barsoomcore
Unattainable Ideal
Short PDFs are a rip-off by greedy publishers!
Well, except mine.
Well, except mine.
I had touched on this point in my original post in the thread:GMSkarka said:Given the topic of the thread, in fact, I'm surprised, and more than a little bit thankful, that we haven't seen the "short PDFs are a rip-off by greedy publishers" argument that I've had thrown at me on this very site in the past.
I think, in our previous discussion of the topic, we had all agreed that small PDFs are only ripoffs if they are grossly overpriced. You very wisely responded to such criticisms of your own products by offering a subscription, and I even complemented you for it. So, the issue has come up, but I think you'll find that very few posters on this board hold the blind opinion of "SMALL PDF BAD!!!" anymore.Roudi said:The main issue, however, is whether a PDF is priced appropriately relative to it's size. In this regard, I find many smaller products are actually grossly overpriced. I don't care whether the PDFs I buy are large or small; I just want to get my money's worth.
barsoomcore said:What do people mean by "short"? Are we talking less than 10 pages? Less than 25 pages? Less than 5 pages?
To take your example, jez, there was some consideration in the early days of On Foot as to how we should release it. At that time we didn't know for sure how big it would be, so it wasn't clear if it should be free or not.
At (I think) twelve pages, it seems a lot to ask of a company like Adamant (not to mention a starving artist like myself) to put it out for free. Maybe it would have been the better choice, but I don't think so.
Had it been a five-page document, I might have felt differently. And to be honest, I feel like ten pages is borderline small for a PDF product. It wasn't an OBVIOUS decision, at least. But making it for free doesn't solve your problem of zillions of PDFs, anyway. I agree, though, it's nice.
I don't know for sure, but I suspect that was a reality check on what the sales figures were like. There's always a juggling act, a bit of risk-taking when you try to set a price point -- there's only so many sales you're going to make, so you need to set a price that at least has you making a profit (or breaking even). I suspect (and this is rank speculation) that a few years ago people had expectations for their products, and they set their prices accordingly. The reality wasn't as rosy as they thought, and so there was a price increase as people looked for the right price that would bring them sustainable revenue.jezter6 said:Where I see my big problem is the sudden (or what WAS sudden at the time) price hike in products.