Cliches: Can't Live With 'Em, Can't Live Without 'Em

I'm not sure how I feel about clichés.  Even that tepid opinion would get me laughed out of a few writers groups.  Clichés are the devil, right?  To be avoided at all costs? 

I’m not so sure.  Isn’t there a certain amount of comfort in a cliché?  Isn’t a cliché simply a way of communicating a concept at its heart?  Can they be overused? For sure!  But is ‘being on the same page’ with someone really such a bad thing?  The answer to that argument is that a cliché is basically lazy writing, that a writer should spend the time to convey the concept in a new and exciting way (fresh!).  If you are under a time limit when you are writing, must the choice be between originality or ease of communication? 

I used to think so.  Then I realized that I didn’t think all clichés were evil, that, in fact, I kind of liked some of them.  Is that just my rebellious side showing through as it is wont to do (especially at inopportune moments)?  I don’t think so.

It’s about resonance.  The emotional connection with either what is being communicated or the way it is.  All writers strive for resonance—creating the connection with the reader.  And whether we know it or not we are embarking upon that high wire act between familiar and original.  Familiar can create that resonance, that connection to keep the reader interested and hopefully invested in the characters we create.  But make your tale too familiar and we risk boring the reader.  So, we spice it up.  We spin a yarn like none ever experienced before (again, hopefully) and our reader loves us for it, tells their friends, and sets us up for a great career path as a teller of tales. 

The more I thought about it, the more comfortable I was using the occasional cliché.  I made my peace with breaking that particular writing rule.  But then I kept thinking (silly brain!) and wondering how far the comfort level of familiarity applies.  We all hear about the ‘formulaic’ Hollywood movies.  Isn’t formulaic the same concept as cliché?  I mean, a certain fictional setup wouldn’t have become a formula if it wasn’t quite successful in first place, just the same way a cliché doesn’t really become a cliché unless it is used over and over enough to make it into our common language.   

Is formulaic bad? Is that even a fair question—bad and good being denominations of taste and therefore indefinable except on the individual level? (Got a little college-y with that last one, sorry.)

Well, I don’t have an answer to that except to say it all comes down to the tight rope that we walk when we write.  Only, we don’t know if we are keeping our balance as we go.  We only find that out later when our work reaches the masses and is either embraced or shunned.  Happy writing to all!

Linky Links: 

Here is link to a cool lecture by Malcolm Gladwell (Blink, Outliers) talking about Hollywood formula makers at a New Yorker conference:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/video/2006/10/09/predictable

The future of the world, I mean, ebooks

Today I read two very different blog posts about self publishing that were both right. 


The first was Konrath's "Exploited Writers in an Unfair Industry" which did an excellent job as usual of explaining the history of publishing and the changing distribution of power in the industry.  I agreed with all of it and appreciated the polished nature of the post.  But I didn't really care anymore.  Or at least not as much as I used to.  


I assumed this was due to newfound cynism on my part with regards to the publishing industry.  And while I lamented that fact (innocence lost!), I couldn't really change it without a little 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' action.  


But then I read a different blog post by an equally brilliant author, Scott Nicholson, where he talks all about ads in books being the future.  But he starts the post out by mentioning that the whole indie/traditional argument only matters to a small number of people. 


--AHA!  Yay, it's not that I'm crazy cynical.  I'm just not in that group that really cares about big publishing, its fate, or its authors.  Thanks, Scott.  You're a great listener and this couch is really comfortable.  Same time next week? 


Anyway, I agree with Scott about ads and sponsorships being the future of ebooks since there are sooooooooo many free ebooks.  We writers are going to need to make some dough, somehow.  Gotta eat, right?  


But what would that look like?  As far as putting ads in our manuscripts, I don't think Amazon will take too kindly to usurping their business model-- they already have the kindle with ads.  Heck, they may even have a new option that will be available in 2014 where we can enroll our book in the ad program.  Maybe we get paid based on our sales rank (and therefore views).  Maybe it will be based on click-thrus only since the fire is basically a storefront from which one can buy almost anything. Who knows? But I doubt they will let us writers put little commercials in our books right now or in the future. 


That leaves product placement-- I'm pretty sure they can't tos ('terms of service') that one out of our toolbox.  This seems pretty intuitive if one is at least a midlist level author.  Striking a deal can't be that hard, especially after a few name brand authors do it successfully. But even before then, it's a basic sales call.  Now THIS might be something agents could be useful for and diversify themselves away from the Big 6's pockets.  Granted, it is just a different pocket, and similar relationship structure, but with the right contract, it could be doable. 


Of course, the risk here is that we don't sell ourselves out--at least not obviously: "Jane sips her refreshing Coca-Cola as she ponders her love for Dick."  But we're writers.  We can get creative about how a Volvo totally saved the spaceship from burning up when re-entering the atmosphere.  Or something.  You get my point.


And then there is the time honored 'patronage' method where a rich person just pays for you to write as happens often with painters in the 18th century.  Or something.  Today, that's morphed into marriage more than anything else.  Get the right spouse for your writing career!  Okay, that might be selling out. But where's the line? 


There is also kickstarter, a non-matrimonial version of patronage that really favors real world and online extroverts.  If that is you, start a campaign today because this one is the present rather than the future.  


Another direction ebooks can go in to get readers to fork over money for their fiction rather than get it for free (nonfiction will still be able to command money) is 'enhanced ebooks.'  I hesitate to even use that term because it makes me think of Vooks which really, really didn't work.  For good reason.  


What I mean by enhanced is like dvd extras.  Earlier drafts, outlines, research materials, interviews, alternate endings and the like all being included in the (e)book. I think this will become the norm in the next few years as authors need to convince readers of a book's value before that author has built a brand with their name (by that I mean autobuy based on name). 


Okay, this post is getting book length so I better wrap it up.  I hope everyone is enjoying May and its flowers, sun, and bugs. 


Happy writing!


Kate


PS- 
And in other news: more H'wood glory for a beloved self pubbed author http://www.deadline.com/2012/05/20th-century-fox-spins-wool-for-scott-free-and-film-rites/

LOL

To lighten up the tone after all my lawsuit bitching, I thought I'd share this.  May we all aspire to write such timeless books as these:

Amazon, Apple, Trad Pubs, the DOJ, and Agency

This is somewhat of an evolving story as 3 of 5 traditional publishers being sued alongside Apple have settled with the DOJ. What that means for agency pricing and if or when things will begin changing is up in the air.

Honestly, I don't really care about any of that.  This doesn't affect the day to day of my self publishing business.  I have no intention of ever submitting (in the truest sense of the word) to a traditional publisher  to publish my stories (unless I am wildly successful and they want to empty their coffers into my coffers for the chance to do business with me a la Hocking or Locke--in which case I might).

Then why am I talking about this?

Because I was initially surprised at the press over the suit (here and here).  Everyone is bitching and moaning about what a bad actor amazon is. I am sorry but lowering prices for your customers (charging 9.99 for bestsellers) and gaining marketshare because of that doesn't make one a bad actor. Do right by your customers and your customers will do right by you.

I say initially surprised because the news outlets that are moaning have been in bed with traditional publishing and will continue to be. These are the same publications that wouldn't even list self published titles in their 'bestelling' categories despite some titles selling hundreds of thousands more copies than the most successful traditionally published titles that they did list. They are basically the mouthpieces for the publishing industry. So, no, I am no longer surprised by the tone of the coverage.

This whole thing just seems so wasteful to me, however.  There will be untold millions wasted in legal fees because some CEOs couldn't be mature adults and instead chose to act like children.  Pure waste.

The rundown:

Basically, the companies being sued by the Department of Justice are alleged to have colluded with each other and Apple to the detriment of Amazon in the 1-2 years prior to the Ipad's release. While I can understand their motivation for doing this (they all seem to hate Amazon's success in the marketplace), it doesn't give you the right to break the law.  (I am not being a right and wrong moralist here-- If you don't agree with a law, go ahead and break it.  But be aware of the consequences of doing so.  Better yet, lobby to have the law changed.)

Apple's introduction of the iPad and the resulting growth of the iBookstore was bound to be an enormous disruptor to Amazon's marketshare. But everyone had to go just a step too far and that's why they are now in trouble.

Agreeing to use the agency pricing structure as a way to punish Amazon a) didn't really work and b) promotes price fixing rather than price diversity in the marketplace.  But that is not even the issue for me.

How things played out could have easily have occurred legally.  Without the collusion.  Apple was introducing a tablet that was (is?) definitely a game changer for ebooks and bad news for the Kindle.  They could have insisted on Agency.  That in and of itself is fine, though aggressive.  But still well within their rights.  And each publisher could have easily said yes or no based solely on their own counsel rather than making sure things are lining up with the other publishers.  (This is exactly what the 2 non-settling publishers say occurred.)  Each publisher most likely would have gone along with Apple's plan individually and the end result would be the same as what exists now.

Agency in and of itself is not bad.  Agency is not the reason they are being sued.  They are being sued bc of the way they went about it.

If I knock on your door and offer you money for your TV and you say yes-- I get a tv.  Or I could break into your house and take your tv--I get a tv.  One way of getting your tv is legal.  The other is not.

This is what I mean by waste.  Those being sued let their emotions rule and instead of thinking things through and making better decisions (I am sounding like a mom for a reason), they chose the first thing that came to mind.  If only a little more frontal lobe activity had occurred when making these decisions, perhaps they could have achieved the exact same result without resulting to such dubious methods.

Chatting it up over multiple dinners and phone calls about how we can stop a business from doing business bc they are hurting our business is just not allowed.  It is the opposite of a free market.  Consumers are the bosses in the market.  If you as a publisher are losing marketshare or profits then change is clearly needed.  Do something bigger, better, brighter for your customer and you will be the marketplace king.  It seems pretty simple to me.

Am I missing something?

Linky Links-
Some more opinions on the matter:
http://aprillhamilton.blogspot.com/2012/04/amazon-vs-apple-and-agency-5-lets-get.html
http://davidgaughran.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/dont-be-fooled-big-publishing-hates-competition/
http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2012/04/agency-model-sucks.html
http://kriswrites.com/2012/04/11/the-business-rusch-writers-and-the-doj-lawsuit/
http://www.macstories.net/stories/understanding-the-agency-model-and-the-dojs-allegations-against-apple-and-those-publishers/
http://authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/e-book-royalty-math-the-big.html

To Pen Name or Not To Pen Name?

This is a personal choice in the sense that there is no right answer. There are authors such as BV Lawson who write in many different genres and do so very successfully. The benefit of writing under one name is cross promotion. Your readers might drink from your well longer because they try out one of your other books in a different genre. John Locke experienced this benefit when he began his Western series after having written many successful Donovan Creed suspense novels.

The risk of doing this can be seen in the reviews of those westerns. Many people tried it out because they loved his writing, characters, and wacky plots but didn’t quite get what they wanted from the westerns. And then wrote about it in an Amazon review. Turning off your reader is the risk you take. You may have it labeled all over the cover and description that this is a ‘departure’ or ‘different style’ or something like that in addition to the explicit different genre mentions. And then it will seem unfair when a reader then leaves a review saying this book wasn’t what they thought it was. It happens all the time.

The Solution? A Pen Name

Being a writer is one of the few professions where we are allowed to explicitly take on many different identities (other than being a spy—they’re allowed, too). Having a different pen name whether secret or public typically prevents a reader from dipping into the wrong genre well and being disappointed. One of the most famous uses of a pen name is with Nora Roberts who writes romance. She adopted (or her publishing house made her adopt) a pen name when she started her futuristic police procedural romance series called In Death. For that she writes under the name JD Robb. It is said to have been a private pen name for a couple of years before she was ‘outed’ and thus began receiving the cross promotional benefits of her more successful Nora Roberts name.

The Risks of Using a Pen Name

More work— it is that much more work to market and promote yourself and your work. However, if you are using an ‘open’ pen name where it is public knowledge that the name is the same writer as another name, the work load lessens. You can mention both names in various marketing endeavors and get the benefits.

You might want to keep a pen name private for a few reasons. First, good, old-fashioned privacy. This is even more of a concern today when we can find out so much about each other online in five minutes. A pen name can help keep your private life private.

Another reason, though, is to prevent audience crossover. But why oh why would we ever want to do that??  Because some stories are inappropriate for some audiences. This is usually only true for erotica pen names if you happen to write inspirational or young adult fiction (or don’t want your day job colleagues finding out about your erotica writing forays). In these cases, yes, you do have to do double duty on the marketing and promotional fronts. That is the main cost of private pen names.


A third reason to use a pen name is for marketing and discoverability reasons. Is your name hard to pronounce or spell? This might be a good time to adopt the name you always wished as a kid that your parents had chosen for you— as long as it IS easy to pronounce or spell. Smooth the way for potential readers to find you so they can become fans. The caveat to that is to not fall off the cliff into the pit of generic and forgettable names. It’s a fine line that I still struggle with myself (hello?Kate Madison?!?).


There is another issue (besides more work for you) with using a pen name: reader confusion. It is hard enough to get a reader to find your book, buy it, read it, tell someone about it, and maybe even buy another. And then you want them to remember another name on top of all you are hoping and praying they will do for you already? While this effort might seem small to you, it can be enough to prevent a potential fan of your ‘other’ books from ever checking them out. For some people with busy lives and brains full of endless details, this is too much and they don’t act (i.e. Buy your other books).  

There are costs and benefits on both sides of the pen name issue. Only you can decide what is right for you. 

Obviously, I have gone with using them.  Both private and public.  I have four pen names currently with 26 titles published between them.  Will I create more?  If I try more genres, yes.  I have enjoyed the benefits of the separation.  Although, yes, it has been more work.  But a lot of the extra effort is one time, upfront variety.  But for you?  Your call. 


Anyway, long post.  Sorry about that.  


Happy writing, all!


Kate


Linky Links: 
NoraRoberts.com
BVLarson.com

Super Cool Stats

Okay so Self Publishing rocks.  I know it.  Hopefully, you know it.  But your brother-in-law might not.  I got into a huge 'discussion' with my BIL this weekend over the merits of self pubbing.  It was so weird bc it was almost like having a political argument.  If I played back the audio and just inserted a few different words, the thing would still sound authentic.

We were looking at things from very different points of view and not really addressing each other's points very well.  And both of us were a wee bit too emotional.  The only reason I care so much (otherwise I would have exercised a little stfu on myself and let it go) is that he is a great writer.  The man can whip out an article in like 30 minutes that would take other still-super-intelligent people a day or two at least.  He could be making a full on killing with self pubbing with minimal effort.

His main beef?  The 'reputation' of self publishing vs traditional publishing.  He didn't want to be seen in any way as low rent or un-intellectual by virtue of how gets published.  A sort of 'the message is in the medium' type bias.  Of course-- I just showed my own bias by calling his opinion bias, but whatever.

I am going to prove him wrong.  Or rather, gently change his opinion.  Yeah, that's it.  Gently guide him to a different way of seeing the world (my own).  If he still chooses to believe the way he does after being presented with all of my kickass facts then that's his loss and I really do need to let it go.

All of these postings will be called 'Proving My Brother-in-Law Wrong' and here is the first tidbit.

After digging in Kindleboards I found this beautiful list of kickass (I just love that word today) self pubbed authors.  Kickass being defined by sales numbers:

Amanda Hocking  - 1.5 million ebooks sold in the past 20 months (as of Dec 2011) (source: The Guardian UK)
John Locke  - sell more than 1,100,000 eBooks in five months
Barbara Freethy  - "over one million units of her self-published titles in 2011" (source: prnewswire)
Gemma Halliday  - over 1 million self-published ebooks as of March 2012
Michael Prescott  - "is approaching 1 million sold"
Christopher Smith    - 50,000 times 14 = 700,000
Heather Killough-Walden  - "have achieved huge online success and record-breaking sales of over half a million copies" as of end of 2011
J.A. Konrath  - He has sold over 500,000 ebooks (source: jakonrath bog)
Selena Kitt  - "With half a million ebooks sold in 2011 alone"
Stephen Leather  - "After selling close to half a million eBooks over the past twelve months"
CJ Lyons  - "CJ now has nine books self e-published with sales of almost half a million books in 2011
Bob Mayer- over 400,000 ebooks by 2011's end
Darcie Chan  - over 400,000 as of November 2012 (source: Wall Street Journal)
Bella Andre  - over 400,000 as of Feb 2012
Tina Folsom  - over 300,000 as of October 2011 (source: USAToday)
J Carson Black  - over 300,000 as of November 2011
Kerry Wilkinson  - "detective novels sell more than 250,000 copies on Kindle" source: the Guardian UK
T.R. Ragan  - 239,592 as of March 2012


And as I said in the last post I will make an effort to include lots of links.

LINKY LINKS

Here is a link to the thread that lists authors that are kickass-lite (sold only over 50k) as defined by the above standards:
http://www.kindleboards.com/index.php/topic,103665.0.html

And on a different topic, here is a link to an NYT article that oh so begrudgingly mentions self pubbing.  Of course, it manages to subtly belittle it as a 'learning experience' not unlike going to camp when you were a kid and to make it seem outrageously expensive at that (hint-- it's not--that post will be coming up soon).
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/us/young-writers-find-a-devoted-publisher-thanks-mom-and-dad.html?_r=1&ref=books

Happy Monday, all.

Kate

Much of what I will do here will be to provide links to publishing and writing information and occasionally add a little (a very little) insight myself.  I don't want waste your time with my blather.  These posts won't quite be twitter short but probably FB short or FB+.  Only sometimes will I get into detailed discussions of a subject or two.  But I promise to have links for those posts as well.  If only because when I read my daily Publisher's Lunch Deluxe email (everyone who self publishes needs to cough up the $20/mo for the subscription), they could have had the most brilliant, insightful, game changing commentary but I will still rush through to the bottom where their links are.  I don't think that's a comment on their writing-- just that the eyes naturally go to links in the internet age. (<--See--truly insightful and brilliant stuff!! Links matter for the internet-- I must be the first person to have thot that thot.)

Moving on.

This article is cool for a number of reasons.  My favorite, tho, is that India had one of the lowest percentages of people surveyed that said they would never try an ebook.  Yes, there were other countries, but India is an English market so, yay, no translator required!
http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2012/world-catching-up-to-u-s-in-e-book-buying-habits-study-says/

And this one truly did affect my life.  I have quite a few titles under a number of different pen names so it was understandably freaky when ALL of them lost their buy buttons.  Everyone was trying to figure out the pattern of who lost buttons but there didn't seem to be any.  Kindle only, but across genre, fic and non-fic, trad and indie, KDP and non.  Who knows what algorithm got tinkered with to produce that craziness (and lost income for all parties).  I doubt Amazon will reimburse us.  Just sayin'.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE82Q1C920120327?irpc=932

Okay, this one isn't writing or publishing related.  It's just funny.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUS364326921920120327?irpc=932

Ttfn,
Kate

Modest #s can still mean Hollywood comes calling

There are some wonderful things happening in the world of indie publishing, which I will do a better job of documenting here. But this was something beautiful I read today in the LA Times about indie books getting optioned for movies. Truly, you don't need an agent or big publisher for this to happen to you as Lisa Grace had it happen to her.  But the numbers are the exciting thing.

Here is an awesomesauce paragraph referring to Daughters of Smoke and Bone:

"Universal Pictures ended up paying $1 million for exclusive rights over the next several years to try to adapt it into a movie, a figure that industry professionals say is stunning for a title that has sold a very modest 22,692 copies."

Amazing, huh? That is modest as any self respecting kindleboards lurker will tell you.

Don't believe this could happen to you? Well, here is the kindleboards thread with Lisa Grace telling us about her book being optioned (checks cashed and all). She isn't in the Kindle Million Club like Amanda Hocking (whose Trylle series is being developed for film) but she is just as indie as Amanda used to be.

Anyway, hope for us all.

Kate

Rules for Estributors

Buried in the 'Joe sez' portion of a guest post is Joe's Rules for Estributors.  You can find the post here. He really should have broken out the whole discussion for a separate post bc much more could be said about it than what he has there.

Here are his rules as he sees them:

1. The estributor covers all costs of book production. Artwork, editing, proofing, formatting, layout, everything.

2. The estributor does all of the uploading to various sites (Kindle, B&N, Kobo, Apple, Smashwords, Createspace, etc.)

3. The estributor pays immediately after she receives money, and her accounting is transparent.

4. The estributor gets a cut of no more than 15%, equal to her agency commission.

5. When the estributor gets big enough, she facilitates translations and the uploading to foreign ebook sites. For this she can receive a larger royalty share.

6. The estributor markets the ebooks above and beyond what an author can do on her own.

7. The author retains the rights to the work, and sets the price of the work.

8. If the estributor is an agent, she will also continue to exploit the subsidiary rights of the work.

9. The author or estributor can dissolve the relationship at any time. That brings into question who owns the artwork/formatting etc. That should be resolved on a case by case basis in a way that is fair to both parties.

For the most, I agree with what he has to say.  The only sticking point is the money going to the estributor and then being paid to the author.  Only  bc this is such a new industry (ebooks, I mean) that there isn't a company out there with the decades in business experience that I would require before I fork over my money and essentially my business.

Also, by keeping the money in the author's hands (and having them pay it out to the estributor), you can cut down the risks that come with the conflict of interest.

And yes, there is a conflict of interest there.  But it can be mitigated by the service being provided as well as the money staying in the author's hands.

Personally, I don't recommend getting an agent until you need one for subsidiary rights (print, audio, foreign, film/tv, etc).  But I recognize that some writers might want to have this type of person on their team to help guide their career.  The majority will, actually, bc of fear. I just hope that the readers of this blog happen to see that they don't need to give away percentages of their proceeds, that they can make these decisions on their own.

That's all for now.  Just wanted to put in a quick comment about that.

Happy writing, y'all.

Kate

What this blog is

Yeah, so I thought I would separate out my writing and self publishing thoughts from my more promotional thoughts regarding my fiction.  Basically, this blog will be for other writers while my WriterKMadison blog will be for readers.  They don't necessarily care about all of the inner workings of the publishing industry (ya know, bc I am such an insider!!) or the challenges of publishing in multiple formats to multiple different stores.

But other writers might.

And hopefully, my mistakes documented here will serve to help other fellow self pubbing authors to steer clear of this or that particular pothole into which I have so ungracefully fallen. (<-- Look ma, I totally didn't end that sentence with a preposition, even tho I really wanted to.  Oh, wait.  Darnit!!)

I write under a few different pen names.  Kate Madison is one of my newer ones.  I thought I would put the self pubbing stuff under this one because, well, I'm not sure.  I just did.

I have been self pubbing since the summer of '09 (just saying that sentence makes me sound like an old man!). I have learned a lot and changed a lot over the last couple of years.  I will write about what I have learned and why I have changed-- again, all with an eye towards helping a fellow writer in their journey.  I have been helped countless times by so many different writers.  So, this is paying it forward, I guess.

Why should you care what I even have to say?  --Well, when you say it like that?  No really, I am not a crazy successful self pubber like the many stars on Kindleboards or the superstars like JA Konrath, Amanda Hocking, or John Locke.  But I consistently sell around 1k units per month of my short stories (across a few pen names) for the past 18 months or so.  It took about 6 months to build up to that and has remained steady. I'm not quite living on my writing income alone, but I am about half way there.  Writing and selling novels is my next step.  But, I would say I am doing decently, better than many, not as good as some.

I also publish quite a few Kindle blogs which I will talk about some.  But, honestly, I'm not sure how much longer those will be around simply bc they are the red headed step child of the business units in Amazon.  The kindle blogs get no love.  And you can't even get them on the fire which tells me their days are numbered.  Which is too bad, bc I like their income.  The subscription model is pretty sweet money wise, if a little labor intensive.

More on that later.  I'll also talk about lots of nuts and bolts stuff, such as:

--My workflow for formatting, then and now
--Pricing
--My writing income broken out
--Cover Design, then and now
--Ideal Story Length for today's market
--Reader attitudes
--Author attitudes
--Marketing and PR
--Accounting
--Fiction vs Nonfiction
--POD or print run

and many others.

I hope you enjoy.

Kate

WSJ thawing a bit on self pubbing, sort of

The conservative WSJ is among many traditional publications that treat the self publishing industry and those in it like lepers.  I suspect it is because of their very cozy relationship with the big 6 publishers and not because their brains are small and they have a hard time understanding change or reading a situation.  Because that would be sad.

However, they have an article that does mention self publishing, if only tangentially.  The pricing that the article talks about is very much in the self publishing domain.  That might change, tho, if more of the big 6 wise up and start using the 99c price point more often for their promotions.

So all of those readers that swear off 99c books bc of the glutton of poorly edited self pubbed works might be tempted to wade into those waters again.  That's good for everyone, I think.

Will the big 6 ever price their novels at 2.99-4.99 like most self pubbers do?  Probably. But not for another couple of years.  Until then, only one here and there will tiptoe in that direction.  (Please excuse the many exceptions to this rule-- very little in life is absolutely absolute.)

Price will end up being a huge marketing communication to the potential reader.  8.99 and up will signal that this book was published by a traditional publisher.  For some readers, that will be a comfort and they will gladly pay that added premium.  For others, they might feel gouged.

The industry is still in flux in many people's views.  Probably very much so to the reader.  I think things are kind of set for now.  Print won't die, just get smaller.  Kobo will probably take over BN with ereaders in the next few years (Sorry bn- you just kind of suck business-wise). Scared writers will continue to flock to big6 for validation.  Scared readers will continue to pay $12-35 for big6 books bc buying habits die hard.
Amazon's KDP select will continue to lure authors with their offer of 5 free promotional days (the lending is a tepid lure as so few people are part of Amazon Prime right now).  But it won't take over their world and gobble all other ebook retailers bc of the diversity in hardware.  Everyone will say that's what is happening, but it won't be for long.  Fair market competition will keep things tilting this way and then that way.

Okay, that's all I got for now.  Toodles.
Kate