From Fast Company:
In a groundbreaking study of more than two million books published in North America between 2002 and 2012, scholars found that books by women authors are priced 45% less than those of their male counterparts.
. . . .
The paper, published in the journal PLOS One, found that there are three ways that discrimination unfolds. First, female authors are published less than male authors in particular genres. Second, genres that are thought of as traditionally women-oriented–like romance–are assigned less value by the industry. And finally, there are gender differences in the prices of books within the same genre. But even accounting for all of these differences, publishers paid authors with identifiably female names 9% less than authors with male names.
The scholars also considered whether gender inequities play out differently in traditional publishing as opposed to independent publishing, such as self-publishing your book on Amazon. In a fascinating twist, they found that indie authors generally replicate the same patterns of gender discrimination in traditional publishing, but there is more equality over all.
Link to the rest at Fast Company
as Felix mentioned, this ‘study’ is dust. Its metric is based on a time that no longer exists in publishing. Study base beginning in 2002? Seriously?
Too, is seems true that most trad pub’d authors are on the ‘never get the meat, only the tailbone of the chicken’ in terms of money split: trad: 88-92% gross, author 8%-12 gross if lucky. That seems horrendous, adding that to be paid only twice a year on a old fangled consignment system is beyond antiquated. It is wrong.
Women’s pay vs men’s pay. Oddly, some women are paid far more than most men in various industries, but a woman has to somehow rise into vp, pres, ceo, cfo, ei ei o, in order to achieve that.
Perceived merit in horses, will make the price of the stallion or mare exceed that of others. The merit of the horse might be as imagined. But frankly, in racing, siring, birthing horses, as in publ, it seems that the ability of the horse to win the race, to sire for free in a sense, many many offspring who will win races or be sold as the ‘child’ of the great whomever, is the idea driving the money.
Assuming most all horses are fine, still, the imagining by the buyer of what that horse can do and how that horse can be used, seems to determine monetary value.
Should it be that way? Not in terms of parity for all, but in a competitive acquisition based soc, that is a very deep way of human nature to let imagined worth, supply and demand drive all else. Have seen it in the marketplaces of istanbul, at the local farmers’ markets, on the rez, from the boardroom.
Same and same most everywhere about most everything.
While I have no doubt that there is some bias, I think it’s less than implied.
The female-domionated romance genre is the 800-lb gorilla of fiction. It’s mostly written by women, for women.
(I say mostly because we’re talking number here, not validation or social issues or value judgments. Just facts and numbers.)
It’s also the most competitive, and arguably the most commoditized (the idea that books are largely interchangeable rather than totally unique, due to the tight tropes that dominate). Competition drives down prices. Ergo, reduced per-book earnings.
It’s hugely important to know the number of copies sold for all of these books, too. If a book that sells 1 copy a month is weighted the same as one that sells 1000, the truth is quite skewed. I’d rather be the woman selling 1000 copies at 45% less than the man selling one copy for more.
Indie publishing has also disproportionately opened up opportunities for women, and indies tend to sell for less–but the successful ones sell more copies.
If you look at the top authors and their earnings, which matters much more to both authors and publishers, the playing field is less unfair. Not perfect, but better than the 45% difference implied here.
One widely accepted figure for overall women’s earnings from any profession in the US is that women earn about 79c for every dollar a comparable man earns. That’s a 21% reduction from the man, rather than 45%. Still bad, but not 45%.
To get a real figure, more analysis is needed and the right questions need to be asked, rather than simply comparing the price of books.
In a voracious genre (like Romance), books tend to be priced lower so that readers can buy MORE. In the past, Harlequin pretty much dominated that area so moving more units at lower prices made them a lot more money than if they had priced higher.
Fast forward to 2018: I’m a prawn and I can sell e-books at $3.99. Men who write in my genre (and dominate the top 100 sub cats) are selling at $0.99.
My BS detector bent its needle on overload at ‘groundbreaking’ – one of those magical buzzwords you yell ‘bingo’ on if you’re playing that game. 😉
2002 to 2012?
Meaningless.
(And it isn’t an old articles, either.)
That is mostly pre-ebook, pre-indie, gatekeeper era data.
It’s a whole new world out there with all-new rules. Book price says nothing relevant about sales or, if it’s on KU, revenue.
Next contestant!
Okay. But even if that is true, one must ask how many of the books are sold before one can draw conclusions about how much money the authors are making. (And one must ask how much of the cover price goes to the author. It is likely that the author gets more on a higher priced book than a lower priced one, but the contract is what governs this.)
Which would you rather be? A man whose $21.99 book sells 10,000 copies? Or a woman whose $16.99 book sells 100,000 copies?
If they’re both trad-pub’ed then they haven’t paid out yet by publisher whale math(TM). 😉
Good point. If they’re trad pubbed, all that matters is the advance, because most books don’t earn out the advance; which means royalties become irrelevant.
Second, genres that are thought of as traditionally women-oriented–like romance–are assigned less value by the industry.
The industry doesn’t assign value. Consumers do. If the industry could assign value, they would have raised prices long ago.
They can put a price anywhere they choose. But more or fewer consumers will choose to buy the book at any given price. So they price where they can make the most total revenue. If there was a price where they could make more total revenue, they would be there.
Independent authors do the same thing.