Amazon vs. Hachette Update - It's About Price

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

The definition of apathy is not caring, lack of interest, etc.

If the definition of apathy is not caring, lack of interest, etc. then what is it?

Yeah I read that wrong.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by Rps

Okay, I have read much of this thread, rants included, and really this is all about seeking profit. Amazon needs a ton of it. So, the issue that I see is, what will this do to Kobo in light of the current competition board hearings with the same publishers. Does anyone think Kobo would leave the Canadian market?

No, Kobo entered the market (as Shortcovers) under the wholesale structure so I don't know why they would exit over a return to it.

There was indication in the evidence prevented in the US antitrust case that the publishers were colluding with Kobo to bring agency into Canada. Kobo's complaint to the Competition Bureau is a farce and should have been dismissed by now. It amounts to, "we will be harmed if you don't allow our partners in crime to continue breaking the law".

[John F]

"German Authors Join Protest Over Amazon’s Tactics in E-Book Dispute "

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/bu...-dispute-.html

[Rps]

Barcey, that makes sense ... I know it doesn't ..... But in the corporate world it makes sense, thanks for the info.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by John F

"German Authors Join Protest Over Amazon’s Tactics in E-Book Dispute "

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/bu...-dispute-.html

Wow, the letter they wrote got some strong language. Much more pleasant to read than the authorsunited "parent letter". As they said in the article it is not so much anti-amazon as it is anti-methods used by amazon. Not really all calmly written, but without going into insults much.

American authors can learn a thing or two from their german coworkers.

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by John F

"German Authors Join Protest Over Amazon’s Tactics in E-Book Dispute "

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/bu...-dispute-.html

One thing I don't get about their complaints is the removing them from the recommendation lists, that is something that amazon uses to sell more books to their customers, it is not something that is inherently a service to the publishers or authors so as long as those lists continue to recommend suitable books from other publishers then it is still serving its purpose.

If the authors and publishers think stuff like that adds value for their books then maybe it is something they should be willing to pay to get?

[crossi]

Originally Posted by Crowl

One thing I don't get about their complaints is the removing them from the recommendation lists, that is something that amazon uses to sell more books to their customers, it is not something that is inherently a service to the publishers or authors so as long as those lists continue to recommend suitable books from other publishers then it is still serving its purpose.

If the authors and publishers think stuff like that adds value for their books then maybe it is something they should be willing to pay to get?

Yeah. If they want their books to be publicized they they should speak to their publishers about providing it. After all, that is one of the services the publishers claim to provide in return for the majority of income from the writers' books forever. If they aren't providing enough of it then what the hell are they doing to earn what they are taking from the writers? It's not Amazon's responsibility to provide for their lack.

[hansl]

Originally Posted by Crowl

One thing I don't get about their complaints is the removing them from the recommendation lists, that is something that amazon uses to sell more books to their customers, it is not something that is inherently a service to the publishers or authors so as long as those lists continue to recommend suitable books from other publishers then it is still serving its purpose.

If the authors and publishers think stuff like that adds value for their books then maybe it is something they should be willing to pay to get?

You can't pay for it because it's not sold. It is simply used for holding authors as hostages for punishing their publishers for bad behaviour. There are people including myself who consider this unfair.

[crossi]

Originally Posted by hansl

You can't pay for it because it's not sold. It is simply used for holding authors as hostages for punishing their publishers for bad behaviour. There are people including myself who consider this unfair.

Yeah, you can pay for it. Just like publishers pay bookstores to have certain of their books prominantly displayed on tables and racks in the front of the stores. You can pay to have certain books bumped up in the recommendation lists. It's said that Barnes and Noble lowers indie books in their algorithms so they are recommended less often.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by hansl

You can't pay for it because it's not sold. It is simply used for holding authors as hostages for punishing their publishers for bad behaviour. There are people including myself who consider this unfair.

Originally Posted by crossi

Yeah, you can pay for it. Just like publishers pay bookstores to have certain of their books prominantly displayed on tables and racks in the front of the stores. You can pay to have certain books bumped up in the recommendation lists. It's said that Barnes and Noble lowers indie books in their algorithms so they are recommended less often.

I am also pretty sure that there is provisions for it in the contract - both recomendations and pre-orders. Or if not written directly, it is expected as a favor in good faith. Amazon did not do anything for a while right after the contract ended. Now you can argue that they only did that to make themselves look better, but you can't deny they did it in good faith to keep both pre-order buttons and recommendations right after the contract ended.

[SteveEisenberg]

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/20/amaz...off_the_rails/

eInk Browser-friendly link:
[Tiny URL deleted - MODERATOR]

This is Amazon’s core constituency, one whose loyalty is fueled by gratitude for the technological innovation that has permitted them to publish their e-books and also by loathing for the publishing “oligopoly” that has denied them publication the old-fashioned way. The Readers United letter, with its misquoted Orwell, its bitter asides (“Well … history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme”) and its vaguely conspiratorial/messianic tone (“the powerful interests of the status quo are hard to move”) may sound like “full-out crazy town” to Eldritch, but it is the native tongue of the indie author community.

Amazon much resembles a political party that hasn’t figured out how to recalibrate its rhetoric to appeal to voters outside its base.

[JSWolf]

What the press doesn't understand is that if Amazon gives in to Hatchette, then Hatchette will be going back to agency prices and that means higher prices for those that buy Hatchette eBooks. The only thing stopping agency for now is Amazon and would most people want agency prices back? I would think not.

So tell these publications to understand what's at stack before calling Amazon crazy. Look at it from the consumer point of view and see who's the one that's against the consumer.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

What the press doesn't understand is that if Amazon gives in to Hatchette, then Hatchette will be going back to agency prices and that means higher prices for those that buy Hatchette eBooks. The only thing stopping agency for now is Amazon and would most people want agency prices back? I would think not.

So tell these publications to understand what's at stack before calling Amazon crazy. Look at it from the consumer point of view and see who's the one that's against the consumer.

Well, I'm a consumer and from my point of view, I don't want to see books and ebooks treated as a race to the bttton, generic commodity. I buy books from specific authors, not generic "parts is parts" ebooks.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

What the press doesn't understand is that if Amazon gives in to Hatchette, then Hatchette will be going back to agency prices and that means higher prices for those that buy Hatchette eBooks. The only thing stopping agency for now is Amazon and would most people want agency prices back? I would think not.

So tell these publications to understand what's at stack before calling Amazon crazy. Look at it from the consumer point of view and see who's the one that's against the consumer.

I am afraid we are way past the point of either agency bad, non-agency good for the customer. I can see agency pricing possible to be consumer friendly. Maybe not with a fixed price, but possibly with a fixed price range. Or with discounting allowed under special circumstances only - e.g. buy 2 at full price, get 3rd book 20% off if bought together, or discount on pre orders. What about a mixed mode agency / wholesale contract? Set the price fixed by publisher at release, and after some time (e.g. 3 months) allow discounting.

That Amazon and Hachette are still negotiating only means one thing for certain: the contract will be different than was enforced in 2010, even if it is under agency again. And quite frankly the consumer is only a secondary concern. People will buy at whichever price if people wants it bad enough. For example:

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Well, I'm a consumer and from my point of view, I don't want to see books and ebooks treated as a race to the bttton, generic commodity. I buy books from specific authors, not generic "parts is parts" ebooks.

Another prediction of mine: Amazon will still keep the biggest market share on ebooks, no matter how the negotiations end. Last time around the biggest losers were the small indie bookstores and the consumers, with Apple being the one that came out as biggest winner. This time the publishers are walking on legally thin ice.

[JSWolf]

Keep eBook prices reasonable and more people will buy. Keep eBook prices high and more people will look to the net for them.

That's not an opinion. That's a fact.