Sentences with phrase «amazon than the publishers»

Not exact matches

The only foreseeable advantage I see, other than making us nuts (which while fun, probably doesn't help amazon's bottom dollar), is to grow more home - grown kindle authors and to have more people buy into Author Central, thereby, in the end, making for lower ebook prices (which equals more units sold) and no traditional publisher middle man.

For ebooks more than $ 9.99, amazon will not pay independent publishers more than 35 %.

E.g by promoting both the publishers name and the editors name in ebook titles (and refuse to sell to stores where these are not equally as browsable attributes as author and title - unlike movies currently I only rarely know the editor / publisher of my favourite books) and redirect remaining marketing spend to fund fan / reader groups to gain «seed knowledge» to push recommendations as to who will like their new authors (ie feeding «if you liked the books of Charles Stross, why not try Richard Winslade's new opus» into amazon's recommendation engine, but with an eye to maximise the authors / editor / publishing houselong term brand appreciation rather than short term sales through erroneous linking only to top 10 authors).

I am all for amazon selling whatever for whatever $ amount they want — but they are not involved in how much the content COST the publisher (how much the author is being paid) J.K Rowling's latest or the newest in the DaVinci code series may cost a publisher considerably MORE$ $ than average (in advances or per copy royalties or % royalties) and Copyediting a 1000 page book costs more than a 400 page one — Amazon isn't just saying that they want to sell ebooks for no more than $ 9.99, they are saying they want to pay no more than (whatever %) of $ 9.99 per copy sold.