be applied to the eBook market.

I look forward to seeing 12/07 numbers as well as Q1 ‘08 numbers from the IDPF/AAP. That’s when we’ll see (or not) Kindle and its halo effect on the SONY Reader hit the wholesale numbers that publishers report.

-Joan Riley

-Joan Riley

“I won’t buy secure e-books from it. In Fictionwise Land, “secure” means “only available in certain formats,” and most of the time, that means eReader. eReader files are not readable on the eBookwise. I can read them on my Dana, if I have it with me, or on my MacBook, but that’s it. I like that you can download them again if you need to down the road, and eReader seems like the best of the DRM schemes, if one must suffer with DRM. But I enjoy reading on the eBookwise and will try not to buy something that can’t go on there.”

Publishers want to put DRM in their ebook titles? Peachy. Let ‘em. Some day they’ll drop it, as the music publishers are now beginning to. But in the meantime, would it hurt to let publishers know that, if they feel they must use DRM, the most customer-friendly DRM scheme out there is the one used by eReader? Would it hurt to let prospective ebook customers know that they’re likely to be able to use secured eReader ebooks freely on their devices (Palm, Windows desktop, Windows mobile, Pocket PC, Mac desktop, and maybe a couple more platforms I’m forgetting right now — with more coming if Fictionwise, having purchased eReader, implements eReader’s software on more platforms like Linux and Blackberry)? Would it hurt to give eReader some credit for its DRM implementation, which is enough to discourage people from shotgunning “shared” copies all over the internet while not being a burden for the consumer? Will it be better when DRM goes away? Sure. But until it does, DRM should at least not be CUMBERSOME for the customer. EReader’s DRM is as non-cumbersome as DRM can get. Until DRM goes away, if you want to boost ebooks, it wouldn’t hurt any to boost the eReader format instead of constantly suggesting that DRM alone causes the loss of your books. I’ve been an eReader customer for 8 years, and a Fictionwise customer for a little less than that, and have switched computers and Palm handhelds a few times, and have not lost a single ebook due to DRM even though most of my purchases are secured titles (and I’ve bought hundreds).

Bests to all,

–tr

B. As someone gung ho on accessibility-friendly standards for e-books, I think both the content and tech sides could do much better at reaching and serving the disabled. The right standards and native E could save a LOT of scanning and create new revenue streams for publishers, not just help society.

F. A genre breakdown would be cool; same, for the DRM one. My hunch is that the respondents to the IDPF poll were mostly publishers using DRM. I’m planning to contact two or three big stores and ask ‘em, “How much higher in percentage would your revenues be without DRM.” This is a toxic technology not just for users but for those in retail, as I see it. I know that the Pendergrast brothers, the owners of Fictionwise and eReader, are not happy with publishers’ fixation on “protection.” It will be interesting to see if they can make a little more progress now that they own the eReader store.

Many thanks, both of you.

David

Also unmentioned is what proportion of ebooks are DRM free as opposed to crippleware…

“I’ll start with Fictionwise. I won’t buy secure e-books from it. In Fictionwise Land, “secure” means “only available in certain formats,” and most of the time, that means eReader. eReader files are not readable on the eBookwise. I can read them on my Dana, if I have it with me, or on my MacBook, but that’s it. I like that you can download them again if you need to down the road, and eReader seems like the best of the DRM schemes, if one must suffer with DRM. But I enjoy reading on the eBookwise and will try not to buy something that can’t go on there.”

Publishers want to do DRM titles? Peachy. Let ‘em. But why not emphasize to them and to prospective buyers that the eReader format uses the most customer-friendly DRM scheme there is? Your book isn’t tied to a single device with eReader. Your unlock code when you put it on a new device is the name and credit card number you used to purchase it. Simple, not much of a headache for the consumer, changeable if need be (at least at eReader’s site and maybe others too), and sufficient to discourage the shotgunning of “shared” copies all over the internet. I understand that Fictionwise has purchased eReader — and if I were in FW’s shoes, I’d be pushing to have the eReader software implemented for every platform I could think of.

We tend to believe that DRM is killing ebook sales, and in some cases that may be true. Look at the ebookwise device Ficbot’s using. A secured book on that can only be read on that device or another ebookwise. An eReader secured book can be read on Palm, Windows Mobile, Pocket PC, Mac OS, Windows desktop, and maybe a couple more I’m not remembering right now. It’s not DRM, it’s CUMBERSOME DRM that causes problems for customers. EReader’s DRM ain’t cumbersome at all, and lets the customer read his books on any supported device (and it supports quite a few devices). Why not give eReader some credit for a terrific implementation of a scheme that works for both publisher and customer? And suggest that format as a good workable option for customers until DRM finally dies out?

Bests to all,

–tr

To focus just on sales of ebooks as a measure of their adoption misses an important point: many ebooks in use are not sold. I am talking about school books and other books, including textbooks and trade books, being digitized for use by students and other people with reading-impairing disabilities.

My estimate is that last year, about 30,000 electronic books were provided by publishers just for college use, with -NO- DRM and at -NO- cost. Add to that an uncounted number of books scanned by schools all over the country (and on top of that, a non-profit called Bookshare has over 30,000 ebooks in their collection, which are only accessible to the disabled.)

I wouldn’t be surprised if well over 50,000 ebooks were read by persons with disabilities last year, which at an average price of $50 per book, would make a nice bump in the sales figures.

The point is that ebooks are being marketed to the wrong customers. Instead of trying to sell trade books to consumers who are lukewarm at best, ebooks should be designed for disabled readers who need an alternative to print.

Conversely, the copyright exemption that allows ebooks to be made for disabled persons without permission from the publisher needs to be modified to encourage publishers to address this market themselves.

Its hard to sum up just how screwed up this situation is, but lets say Alice (the one from Wonderland) would feel right at home!