Alisa Krasnostein discusses a little bit about the notion that by self-publishing an author automatically receives a 70% royalty (running on the industry 'standard' of Amazon and iTunes pocketing 30% of your sales):
I’ve run the maths of going to digital only publishing to play with the business model. I’ve also tried to look at offering our ebooks at that $0.99 or $1.99 price point. I really hope we don’t see this flux in the business model end up with books only costing 99 cents. It’s such a huge undervaluation of what it costs to produce the product. To think that you deserve 70% royalties means you think that the cover artist, the book designer, the layout, the editors, the proofers, the marketers and promoters, the promotion material including launch events, and overheads like electricity, software, website management, bank charges, fees for online sales transactions and so many other costs, as well as publisher reputation and branding should somehow be covered by that 30%.
As always, publishing models are very dependent on individual circumstance.
But, just musing personally... I'm surprised that someone proudly flaunting a 70% royalty (as a proxy for 'selling my own product on Amazon/iTunes') doesn't take issue with the 30% surcharge Amazon and iTunes charge. What are you getting for your 30%? File hosting? Really? Discoverability? I suppose. DRM? [Insert hyena-pitched-laughter].
Link to the original here: http://champagneandsocks.com/2014/02/18/on-70-royalties/