Congress Has the Whole Tax Thing Wrong

According to Warren Buffett, higher taxes for the super rich doesn’t kill jobs.

This morning, I was very pleased to read the words written by a voice of reason: Warren Buffett. Buffett is one of the richest men in the world, a man who built his fortune through investing. This article in the New York Times, “Stop Coddling the Super-Rich,” is his attempt to talk reason to the U.S. Congress using facts.

He writes:

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks.

While this isn’t news, what’s refreshing about it is that it’s being stated by one of the “mega-rich,” a man who paid $6.9 million (not a typo) in taxes last year. He points out that while his 2010 tax bill was 17.4 percent of his taxable income, other people in his office paid 33% to 41% (with an average of 36%) of theirs.

Tax PictureIt’s the percentages that are important here. Imagine a taxable income of $100K. 17.4% is $17,400. But 36% is more than double that: $36,000. Is it fair that someone with a taxable income of $40 million like Mr. Buffett, who gets to keep about $33 million of that after taxes, should be paying a lower tax rate than someone making $100K who only gets to keep $64K after taxes?

If you don’t know the answer to that question, maybe the picture I provided here for you will help?

(By the way, I’m all for a flat tax and still can’t figure out why we can’t have one. The rate would likely be low enough that folks earning under $200K would save money. And wouldn’t it be nice to figure out your taxes by yourself in an hour instead of paying someone else to do it for you?)

Mr. Buffett goes on to tear apart the argument that higher taxes for the super-rich prevent them from investing or kill jobs:

I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

These are facts from history, not vague guesses based on economic theories. And since Mr. Buffett has a reputation as someone with financial prowess, I’d tend to take his word on the situation before the word of the self-serving morons we’ve elected to Congress — career politicians who would rather lie to the American people than do what’s right for all of us.

Of course, all this makes me wonder why Congress is so insistent that taxes not be raised, even for the wealthiest Americans — people like Buffett who wouldn’t mind a tax increase if it helped the country out of its financial woes. Whose bank accounts are the members of Congress protecting? Their own? Their friends in major corporations who fund their campaigns?

They’re obviously not interested in protecting the bank accounts of the majority of the American people. With unemployment hovering around 9% nationwide, millions of people are tapping into savings, losing their homes, and giving up on the “American Dream.” Yet the government continues to subsidize the oil industry, which continues to reap record profits, offer tax breaks to companies that send American jobs overseas, and enforce a tax code that gives tax breaks to the mega-rich. (By the way, is it a coincidence that the oil industry donates generously to political campaigns? I think not.)

As the Debt Ceiling debates of July 2011 proved, the American Congress is dysfunctional. I really believe that all incumbents should be voted out of office in the next few elections. Start again with a clean slate, hopefully with people who care about their constituents.

But what can we do until then? Contact your Representatives and Senators. Tell them that you think Warren Buffett is right: that the mega rich should be paying the same percentage of taxes as the rest of Americans. If you email them, link to the New York Times piece I quoted here. Tell them to read it and learn. Remind them that they’re working for all of the American people — not the corporations who fund their campaigns.

We need to turn this country around and it’s obviously not going to happen if we wait for our dysfunctional Congress to do it for us.

And in November 2012, remember to vote for someone who has the American people at the top of his or her agenda — not partisan politics.

How to Lower Gas Prices

Use less fuel.

Arm and a LegYesterday, during the brief time I was in the Jeep running errands in town, I caught part of an NPR interview with someone about the current fuel price situation. His take was that the fuel companies are gouging us — they’re obviously charging far more than it costs them to produce and deliver fuel.

My response to that: What the hell do you expect them to do?

Addicted to Oil

As one of my least favorite presidents so accurately quipped years ago, “Americans are addicted to oil.” (That may have been one of the few truthful things he uttered during his eight years reign.)

I agree. We are addicted to oil.

Look at it this way: the oil companies are drug dealers. They hook us on their product by making it relatively affordable — the U.S. still pays far less for gas than Europe and most of the rest of the world. The car companies help the process by selling us vehicles that are impractical for most people but have lots of “style” or “status” — which insecure people apparently need. Cities like Phoenix and Los Angeles further encourage us with their urban sprawl and insufficient mass transit, forcing us to drive to work from our dream homes in distant subdivisions.

So we settle in, like junkies, burning our daily fix of fuel. We drive everywhere in vehicles that are far bigger and more costly to operate than we need: trucks and SUVs instead of more fuel efficient sedans. We live in the ‘burbs and commute, alone in our cars, to our workplaces, which are sometimes thirty miles away or more. We’re too lazy to walk anywhere — we’ll often drive across the street from one shopping center to another.

When we’re good and hooked, the prices start coming up.

Bravo, oil companies! You sure know how to work that bottom line!

Hypocritical Whiners

In Wickenburg, I’ve been listening to people whining about fuel prices for the past ten years. They never seem to shut the hell up about it.

It’s the same complaint: local filling stations are gouging them on fuel prices. Wickenburg pays at least 10¢ more per gallon than they do in Phoenix. Funny thing is that these complaints are coming from the same people who think nothing of doing their grocery shopping down in Surprise, 35 miles away. So not only are they driving far more than they need to, but they’re likely buying their fuel where it’s cheaper anyway.

Still, they think our government should somehow intervene and cap fuel prices.

That’s the kicker. The same people who are complaining about fuel prices are the ones who voted in Republican congressmen and senators who are pro big business. The ones that are right behind tax breaks and other incentives for the oil companies. And they’re the same people who are saying we need smaller government and less regulation.

Guess what, folks? You can’t have it both ways.

We Have Empowered Them

I can’t complain about the fuel companies gouging us — which I agree that they probably are. Why can’t I complain? Because I recognize the right of a business to maximize its profit any way it legally can. If that means charging as much as the market will bear, so be it.

You see, there’s this little economic theory called Supply and Demand. As long as there’s demand for a product the provider of that product can charge as much as it wants — or as much as it can get away with. There comes a point, however, when the amount they charge is just too much and demand falls off. As supplies increase, prices go down.

This is basic economic theory.

So as long as we keep buying fuel, they’ll keep selling it to us at the highest prices they can squeeze out of us.

And I can’t fault them for that. We’ve made it possible for them to gouge us.

You Are the Solution

But we also have the power to make it stop.

Instead of complaining about it and carrying on like usual, do something about it. Want some ideas? Try these:

  • If you have a big fat SUV or truck or full size sedan, replace it with something more fuel efficient. There are lots of great options out there and, in some states, hybrid or electric vehicles also come with tax incentives.
  • If you need a big vehicle now and then to haul people or stuff, get a second, fuel-efficient vehicle for other driving. You might find that over time, you’ll save enough in fuel to pay for that vehicle. Or if two vehicles are completely out of the question, consider renting the big truck when you need it.
  • If you commute to work, carpool. Yes, I know this means sitting in a vehicle with other people while driving to and from work. But is that so bad? I carpooled to college for a semester during the first energy crisis and lived to tell about it. You can, too. Best of all, you can drive in the HOV lanes, which will get you there faster.
  • If you have an office job, telecommute. This might be a tough sell to your company, but why not try? Telecommuting not only saves you time and money, but it saves your employer money. How? Well, for starters, the more telecommuters they have on staff, the less office space they’ll need. Sure, you won’t get an office or cubicle with your name on it — you’ll likely have to use a shared space on the days you do come in — but think of going to work with your slippers on — and not having to fill your car with gas twice a week.
  • If you live too far from the office, move. Okay, so this isn’t easy to do, but you have to admit that it is possible. Right now is a great time to buy real estate, too — if you can afford it. Here’s a not-so-secret: Because there aren’t any good jobs in Wickenburg, where we’ve been living for 14 years, my husband works 55 miles away in Phoenix. We bought a cheap condo down there so he wouldn’t have to make the long drive every day. And guess what? He has a roommate who is in the same boat!
  • If you live too far from work, change jobs. Okay, so this isn’t too easy either, but again, it is possible. (Unless you live someplace with no jobs.)
  • If you often drive more than 10 miles to shop, shop online. I’m not talking about groceries here — I’m talking about the other things you might need to buy. The closest bookstore, tech store, and full-blown department store are 35 miles from my home. This might explain why Amazon.com gets so much of my business. And don’t try to say that they’re burning UPS/FedEx fuel. Those carriers are coming to Wickenburg anyway, so the incremental fuel cost is minimal.

These are just a few basic ideas. Surely you can think of more.

And before you start spouting excuses why you can’t do any of these things, why not do a little research to see if you can?

And instead of complaining about the problem, why not be part of the solution?

Remember, the reason they’re gouging us with fuel prices is because they can. We have empowered them. The solution is not government regulation. It’s consumer lifestyle change. When they start to see consumption go down, they’ll know our addiction is faltering. Their logical course of action is to drop prices to get the hook in a little deeper again.

It’s happened before; it’ll happen again. Why not give it a try and see?

Why Groupon is Bad for Business…and Consumers

Do the math, think it through.

Yesterday, I got a phone call from a Groupon representative. He’d been trying to reach me for about a week and had left two voicemail messages, which I ignored. Yesterday, he reached me at my desk while I was working on the finishing touches for my latest book.

Groupon, in case you don’t know, is an up-and-coming business that has combined social networking with discounts. The idea is that they get a group of people to buy into a special discount offer. The people prepay for whatever it is they’re buying and get vouchers to redeem. They then take the vouchers to the merchant and get the products or services that were in the special offer.

Groupon makes its money by taking a cut of the amount it collects for the merchant: 30 to 60%. To feature a merchant offer, the merchant must discount its products or services by at least 50% off regular price. This can be a real attractive deal for people who want to save money.

There are Groupon clones popping up all over the place these days; Living Social is one that called me several months ago. Oddly, I got a call from yet another one yesterday as well.

Groupon’s Sales Pitch

Groupon cons businesses into signing up with them by pointing out that it’s risk-free advertising for the business. Indeed, it doesn’t cost a thing to list with Groupon. The cost comes when they start selling for you. So you’re only paying for results.

Yesterday’s Groupon guy pointed out that they have hundreds of thousands of subscribers in the Phoenix area, so my special offer would reach all of them. For free! According to him, this was great exposure for my business. People who bought Groupons would undoubtably come back for more of my great service. Even if someone didn’t take advantage of the Groupon offer, they’d learn about my business. According to him, it was win-win.

I’d already given this a lot of thought, so I was prepared. I let him do his whole sales pitch. Hey, if he’s going to interrupt my day, I may as well put him to work. It’s a good thing I did. Because along the way, he made it clear that he had no idea about the negative impact of a Groupon offer on my business.

He asked me what Flying M Air‘s most popular trip was. I told him it was my hour-long Phoenix Tour, which sells for $495 for up to three people. He asked how many helicopters we had and how many flights we could do in a day. I told him one and asked how many hours there was in a day.

As part of his pitch, he told me that Groupon normally wants 50% off the amount it collects for the offer. But because he “realized that there are a lot of costs associated with operating a helicopter, such as fuel and pilots,” they would take only 30%.

Fuel and pilots.

Doing the Math

It was right about then that I grew tired of the conversation. I could do the math; he didn’t even know what numbers to plug in. All he saw was a sweet deal for Groupon: $495 x 50% x 30% = $74.25 per voucher sold. Multiply that by, say 250 vouchers, and Groupon pockets over $18K — just by making a phone call and doing a bunch of things that are likely handled by its computer systems. Cha-ching! On to the next business!

On the flip side of that, I’d be pocketing $173.25 per voucher sold. For an hour of flight time.

To understand just how bad a deal this is for me, let’s talk a little about my actual costs. I won’t go into deep detail here; instead, I’ll just talk about my three biggest direct operating expenses. No, fuel is not number one and pilot expense doesn’t even make the list.

  • Reserve for Overhaul. Think of this as part of my maintenance expense. Every 2200 hours of flight time or 12 years, a Robinson helicopter has to go back to the factory (or authorized service center) for an overhaul. For my model of helicopter (R44 Raven II) that currently costs about $218,600 plus any required upgrades or other non-covered items. Let’s do the math: $218,600 ÷ 2200 hours = $99.36 per hour.
  • Fuel. You might get sticker shock at the fuel pump for your car or truck, but try filling up with 100LL at the local airport. On my most recent trip, I paid anywhere from $4.50 to $5.65 per gallon of 100LL. The helicopter burns about 16 gallons per hour. Using a conservative average of $5 per gallon, let’s do the math: $5 x 16 = $80 per hour.
  • Insurance. Think your car insurance is costly? Try insuring a helicopter for commercial operations. Last year’s insurance bill was $14,950. I fly about 200 hours a year. Let’s do the math: $14,950 ÷ 200 = $74.75 per hour.

Now let’s add all these numbers up: $99.36 + $80.00 + $74.75 = $254.11 per hour.

This does not include the routine maintenance that’s required to keep the helicopter safe and legal, such as oil changes, 100-hour inspections, and annual inspections. It doesn’t include the unexpected repairs like the starter and ring gear, auxiliary fuel pump, upper bearing, and countless other components that needed repair or replacement in the six years I’ve owned the helicopter. It doesn’t include hangar rent, charts and other documents required by the FAA, office expenses, or advertising expenses. It doesn’t include monthly loan payments for the helicopter — which is twice as high as my mortgage. This amounts to thousands of dollars every year.

And no, it doesn’t even include a salary for the pilot — me.

But we’ll put all that other stuff aside for a moment and go with the three biggest direct operating expenses summarized above. They add up to $254.11 per hour. The Groupon deal would pay me $173.25 per hour-long flight. That means that on every flight, I’d lose at least $80.86. Multiply that by, say 250 vouchers sold, and I’d lose at least $20,215.

And again, this doesn’t include the other direct and indirect operating expenses of my business. Add those and this loss number would likely increase by at least 50%.

The Non-redeemer Argument

When I pointed out on in Twitter in basic terms how bad a deal this would be for me, one of my Twitter friends responded:

But you factor in those who pay and never cash in the coupon, no?

Many businesses do this. Groupon was very careful not to suggest this was a possibility, although most Groupon proponents say to expect at least 20% no shows.

But look at it this way: if you paid $10 for a $20 voucher toward a meal at a restaurant across town, using that voucher might not be very high on your priorities list. Over time, you might forget you have it or even lose it. No big deal. It’s $10 out of your pocket.

But if you paid $247.50 for a $495 helicopter flight, how likely are you to forget about it? Very unlikely. I sell gift certificates every year at Christmas time. They all expire at the end of March. Around mid-March, my phone starts ringing. By month-end, I’ve done all the rides paid for at Christmas time. People who are looking for discounts don’t forget expenditures that large. I’m sure I’d redeem at least 95% of the ones sold on Groupon.

The Return Customer Argument

Another Twitter friend said:

The hope with Groupon is that the resulting customers would be repeat customers at the full price in the future.

Indeed, that’s what Groupon is suggesting. They’re pushing themselves as a means of advertising. They seem to think that once the customer knows about your business, they’ll keep coming back for more.

I think that in most cases — and certainly in the case of my business — this is simply not true.

Look at it this way: the people who subscribe to Groupon’s service are willing to spend time every day reading e-mail messages from Groupon that summarize the daily deals. These are people who are very interested in saving money. They’re buying because of the 50% off dealnot because they want the product or service. True — that Groupon voucher will get them in the door. But are they likely to come back and pay regular price for the same goods or services in the future? When they know that they could wait around and probably get another Groupon deal for the same product or service there or elsewhere in the future? I seriously doubt it.

As if to re-enforce this notion, a Twitter friend said:

So your saying to not take advantage of the deal that is offered?

I replied:

Yes, that’s what I’m saying. I’m saying to STOP using Groupon unless you want to HURT a business.

To which he replied:

This could get into a lengthy conversation so I’ll just drop it now. I’ll just say that I wish I could always afford to pay retail.

This confirmed my suspicion: that Groupon users are only interested in buying at discount. This particular Twitter user likely has no intention of being a regular customer for any Groupon merchant. He’s just in it for the deals.

And how many repeat customers do they honestly think a helicopter charter operator would get among the kinds of people who buy only when prices are 50% off? How many helicopter tours of Phoenix does a person need? And that’s my lowest price item — if these people were only willing to open their wallets for $247.50, would they do the same for a $795 Moonlight Dinner Tour or a $1,095 Sedona Tour or Day Trip? If I had 1% repeat customers I’d be shocked.

A helicopter operator friend of mine saw the harsh reality of a Groupon deal. He runs a flight school and offered introductory flights at $69 (regular price $225), with the thought that buyers would come back and take flying lessons. He had to “beg” Groupon to stop selling them when they reached 2,600 vouchers sold. True, he’s operating smaller, less expensive equipment than I am, but even if his intro flight times are only 30 minutes, he’s still losing money on every flight — all 2,600 of them. He goes on to say:

A huge number of customers telephoned the office to ask if they could buy the $69 intro lesson deal directly from us. We tried gently to explain that we weren’t quite sure how we were going to serve 2600 customers and that adding a 2601st would not help. We then offered them the $225 standard intro lesson price, which is already discounted to some extent. Nobody was interested at that price. So unless we can figure out how to sell them 2nd, 3rd, and 4th lessons at $69, perhaps this will be the first and last flight for nearly all of these folks.

And how many of these people are going to shell out $8K or more for a private pilot license?

As another Twitter friend said:

Good for you – from what I can tell Groupon can be a disaster for small businesses.

I’ve seen reports of small busiensses that went under after doing Groupon. Losing $$ on large volume of one-timers isn’t good.

What if I’d done it and sold 2,600 vouchers? I shudder to think about it.

The Exception: Fixed Cost or High Margin Businesses

Of course, this is just my business and another one similar to it. Clearly, businesses that have fixed costs or high profit margins can afford to get only 25¢ or 35¢ on the dollar for their products or services.

One guy who contacted me the last time I wrote about Groupon or Living Social has a rock-climbing business. He already has the equipment and the storefront. His operating costs don’t change based on the number of people who show up to use his facility. The extra few dollars per person he received through his deal could actually help him make ends meet. People paid $8 for a $16 service; he got $3.60 per voucher. He told me he expected 20% to 40% no shows and was happy with his deal. Of course, he only sold a few hundred.

Restaurants might also do well, since they often have high profit margins. (What does it really cost to make a latte?) But at least one restaurant owner suffered badly after a Groupon deal, primarily though larger crowds than she could handle, people using multiple Groupon vouchers to pay for an entire meal, and gratuities to servers based on the discounted amount rather than the full price (which didn’t make the staff very happy at all).

I wonder how many others have had similar experiences but just haven’t blogged about it.

Fiddling with “Regular” Price

Of course, one way to guarantee that you make money on every item sold is to fiddle with your “regular” price and make sure your profit margin is high enough to cover the discount and Groupon cut. Yes, I mean inflating your retail price.

I admit that I tried this last year. My problem was that in order to get hotel concierges to book flights for their guests with me, I had to give them a 20% commission. My margins really are small — I’m not just blowing smoke here. If I paid them 20%, I wouldn’t make any money at all. And hotel guests are definitely not return customers. So in order to make enough to pay them the commission and earn a little money (but still not as much as the concierges would), I raised my prices. This turned out to be a mistake because it (1) made me too expensive for the average customer and (2) made my services more costly than my competition’s. So this season, my prices returned to normal and I simply cut the commissions I’d pay the hotel concierge staff.

But you have to wonder how many businesses are making Groupon — and other deep discount deals — work by inflating their prices. And what does that do for them — and the consumer?

Basic economic theory proposes that the more expensive something is, the fewer people will buy it. (As I saw, raising prices turned off “retail price” customers, thus reducing the total amount of business.) There comes a point where the additional unit revenue for the higher prices won’t make up for the unit sales lost because of higher prices. If the only customers are those buying at a discount, the net effect is a reduction in revenue.

Let’s look at an example. Suppose an item costing $20 normally sells for $75 for a $55 per unit profit. The merchant sells an average of 100 units a week for a total profit of $5,500.

To ensure a profit when selling through Groupon, the merchant raises the “regular” price to $100. For each item sold through Groupon, the merchant gets $25 so he’s making $5 profit from them. Regular retail customers are paying $100, so he’s making $80 profit from them. At the Groupon price, he could sell 1,000 units in a week, but his retail sales drop to just 20 units a week because his competition sells the same item for a lower price. Total take: $5,000 from Groupon sales + $1,600 from retail sales = $6,600. Looks good, right?

Now suppose the Groupon deal is over and there are no more discounted sales. He’s still selling just 20 units a week for $1,600 in profit. Not so good anymore, is it?

Of course, these are just numbers pulled out of thin air. You can play what-if forever and never get an accurate indication — until you try it.

Deep Discounts Hurt Consumers, Too

As more and more businesses inflate their prices to cover the costs of discounts and special offers, the average prices of goods and services rise. Ironically, this means that the consumer’s thirst for deep discounts could be causing overall price increases that make items unaffordable without the discount.

Think of my Twitter friend wishing he could afford to pay retail. He later tweeted:

It would be nice if prices were just fair and coupons didn’t exist. Making purchasing decisions would be simple.

News flash: coupons aren’t going to go away if people keep using — and relying on — them.

In addition, the demand generated by oversold vouchers can exceed the merchant’s ability to redeem them. Overcrowded restaurants, out-of-stock items, long delays in scheduling — I still wonder how my friend will schedule 2,600 intro flights, given that each one requires at least 30 minutes of ground school and 30 minutes of flight time. Not only is this a nightmare for the merchant, but it certainly does not make for good experiences for customers.

What consumers don’t seem to realize is that their thirst for deep discounts can be fueling a market trend that is, over the long term, destructive.

  • Businesses desperate for sales and willing to take a loss on deep discount sales will fail when repeat business does not materialize at regular prices. This means fewer businesses and less competition in the market.
  • Businesses that manipulate regular prices to ensure profit on deep discount sales will inflate retail prices beyond what many consumers are willing to pay. This means less affordable products and services.
  • Business that oversell deep discounted products or services may fail to provide products and services timely or satisfactorily. This means a lower level of service.

How does any of this benefit the consumer?

Crap Offers to Get Customers in the Door

Of course, the really savvy businesses will try to use Groupon as a means to get customers in the door by offering nearly worthless items at a discount. Another one of my Twitter friends alluded to this:

I signed up for Groupon and not impressed. Feels like daily spam with nothing of value.

Could it be that some businesses are getting wise to the pitfalls of using Groupon? Could it be that the ones that aren’t desperate for customers are keeping clear?

Why I’m So Passionate about This

As you’ve probably figured out by reading between the lines, I’m angry about this Groupon thing. (And not just Groupon; all of its copycat companies, too.) It took me a while to figure out why.

  • Groupon is misleading business owners. Groupon pushes itself as a marketing tool that you pay for only when you get results. But a true marketing tool would get long-term results, not one-time results.
  • Groupon is extremely expensive. Don’t just look at the 50% commissions on the sale price. Instead, look at the whole cost, which is 75% of the retail price. Offering a Groupon deal is the same as giving customers 75% off.
  • Groupon is making a lot of money — far more than its clients. Is it right that any advertiser should make more on a business’s products or services than the business itself?

It bothers me that so many small businesses are being hurt by Groupon-like deals. In many cases, these are companies that are cash-starved and desperate for revenue. The idea of selling a 1,000 vouchers at $50 each — $50,000 cash up front! — is extremely appealing to these people. They don’t think about what it will cost them to redeem these vouchers: products, equipment, services, employees, scheduling. They don’t think about how crowds and word of the discount might affect their relationship with current customers.

And Groupon doesn’t do a thing to enlighten them about the potential drawbacks.

It also bothers me that so many consumers who are obviously clueless about the costs of running a business will snap up these Groupon deals with no intention of becoming loyal customers — paying retail, imagine that! — of any Groupon merchant. Don’t they see how they’re potentially hurting the businesses they visit with their Groupon voucher? Don’t they care?

And finally, it bothers me that Groupon called me three times before finally making contact, told me they wanted to “feature” me on their site, and had no idea about how my business operates or what my services cost. It bothers me that later the same day, a Groupon copycat company also called me and tried to reel me in on the same deal with the same lack of knowledge. Or that yet another copycat company called me months ago, also trying to sucker me in. Blood-sucking leeches doesn’t seem so far off-base.

The Final Straw

What really got me angry yesterday, however, was an article I read online called “Groupon gripes: Are daily deals headed for disaster?.” In it, the author discusses the problems that Groupon causes for businesses. He admits that many businesses “don’t even break even.” Yet he finishes up the article by encouraging consumers to take advantage of Groupon deals:

Skeptical as I may be, the limited funds in my bank account make me a consumer first and an observer second. As companies line up to split prices in half and make them even easier for consumers to find, I’ll be there right alongside soaking up the deals. I did, after all, milk AllAdvantage for triple digits before the goons running the place depleted their venture capital and shuttered the place for good.

In other words, if this ship’s going down, I’m raiding the buffet before hitting the lifeboats. Join me for an oyster?

Or: Fuck the businesses and the economy that they fuel. Suck up all the cheap deals you can while the businesses stupid enough to offer them are still around.

Not exactly the kind of insightful commentary I expect from a journalist.

And the Winner Is…

As one of my Twitter friends said:

“The only one who wins with Groupon is Groupon itself.”

I couldn’t agree more.

One more thing: If you plan to comment on this piece with some sort of defense of Groupon or its copycats, be prepared to back up your opinion with facts. If you’re a business owner and it helped you, share some real numbers about profits/losses, repeat customers, and how you benefited. If you’re a consumer, share some experiences about saving money, positive redemption, and becoming a repeat customer. Simply throwing opinions that aren’t backed by facts isn’t going to convince me or anyone else.

How the U.S. Can Balance the Budget and Reduce Unemployment

The answer is simple.

In their never-ending search for ways to cut costs, U.S. businesses have turned to outsourcing to offshore companies to reduce labor costs. As a result, more and more jobs are being shipped overseas and more and more customer/technical service phones are being answered in by comparatively low-paid labor forces in India and other Asian countries. The U.S. workers who had these jobs are given pink slips and sent on their way. Jobless, they can no longer afford anything beyond the essentials, thus reducing the demand for products and services their former employers offered.

This, I believe, is the irony of outsourcing.

The U.S. government can help balance the budget and create new jobs easily. Just levy a tax on every job sent overseas. Fire 10 people in New York and replace them with 15 people in India? Well, that’ll cost you $5,000 per person or $50,000 a year. Or maybe it should work based on a hefty percentage of the salary no longer paid. 25%? Replace a $50K employee with an Indian? That’ll cost you $12,500. Do that with 100 employees? Write that check for $1,250,000. So not only will you alienate your customers by supporting them with foreigners reading off scripts, but you won’t save all that much money in the process.

After all, extended unemployment benefits, food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, and other benefits for unemployed people should be paid by the people who caused the unemployment, no?

Think of all the tax money the country is losing by not having these U.S. employees. Think of all the Social Security tax money not being paid — that alone is 15% of a person’s income (up to certain limits, of course). By greedy companies sending jobs overseas, they’re screwing our country out of important tax revenues we’ll need to maintain our standard of living — and get retirement benefits under Social Security and Medicare. Why are companies being allowed to do this?

And while they’re at it, why not levy higher tariffs on imports? The other day, I bought a perfectly good, 100% cotton polo shirt at a Walmart for $8. The only reason it was so cheap is because it was made in Pakistan. Meanwhile, towns across the United States are slipping into local depressions because fabric mills and clothing factories are closing down. People are losing jobs they’ve held for their entire adult lives. Why? Because companies can have these things made cheaper in China or Taiwan or Pakistan. Do they do.

Don’t you see it? Our drive to buy the cheapest of everything is causing people to lose jobs, This, in turn, is fueling this recession and requiring more and more of our tax dollars to help support the people who can’t get work.

Our greed and cheapness is screwing up our economy.

Why not make these companies pay for it? Yes, it’ll trickle down to us, but in the long term, wouldn’t you rather have a strong economy than a cheap polo shirt?

Ebook Costs and Pricing, Part II: The Pricing

Publishers and resellers need to give readers value for their money.

Ebook Costs and Pricing
Part I: The Costs
Part II: The Pricing

In the first part of this series, I discussed, in depth, the costs of publishing any book — ebook or traditional printed book. If you haven’t read that, read it now. I think you’ll learn some important things about how the publishing industry works. My hope, however, is that you understand the value of every book that’s published, no matter what format it’s published in.

Amazon’s Macmillan Fiasco

In January 2010, there was a big hullabaloo in the publishing world. Out of the blue, Amazon, the world’s biggest bookseller, dropped titles by the publishing giant, Macmillan, and its imprints. This turned out to be roughly 1/3 of Amazon’s book catalog. The reason for this? Amazon was attempting to strong-arm Macmillan into accepting its ebook pricing model.

You see, Amazon.com wanted all ebooks to have a maximum price of $9.99 with a certain amount of that price going directly to Amazon.com. Macmillan, however, wanted to use the “agency model.” As Mashable reports in “Macmillan CEO Confirms Dispute With Amazon Over eBooks,”

In this model, Macmillan as publisher would sell digital editions of books to customers through retailers, who as the agents of the sale would take the typical 30% commission standard in many digital media industries.

Whereas currently Amazon caps the retail price of e-books at $9.99, Macmillan proposes to set the price for each book individually at price points between $5.99 and $14.99, starting typically on the high end of the spectrum (between $12.99 and $14.99) and dynamically lowering the price over time.

(This is the model currently used by Apple in its iBookstore.)

Flexing its muscles, Amazon chose the “nuclear option” of refusing to sell Macmillan books, thus putting the first battle of the ebook war out into the public eye.

Those of us in the publishing industry sat back and watched the battle of the titans. Amazon attempted to get customers on its side by accusing Macmillan, in a roundabout way, of being greedy. Macmillan, on the other hand, insisted that it had the right to establish its own pricing. Consumers tended to side with Amazon.com. Authors and others in the publishing industry tended to side with Macmillan.

I sided with Macmillan. I believe that the producer of any item for sale should have the right to set its own prices. Amazon was wrong to try to force Macmillan to follow Amazon’s pricing structure. If a publisher has to cut the price, it’ll also have to cut the costs. And where do you think the first cut will be? I can tell you from experience: the author.

So, as you might imagine, I was relieved when Macmillan won the battle. You can read another author’s perspective of this particular battle over ebook pricing in “Amazon, Macmillan: an outsider’s guide to the fight,” by Charlie Stross.

Unfortunately, however, Macmillan’s pricing strategy has serious problems. Not only does it often result in ebooks that are more expensive than their printed editions, but it fails to take into consideration the perceived value of an ebook.

The Psychological Barrier of Ebook Pricing

Although there is a definite cost to publish (as I discussed in Part I of this series; did you read it?), the vast majority of readers feel — and I agree — that an ebook should cost less than a traditionally printed paper book. How much less depends on the consumer, his budget, and the value he sees in the book.

Unfortunately, publishers and resellers don’t feel this way. A visit to Amazon.com tells the story. I pulled up the pages for the hardcover editions of several books currently on the top of the New York Times Bestseller list. In many instances, the hardcover printed book was priced lower than the ebook. Here are two examples:

Sh*t My Dad Says Pricing

Outliers Pricing

While I realize that the difference in pricing is minor — less than $2 in each example — it’s still roughly 10% cheaper to buy the hardcover, printed book than the ebook.

What’s the difference between the two editions of each of these books? The content is certainly the same — the same words by the same author. The less expensive book has substance. I can carry it around, put it on my shelf, thumb through it, write in it, show it to a friend, loan it out, give it away, or resell it on eBay or at a garage sale. This print book is certainly in a flexible format with ongoing future value. The more expensive ebook exists as a digital file that I can only view in one format on one kind of reader. Sure, I can read it on my iPad, my BlackBerry, and my Mac. But I can’t lend it out, give it away, or resell it.

In other words, the more expensive book has more restrictions on how I can use it.

Is that fair? Of course not.

Why would I pay more money for a book with more restrictions on its use?

I wouldn’t. And neither would the majority of ebook readers.

So what happens? Suppose I want to buy one of these books. I don’t want to buy yet another print book for my bookshelf — I’m trying to downsize. I’m not willing to pay a premium for an ebook edition. So I’ll either not read the book or I’ll pick up a copy at my local library. Does Amazon.com benefit from this? No. Does the publisher? No. The only one who benefits is me, because although I have to deal with the inconvenience of two visits to my local library, I’ll save a few bucks on the cost of a book. I’ll also achieve my personal downsizing goal by not adding more books to my library shelves.

The Magic Price

In addition to being less costly than the printed version of the book, to gain wide acceptance, the book needs to be priced to sell. This is where things get tricky. How can the publisher/distributor determine the price of an ebook?

Consider the “magic price” of consumers. What’s the maximum amount a reader is willing to pay for an ebook? For me, that price is $10 for a relatively new book with the price going down depending on the age of the book. I’d expect to pay more for a new book on the New York Times Bestseller list (but not more than its printed counterpart). I’d expect to pay far less for a 5-year-old book by the same author, even if it also once had bestseller list status.

That corresponds with the “agency pricing” model discussed earlier. But what doesn’t correspond is the starting price (as high as $14.99!) and the length of time before the price drops. I think the price should start much lower, perhaps at paperback book pricing levels. If it doesn’t start that low, it should definitely drop more quickly — within three to six months. Or, in the case, of a bestseller, when it falls off the bestseller list.

You might argue that if a reader knows the price of a book will drop, he’ll merely wait until the drop to buy. For a strong title, it shouldn’t matter. Readers will buy at their magic price. Some people won’t want to wait for some titles and will pay the premium. Others who are more price-sensitive will wait and save.

Pure Profit?

Publishers need to understand that the industry is changing. Information is widely available at low-cost or free. People with access to the internet can get plenty of reading material that’s just as good — if not better — than what they can find on bookstore shelves. This is taking a huge toll on the publishing industry.

As all this is going on, however, the publishers are handed a golden opportunity to sell a product with an extremely high profit margin: ebooks.

What the publisher needs to remember is its main goals, which are, in order:

  1. recoup fixed publishing costs
  2. earn a profit on books sold

Once the fixed costs of publishing (again, covered in detail in Part I of this series) are covered, the unit costs (primarily the author’s and retailer’s cuts) are relatively small. The result is a high profit margin product. Publishers should be doing everything they can to sell as many ebooks as the market will consume. Lowering the price is a good first step, as it will make ebooks more attractive to more readers.

As Charlie Stross points out, this is all part of the price elasticity of demand, an economics term that describes the relationship between price and units sold. Generally speaking, as price drops, more units are sold. That means that with proper pricing, the seller can sell more units and, even if the margins are lower, may be able to make as much — or more — money.

With a product like ebooks, which have a low cost to produce once fixed publishing costs are recouped, every ebook unit sold is profit. The more ebooks a publisher sells, the more money they make. So why wouldn’t they want to price ebooks so they sell more?

Who knows?

Short-Sightedness

The main problem I see with publishers is that they’re typically short-sighted. They know print publishing — they’ve been doing it for years. That formula worked for a very long time. But times change and technology marches on.

No one can deny the convenience of having a dozen or a hundred (or more!) books on a handheld device (or computer or cell phone) for instant access at any time. I don’t know about you, but the last time I took a get-away-from-it-all vacation, I lugged four books with me and still ran out of reading material before the end of the week. (I read fast.) I look forward to my next vacation when I can put all those books on my iPad.

Just as computers replaced typewriters, CDs and MP3 files replaced vinyl LPs, and cell phones are replacing land lines, ebooks will replace printed books. It’s inevitable. (Sure, there will still be books out there, far into the future. But they’ll be special books, like the coffee table books with designs and images that don’t translate well into electronic format — yet.)

Why are publishers fighting it? Why don’t they embrace the ebook revolution by hooking us on ebooks with the lure of practicality and cost savings? Get us addicted, make us demand books in this format. Why are they sticking to a pricing model that makes smart consumers feel like idiots for paying more for less?

We finally have three good ebook reader devices — although I believe two will go the way of the dinosaur when more iPad-like devices start appearing — so there’s no hardware excuse. The only thing holding ebooks back is the inflexibility of publishers regarding pricing and format and the limited availability of ebook titles.

Author and Reader

I’m writing this post from two points of view: as an author and as a reader.

As an author, I want to make as much money as I can. It’s my livelihood. You’d think, therefore, that I’d like the idea of high pricing. But I also like to consider what’s fair and I simply don’t believe that it’s fair to charge more for an ebook than a printed book. I also think more books could be sold if the price were lower, thus earning me the same amount of royalties — if not more.

As an author, I’ve had this discussion with one of my long-time publishers. I’ve pushed to create different ebook formats that take advantage of the display capabilities of computers with more attractive pricing. My reward for this: I’m labeled a troublemaker, a whiner, an annoyance. Whatever. It’ll be interesting to see how certain publishers survive the revolution.

As a reader, I want to be able to save money while increasing the convenience of reading. My iPad has given me, by far, the most pleasant book reading experience I’ve ever had. Clear, bright screen, adjustable type size, one-handed operation, the ability to read in low-light conditions. I never thought it would be this good. But I absolutely refuse to pay more for an ebook than its printed counterpart when there are so many limitations on what I can do with an ebook (beyond reading it) once I’ve got it.

What do you think? As author or reader or publisher, I’d love to get your comments.