Does anyone know something about this new download fee?

[austinwd679]

I've just been in to revise my novels and a each time, a blue overlay came up saying that lulu now had to charge $1.49 per download and that I needed to adjust my download prices. Was this announced anywhere? I never received any email like there was back in 2008 for print cost changes, nor can I find any thing in the blogs or the other forum threads.

To me, it seems a bit excessive.

When I checked the prices, my revenue had halved and yet I thought lulu's policy was to protect creator revenu.

I've now adjusted my ebooks from $3 to $4.49 and while I guess I can live with that I have 20 songs that I sell at 79c each and now I will have to sell them at $2.38. When I checked one song, the price hadn't changed, but clicking on the button to change it showed the price as $1.49 and no creator revenue.

What I want to know is is this the current price, even though it shows up as 79c on a search for the song or does it only apply after I've adjusted the price?

If I don't change the price, will my revenue be docked that amount upon a purchase and if so is it possible I could actually end up being in debt to lulu?

If I have to charge $2.38 per song to protect my revenue, I might as well remove the twenty songs because no one's going to buy them at that price.

[Keith Dixon]

It was announced on the blog in November:

http://lulublog.com/2009/11/03/new-lulu-ebooks-are-here/

Discussed on the blog here:

http://lulublog.com/2009/11/16/digital-rights-management-101/

And defended by Bob here:

http://lulublog.com/2009/11/23/drm-debate-misses-important-point-%e2%80%94-the-goal-is-author-succes...

[austinwd679]

Thanks for that, but it seems your references are all about Digital Rights Management and its pros and cons. The reference to the $1.49 flat fee comes only near the end, almost as a footnote.

I suspect the most lulu publishers are like me and only visit lulu.com now and then and don't necessarily check out the blogs etc. In that case, and as most publishers would be small revenue earners, I suspect most wouldn't know of this development, since it is only by opening a download project that they would be notified of this development.

I also still don't know what happens if I don't update my music downloads. I've had a recent download sale (after november, I'm pretty sure) and my current revenue reflects that earning. This infers that I manually need to update a download project to initiate the $1.49 fee. Does lulu expect all its publishing members to go in and make this change?

One test would be for someone to buy one of my songs that's priced at 79c :wink:

Any volunteers?

I also feel that lulu should, at the least, put a document in the FAQ explaining the fee in more detail and how it is to be or has been implimented and how it will affect creator revenues if their projects are not updated.

[Julie Ann Dawson]

The new fee is ridiculous, which is why I pulled all of my digital content off of Lulu. There is no legitimate justification for the fee whatsoever. There is no reason for me to ask my customers to pay an extra $1.49 for a digital product when I have so many other options for my content (Kindle, Smashwords, Mobipocket, etc).

[ericbt]

I remember reading somewhere (but can't find it now), that the fee only affects new content (as of the date of implementation). As long as you don't make changes to your preexisting content, the fee will not be imposed, but if you make any revisions, it will be.

[austinwd679]

Unfortunately, I didn't know that, but I wanted to make some minor changes to the spines of my printed books, so I guess I had to. I've searched, but if lulu has said this somewhere, I can't find it.

The problem for lulu, as I see it, must be that a lot of people have decided to use lulu as a way of distributing material for free as downloads and don't have any intention to sell anything, something I don't think lulu intended. Perhaps lulu should change its business model to only allow authors who sell downloadable product to have free downloadable content. I have a collection of short stories and a song for free, but these are intended to be samples to attract potential buyers.

Whatever the case, I still feel that this has been badly handled by lulu.

[Keith Dixon]

Quote:

to only allow authors who sell downloadable product to have free downloadable content

--


... but you can, if choose not to have DRM. And as you're giving it away for free, the issue of DRM isn't an issue. When you go to the publish wizard you can choose to make your work available for free and the fee isn't applied. You can also make the downloadable pdf of a printed book free, if you wish.

[austinwd679]

I know this, but you've missed my point. I'm suggesting that the problem may be due to lots of people using lulu to put digital content purely for free download and then suggesting that pehaps only people who have downloadable content for sale be allowed to also put up content for free download. I hadn't considered that it's possible that there would be a large population with sellable print content who have made it downloadable for free and that it is those downloads that have forced lulu to come up with this fee. In that case, my suggestion would be pointless as it isn't a tenable solution.

However, the assertion that DRM is the cause behind the fee is wrong. It doesn't matter what your downloadable content is (mp3, avi, flash or shockwave games etc) if you create a new project or revise an existing one, you get hit with the fee. DRM doesn't apply in these cases, just as it doesn't apply if you opt to sell your printed book as a download. It will be as a pdf that can be copied.

All I know is that for me it's killed lulu as a platform to sell new songs and the existing ones if I want to revise even the tiniest thing.