Physical book sales increase as e-book popularity continues to wane

[midian182]

At the beginning of this decade, the popularity of e-book readers such as the Amazon Kindle led to claims that “print was dead.” But last year saw a sharp decline in the number of consumer e-book sales, while physical books and journals enjoyed a resurgence.

According to the Association of American Publishers, e-book sales in the US fell 18.7 percent during the first nine months of 2016. Over the same period, paperback and hardback sales were up 7.5 percent and 4.1 percent, respectively.

It was a similar story in the UK, where the Publisher’s Association reports that consumer e-books declined by 17 percent in 2016, while sales of their physical counterparts went up by 7 percent. Children’s books did especially well, jumping 16 percent.

“I wouldn’t say that the e-book dream is over but people are clearly making decisions on when they want to spend time with their screens,” Stephen Lotinga, chief executive of the Publishers Association, told The Guardian.

“There is generally a sense that people are now getting screen tiredness, or fatigue, from so many devices being used, watched or looked at in their week. [Printed] books provide an opportunity to step away from that.”

Sales of e-book readers have fallen by almost 50 percent since they peaked in 2011, earning them a place on our recent ‘Biggest Tech Fads of the Last Decade’ feature. Their decreasing popularity has contributed to the slump in e-book sales.

The Pew Research Center found that 65% of Americans reported reading a printed book in the past year, compared to only 28% who read an e-book. A quarter of the population had never read a book of any kind, be it print, electronic, or even audio.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/69141-physical-book-sales-increase-e-book-popularity-continues.html

 

[treeski]

It would be interesting to see how the prices of books and e-books have compared in the same time frames.

 

[flacoman3]

This article comes off as disingenuous, and it comes to major conclusions on the whims of some chief exec of the Publisher's Association.

“I wouldn’t say that the e-book dream is over but people are clearly making decisions on when they want to spend time with their screens,” Stephen Lotinga, chief executive of the Publishers Association, told The Guardian.
“There is generally a sense that people are now getting screen tiredness, or fatigue, from so many devices being used, watched or looked at in their week. [Printed] books provide an opportunity to step away from that.”

A "general sense"? Where did he get this sense from?...Yea right. Or maybe e-book prices have gone up so much that in many cases the physical is cheaper. That is a pricing issue, not the consumer-with-poor-tired-eyes-making-a-choice issue.

Here's my conspiracy theory: I personally believe that publishers are deliberately overcharging for ebooks in order to kill them off. Ebooks allow authors to more easily avoid the big publisher trap by publishing independently and they simply don't want that.

 

[davislane1]

Here's my conspiracy theory: I personally believe that publishers are deliberately overcharging for ebooks in order to kill them off. Ebooks allow authors to more easily avoid the big publisher trap by publishing independently and they simply don't want that.

There's only one problem with this theory. Publisher pricing does not change independent pricing. If big publishers price themselves higher, it simply gives financial advantage to the independent publishers who can now undercut them even further without having to give up anything.

The idea that people are going back to physical copies has a lot of merit. Speaking anecdotally, I have begun shifting back to hardcopy myself, even going as far as to repurchase the paperback/hardcover versions of ebooks I own. The reason? Too much screen time these days.

It's also a hell of a lot easier to read a book outside on a sunny day than it is to read a tablet.

 

[RobStow]

I vastly prefer reading books on my computer. I convert them to HTML (only Baen sells in HTML - plus many other formats) then read in FireFox with my own css so that I get the fonts and colours I prefer. With non-serif fonts and green text on a black background I can read all day if I want to, whereas with one of those dinky little ebook readers I'd have a headache after half an hour.

 

[Uncle Al]

I'll stick to my regular books. Even when their publisher goes out of production, the book is still here!

 

[flacoman3]

Here's my conspiracy theory: I personally believe that publishers are deliberately overcharging for ebooks in order to kill them off. Ebooks allow authors to more easily avoid the big publisher trap by publishing independently and they simply don't want that.

There's only one problem with this theory. Publisher pricing does not change independent pricing. If big publishers price themselves higher, it simply gives financial advantage to the independent publishers who can now undercut them even further without having to give up anything.

The idea that people are going back to physical copies has a lot of merit. Speaking anecdotally, I have begun shifting back to hardcopy myself, even going as far as to repurchase the paperback/hardcover versions of ebooks I own. The reason? Too much screen time these days.

It's also a hell of a lot easier to read a book outside on a sunny day than it is to read a tablet.

I see what you mean that theoretically independents could just severely undercut big publishers and I very much agree with you that they could do this if they wanted. I think, however, that big publishers need to be at the forefront of pricing initiatives in order to change the trends.
(Warning, I am now spitballing, as I am not an author, independent or otherwise)
I imagine that independent publishers feel pressure to price at the "norm" set by current standard pricing, at the risk of looking like a desperate author selling for cheap. "Why is this guy's novel so cheap? Must be bad"
On the tablet issue, the biggest mistake Amazon ever made was losing its focus of the Kindle. When they made that android version, they confused the consumer. The LCD vs e-ink is an entirely different product made for different people, and now they had the same name. A lot of people don't even know what e-ink screens are, which is a shame and a failure of marketing. I am constantly stopped on the street by people asking me what my device was and where they could get one because it looks like a real book in direct sunlight.

Kindle, IMHO, should have remained a purely e-ink and e-book focused product. Instead, they made a third-rate limited android tablet in a sea of better tablets and hijacked/murdered the Kindle brand name for it. Shame!

 

[Igrecman]

The e-book manufacturers need to make their e-book reader smell like an old book that has been in a humid basement for years. Sales would set a new record for sure. Perfume companies should get to work on this new fragrance.

 

[EClyde]

I have been buying more books because unless I want to read trash pulp which is what most e-books are I am out of luck. I prefer e-books

 

[davislane1]

(Warning, I am now spitballing, as I am not an author, independent or otherwise)
I imagine that independent publishers feel pressure to price at the "norm" set by current standard pricing, at the risk of looking like a desperate author selling for cheap. "Why is this guy's novel so cheap? Must be bad"

Speaking form a sales perspective, this is somewhat of a myth. There is a small niche that uses price as a quality filter, but most people skip straight to reviews and recommendations.

Kindle, IMHO, should have remained a purely e-ink and e-book focused product. Instead, they made a third-rate limited android tablet in a sea of better tablets and hijacked/murdered the Kindle brand name for it. Shame!

Trying to do too much with too little. Sad.

 

[Tgard]

I read about a novel a week on my Kindle Paperwhite. Most of what I read is Indie authors. Because I read so much it would be pretty hard for me to go back to printed books. I know not everyone reads that much but I find this a bit hard to believe that physical books are making a comeback. I have a library at home of physical books also (actually 3 large bookshelves full) but I rarely use them or re-read them. My ebook library is in the hundreds. I would think that at most casual readers may prefer the physical books but voracious readers would prefer ebooks because of the volume you can carry - but that is just my experience and my opinion. I keep a text file list on my computer and my reader of what I am reading next and what in a series I need to obtain next so I know what my next 20-25 books are gonna be, just so I can keep things organized etc. (anal I know).

One thing I have found is that popular mainstream authors haven't completely caught on with pricing. Some of them still want $14.99-$19.99 for their latest ebook which is priced like a hardcover. The used paperback will be much cheaper if you wait a bit. I will not pay those prices for ebooks and will instead go for the indie author mostly. If I absolutely have to read the big guys books then they will eventually be available to borrow from the local or online libraries. Tons of authors do put their 1st in a series free or .99c and the 2nd in a series cheap also because they want you to keep buying the series. It can get you hooked and it works, so just because a book is free or cheap doesn't necessarily turn me off at all. I generally use reviews mainly to pick out what I will be reading until I am familiar with the author at least so cheap prices are not usually an issue. My 2 pennies anyways. Too much screentime is just not an issue for me.

 

[Igrecman]

Color e-ink technology is needed as soon as possible. It's on the way, but I don't know why it's taking so long. I wonder if it will need to be back lit for it to work. If it does, maybe it will not be worth buying.

 

[MrBlkfx1]

I never caught the e-book wave save for a couple of extremely expensive textbooks. Physical books have always been more fulfilling to read and provide a higher sense of accomplishment that I don't get from e-books. The act of turning physical pages and seeing your progress is an integral part of reading for me and quite a few people that I know. With that said, I didn't realize that e-books were losing popularity. I'm happy to read that print is making a resurgence.

 

[Igrecman]

I never caught the e-book wave save for a couple of extremely expensive textbooks. Physical books have always been more fulfilling to read and provide a higher sense of accomplishment that I don't get from e-books. The act of turning physical pages and seeing your progress is an integral part of reading for me and quite a few people that I know. With that said, I didn't realize that e-books were losing popularity. I'm happy to read that print is making a resurgence.

Agreed. But the fact that one can have hundreds of e-books in the device, is the reason people bought an e-reader. Battery life of the e-ink technology is also a major advantage over other devices.
However, hundreds of e-books probably means hundreds of illegal downloads of e-books. Thus dwindling sales

 

[TomSEA]

I'm a pretty prolific reader and do about a 70% hard copy, 30% e-book on my devices. Guess I'm just old school - prefer having a "real" book in my hands. Plus I like the visual of having a bookshelf to glance over good books I've read and want to re-read, books I haven't read but need to put in the queue and a (very) few books I'll probably never read.

 

[EClyde]

I never caught the e-book wave save for a couple of extremely expensive textbooks. Physical books have always been more fulfilling to read and provide a higher sense of accomplishment that I don't get from e-books. The act of turning physical pages and seeing your progress is an integral part of reading for me and quite a few people that I know. With that said, I didn't realize that e-books were losing popularity. I'm happy to read that print is making a resurgence.

Naw

 

[EClyde]

I'm a pretty prolific reader and do about a 70% hard copy, 30% e-book on my devices. Guess I'm just old school - prefer having a "real" book in my hands. Plus I like the visual of having a bookshelf to glance over good books I've read and want to re-read, books I haven't read but need to put in the queue and a (very) few books I'll probably never read.

Bookshelfs are waste of space. Lining your books up so you can see what you have read or show others is goofy

 

[rthomp13]

I thought I'd always prefer books over e-books, but now I'm totally hooked on the e-book. I can read at it night in bed without needing to keep the lamp on, it's so much easier to carry all the books I want, and it's easier on the eyes because I can choose a little larger font. However, e-ink is the necessary feature, imo. I also think a lot of pressure on the book/e-book trend is related to pricing - I wonder how it correlates to the publishers getting to control the e-book pricing again. It drives me nuts when I can purchase a paperback version for $2 cheaper than the kindle version.

 

[Tgard]

[QUOTE="Igrecman, post: 1604638, member: 365134"
However, hundreds of e-books probably means hundreds of illegal downloads of e-books. Thus dwindling sales[/QUOTE]

Or not. I have hundreds and they are legal. Another one of the advantages of ebooks is the price. I can sometimes get the used paperback cheaper but not always and I have been building my collection for almost a decade first through Adobe e-reader then B&N Nook and the last few years through Kindle.

 

[TomSEA]

I'm a pretty prolific reader and do about a 70% hard copy, 30% e-book on my devices. Guess I'm just old school - prefer having a "real" book in my hands. Plus I like the visual of having a bookshelf to glance over good books I've read and want to re-read, books I haven't read but need to put in the queue and a (very) few books I'll probably never read.

Bookshelfs are waste of space. Lining your books up so you can see what you have read or show others is goofy

Says someone who is probably 20 years old and doesn't know what a conversation piece a collection of books can be.

 

[MrBlkfx1]

Naw

Naw? Lol. Why waste the time if you're not going to write anything constructive?

 

[EClyde]

Naw? Lol. Why waste the time if you're not going to write anything constructive?

Disagreeing with your "premise" is constructive

 

[EClyde]

Says someone who is probably 20 years old and doesn't know what a conversation piece a collection of books can be.

I'm 64 and have owned, read, given away, thrown away, sold, loaned(never to get back), moved, rearranged, dusted and come to the conclusion 95% of books are not worth a second read. I have a couple dozen that I have kept; gifts, those I plan to read again and some with nice covers. If you like staring at your books or like to try and impress your friends that's up to you. BTW I don't need the book to have a conversation about it.

 

[oldikes]

I got an oldddd kindle keyboard cheap the other day and have been reading quite a bit on it. Cant beat a real book but is MILES ahead of reading on an LCD. Ill probably use the kindle regularly for reading, but nothing beats having real copies of your favorites - if only I had the space for them.

 

[MrBlkfx1]

Disagreeing with your "premise" is constructive

Naw. It was closer to trolling than anything else. If you disagree, provide context. Granted, it's odd that you think you can disagree with the reason why I prefer physical books lol. I can see if I asserted my reasoning on everyone else but that wasn't the case. So, again, your comment wasn't constructive in the least.