#VOTE ON OED PRICE HERE!
5 messages in this thread
The reduced-type OED now sells for $295.00; the normal-type version, for
$2700. The OED on CD-ROM is in normal-sized type, and has greater
functionality than either printed version. Seems to me that in this
context, and in the context of reference-book publication in general, $895
is a very fair price–indeed, a bargain. And I intend to pay it Real Soon
Now.
The price differential between the reduced-type OED and the standard
version is pretty much 100 percent a reflection of costs: production and
distribution, primarily. In the print version, the reduced-type OED could
be considered less functional than the standard because of its small type,
or I suppose one could argue the sharp reduction in the number of volumes
and their bulk makes the reduced-type version more functional in terms of
ease of going from aaa to, say, ggg.
In any event, the "functionality" is tightly coupled with the medium.
Printed matter will never afford the reader the same speed of access which
is possible in an electronic version. But this really has little or nothing
to do with the price.
Assuming Oxford Umiversity Press starts with the same "base" – the
information content of the OED2, properly 'marked up' for typesetting in an
SGML or similar environment – the cost of getting that content into
printed, bound volumes is dramatically higher than getting it onto a
CD-ROM. Distribution and storage costs are also way higher for the paper
version.
OUP's pricing does not reflect the electronics era – it reflects what is
probably a "what the market will bear" consideration. For OUP, "the market"
for the OED has traditionally been institutions spending money other than
their own and with pretty deep pockets for a "quality" product.
As someone else said a while back in this thread, OUP likely has no real
incentive to change its pricing policy just now. I agree with many others
here the ROM version is "too expensive", but I'll buy it anyway, and so
probably will many others. OUP will no doubt miss the opportunity for
vastly larger sales quantities, but they probably just don't care …
Ric
The difference in functionality between the reduced-type and plain-type
OEDs is trivial, merely a matter of the user's convenience. The real
difference is in the market for each version. OED was smart enough to find
a non-institutional market for their product, one that would accept the
inconvenience of the small type and the magnifying glass in exchange for
the convenience of having the whole work in 2 volumes instead of 20–and,
indeed, of having it at all. This after it had essentially saturated the
library, institutional, and professional market for its full-sized type
edition over several decades, repaying Oxford's investment many times over.
They were also smart enough to sell thousands of the reduced type version
to book clubs, thus bringing down the per-copy production cost.
I agree with you, therefore, that Oxford's pricing is indeed largely based
on their idea of what the market will bear–and with the experience of
selling the previous CD-ROM of OED1 at a much higher price, they have
obviously some objective basis for their idea. And I'm sure their price is
designed to maximize sales revenues, not merely sales volume. Why shouldn't
it?
(I worked as a salesman and editor in book publishing for 15 years, and
understand in a general way how these decisions are made.)
However, production costs may not be entirely irrelevant. OED2 is new, and
the print version can't have sold nearly as many copies as OED1 did. And
the one-time production costs such as keyboarding text and setting type,
though less than they would have been Before Computers, was doubtless very
large and may not have been fully recovered; likewise the up-front cost of
compiling and editing OED2 in the first place. I don't know one way or the
other, and I'm sure that nobody outside OUP does either, but it seems a
reasonable guess.
Anyway, you seem to be saying that in the electronics era, "what the market
will bear" considerations no longer apply. I'm sure you don't mean that,
because of course it's not true.
I agree the reduced-type/standard-type OED versions are essentially the
same where functionality is concerned. As for the markets – yes, OUP did a
nice job of establishing a second market with the reduced-type version,
especially the book club sales.
>> with the experience of selling the … OED1 at a much higher price, they
have obviously some objective basis for their idea … <<
My feeling is, this is just the point where they're going astray – the
OED1, like the "full size" print version, sold mostly to the library and
institutional markets – quite a few colleges, for instance, have it mounted
on systems accessible by students. Without spending a couple of hours with
my calculator, I'd hazard a guess that the price differential between the
full size print version and the OED2 ROM is mostly a reflection of costs.
I'd further guess that OUP sees the traditional markets for the full-size
print version as being the same markets it will sell most of the ROM
version into, with both yielding similar per-unit revenue.
For better or for worse, OUP is handling a product with mass-market
potential as a specialty item: high unit pricing, relatively narrow
distribution, minimal publicity. In this approach, production costs, as you
say, "may not be entirely irrelevant" – I imagine they are quite relevant,
because of the number of units they need to be spread across.
I'm sure OUP is happy with the way they're handling the product; as a
consumer who will reluctantly pay the ticket, I'm not. As an ex-publisher
(21 years as a director of a major, multinational magazine and book
publisher), I would handle the CD-ROM quite differently, and would be
pretty confident of producing a much better bottom-line yield than the
current price/sales strategy will do.
You're right, I certainly did not mean to imply that "what the market will
bear" considerations no longer apply in the electronics era. It is true
they still apply; it is equally true they are a dangerous way to run a
business – profitable short term, risky in the long haul. Ric
John,
If the price seems fair to you, by all means, pay it.
I started this thing with a simple comment that if OUP's objective was to
make money, they could probably make a great deal more if they priced it
within the reach of a much larger buying public.
If it were available for $100, would you think less of it?
Rgds
Jan