Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cergorach" data-source="post: 7948932" data-attributes="member: 725">And that is a good thing! Such small stores a germ breeding ground in the best of times, now they should be labeled as deathtraps!As for side jobs needed to do X digitally, very little compared to regular distribution. That's nothing new, the same has been true for RPGs after the introduction of RPGnow. The issue previously was a matter of sales volume compared to some regular product channels. This situation might change that drastically.But if a product isn't drastically cheaper someone is earning a lot more from it and it isn't the exploiter of the digital store platform... I got the impression that individual comics weren't cheaper then physical comics, the same is true for many novels. So if that doesn't change in this climate, the publishers get way more money and that often doesn't mean that the people actually making stuff get more money. The money isn't spread over more people like in the traditional model, that isn't a huge issue when that change happens gradually as it has the last two decades. People phase out of those businesses naturally (old age > retirement, for example) and new blood flows into the new positions that open up (young folks getting out of school) in the new way of working.If a consumer pays $60 for a physical book and $30 for a pdf of the same book, when he buys the $30 pdf it means he can spend another $30 he would normally spend on the physical book on something else. The issue starts when consumers have more money then they have to spend on consumer items. If I can read 5 such books a month max and had a budget of $180/month to spend on it, that means I could only buy 3 physical books a month max. With digital, I can spend $150 on those 5 books, but there's $30 I'm not spending. This is of course an over simplification of what happens, but it does illustrate the issue. Now look at two such persons, one owns a physical comic store and the other owns a publisher. The first now has $0 to spend on consumer products and the second has $360 to spend on consumer products, but after the first $150 he has all he can consume and there's $210 left that isn't spend. That is not only bad for the first person, it's bad for everyone eventually because less money goes into the economy, so eventually the second person also has less and less to spend.We're now in crisis mode, everything is a mess, when things stabilize and people (who can) find new niches, things will go back to normal.</blockquote>

Verification