If big 4 (6?) are so scared of Amazon why don't they ...

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Barcey

If they sell direct they would be vilified by the legacy retail chain just like Amazon.

If they sell direct as suggested in the OP, and "get together and build their own e book store," they should be, I won't say vilified, but I will say criticized. I'm unsure of the legality of the proposal. But it requires the big five to agree on terms of sale, something that -- regardless of the actual terms -- would inevitably, and reasonably, be interpreted as the firms conspiring to gain more profit at the expense of customers.

Originally Posted by Phogg

I would go to special order something and a bookseller tied directly to the publishers couldn't get it, so don't even try to go there.

This illustrates why a big-five collaborative bookstore, even if legal, wouldn't work well. In order to be a successful bookseller, you need an extremely large selection -- this being the not-so-secret reason that Borders and Barnes & Noble put so many independent book stores out of business. To be successful, the big five collaborative ebookstore would need to stock not just their own titles, but also those of smaller publishers, Amazon Publishing, and Kindle Direct Publishing.

Amazon got their dominant position in US book retailing by creating an excellent web site with an enormous selection. That doesn't give them a moral right to keep their dominant position or engage in bullying of Hachette and of indie authors outside the Amazon Direct Publishing umbrella. Inspiring the big five to emulate Amazon is not a good plan.

Was the idea that the big five agree/conspire to not sell their eBooks through Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Kobo, etc.? Could that possibly be legal?

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It is easier than trying to deal with the fact that readers actually know what they like and they are the ones who have the final say.

You're making a good point, but:

So far, what readers are saying -- not through words, but through actions -- is that they are willing to pay more for a major publisher book than for the overwhelming majority of those that are self-published.

Contrast this with the newspaper situation, where paid circulation is collapsing because readers not just say they won't pay the price of traditionally published newspapers -- they actually will not pay it.

[murg]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

But I think that it's fair to say that the model of throwing thousands of unedited books into a heap and letting the readers dig throw the pile to find books that they like isn't going to be a long term success.

I don't really care about the editing of ebooks.

I do care about proof-reading. And the PBHs are doing it. I paid for an early Tom Clancy ebook recently (one originally published after he hit big). It came in an omnibus edition, and as such, should be quite mature as an eBook. The ebook had many, many hundreds of errors. Not even spell-checked. Whole pages incorrectly scanned.

If this is how the publishers treat their popular authors, how do you expect them to treat not yet established authors.

The main problem is that the publishers are no longer even doing the job that they claim is their reason for existing.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Amazon got their dominant position in US book retailing by creating an excellent web site with an enormous selection. That doesn't give them a moral right to keep their dominant position or engage in bullying of Hachette and of indie authors outside the Amazon Direct Publishing umbrella. Inspiring the big five to emulate Amazon is not a good plan.

I don't understand how this person was "bullied" by Amazon. He thinks he's losing money, but without proof of that, I'm going to say he's just ignorant of the terms of his agreement with Amazon. This is from one of the comments on the article.

Larry, how is your book being marketed on Amazon? Are you selling through an Amazon Advantage (consignment) account, or a Selling on Amazon Fulfillment account?

I'm assuming the former, since your product is listed as "sold by Amazon."

Amazon states the following on their Amazon Advantage Instructions and Rules:

"The standard purchase discount is 55% - you keep 45% of the List Price.The standard 55% purchase discount means that Amazon.com is entitled to a 55% discount on the List Price for each unit that sells. You, the vendor, receive 45% of the List Price. You set the List Price, also known as Suggested Retail Price, of your products, and all payments made to you are calculated based on the List Price. If Amazon.com decides to further reduce the sales price to the customer below the List Price, the customer discount comes out of Amazon.com's percentage."

This would suggest that the discount is coming out of Amazon's pocket, not yours, and that you receive full royalties on the original, undiscounted list price.

Can you please explain why you believe this is not the case?

So...either this person is ignorant of the terms of his agreement with Amazon (possible) or he is deliberately and maliciously saying that Amazon is engaging in "bullying" tactics when it's just not true. I'm hoping it's the former.

Shari

[theducks]

Originally Posted by murg

I don't really care about the editing of ebooks.

I do care about proof-reading. And the PBHs are doing it. I paid for an early Tom Clancy ebook recently (one originally published after he hit big). It came in an omnibus edition, and as such, should be quite mature as an eBook. The ebook had many, many hundreds of errors. Not even spell-checked. Whole pages incorrectly scanned.

If this is how the publishers treat their popular authors, how do you expect them to treat not yet established authors.

The main problem is that the publishers are no longer even doing the job that they claim is their reason for existing.

Editing is the second step in proof reading
or

42 Homonym errors: Check
19 Capitalization errors: Check
2 sentence fragments: Check

Ship it, it has been proof read

[SteveEisenberg]

This could be the best article on the dispute I've read:

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2...blishing.print

the Amazon-Hachette dispute mirrors the wider culture wars that have been playing out in America since at least the 1960s. On the one side, super-wealthy elites employing populist rhetoric and mobilizing non-elites; on the other side, slightly less wealthy elites struggling to explain why their way of life is worth preserving. . . . .

“If Amazon succeeds,” said Wylie, “they will lower the retail price—$9.99, $6.99, $3.99, $1.99. And instead of making $4 on your hardcover, you’ll be making 10 cents a copy on all editions. And, Keith, you will not be able to afford to write a book.… No one, unless they have inherited $50 million, will be able to afford to write a serious work of history, of poetry, of biography, a novel—anything. The stakes are Western culture.”

Western culture I could take or leave, but the part about me sent a chill down my spine. This is not what you want to hear from your literary agent.

[TimW]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

This could be the best article on the dispute I've read:

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2...blishing.print

Andrew "The Jackal" Wylie is a reliable source? Wylie Coyote? Paul St. John Mackintosh of Teleread had a memorable summation of Wylie:

And remember that back in 2010, Wylie was garnering support from authors for his Amazon tie-up because they claimed traditional publishers had been paying too little in royalty rates for ebooks. And now things have turned round and the Big Five are the heroes again? Forgetful creatures, jackals.

It’s no surprise that Wylie also chose to unload on self-publishing, which he described as “the aesthetic equivalent of telling everyone who sings in the shower they deserve to be in La Scala.” After all, if authors can publish themselves, who will ever want to go through Andrew Wylie. Or even listen to him?

http://www.teleread.com/publishing/w...s-running-dog/

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by TimW

Andrew "The Jackal" Wylie is a reliable source?

Keith Gessen never claims him to be. And Gessen's positive description of what goes on at Amazon's Lab 126 is in sharp contrast to Wylie's "f-ing idiot Kindle" dismissal.

This was the first time I ever read how many Kindles have been sold (80 million).

I will say one thing for Wylie as a source. Unlike the Amazon 80 million source, Wylie lets us know his name.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Keith Gessen never claims him to be. And Gessen's positive description of what goes on at Amazon's Lab 126 is in sharp contrast to Wylie's "f-ing idiot Kindle" dismissal.

This was the first time I ever read how many Kindles have been sold (80 million).

I will say one thing for Wylie as a source. Unlike the Amazon 80 million source, Wylie lets us know his name.

The definition of an ad hominem attack is attacking the person, rather than addressing the point. Attacking one person mentioned in an article doesn't address the important points raised in the article.

[DiapDealer]

Not a strawman? Well that's disappointing.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

This could be the best article on the dispute I've read:

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2...blishing.print

I read the article last night and thought about it over night. I find two of the points raised in the article particularly interesting.

First is discovery. While some here dismiss it out of hand, discovery is the main issue for most authors. If I don't know about a work, I'm not going to buy it. When one business, be it B&N or Amazon, controls the discovery process, then that's a problem. I think that eventually, over time, as people figure out how to monetize book recommendations this problem will solve itself.

The second is that Amazon's attempt to turn ebooks into a commodity will force authors into a new revenue model if successful. Ultimately, I don't think they will be successful though.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Not a strawman? Well that's disappointing.

Hopefully, people will be less inclined to use cheap rhetorical tricks when it's pointed out what they are doing.

[DiapDealer]

Yes. Won't that be a glorious day?

[TimW]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The definition of an ad hominem attack is attacking the person, rather than addressing the point. Attacking one person mentioned in an article doesn't address the important points raised in the article.

I wasn't addressing the whole article, I was addressing the portion that Steve quoted which elevated Wylie to the status of "reasonable spokesman." In case you didn't know, an ad hominem argument isn't necessarily fallacious. If an individual is shown to be of extremely poor character or grossly hypocritical, it's fair game. His well-deserved moniker "Jackal" suggests he's an opportunistic scavenger. It wasn't a problem for him to sign exclusive digital deals with Amazon four years ago for some famous books...even he must have realized his publishing rights were questionable. He finally had to turn them over to Random House when they started squeezing him. Gessen sets him up as the "reasonable guy" when he asks Wylie why he, "the scourge of the publishers," was siding with them against Amazon. The implication was, if "scourge Wylie" is siding with the "scourged publishers" against Amazon, Ammy must be REALLY bad. But the most appalling statement comes at the end of this excerpt:

I pointed out to Wylie that his willingness to take the fight to Amazon partly on behalf of the publishers was a curious position for the famous scourge of publishers. He said, “It’s the first time since I got into the business that the interests of print publishers and authors have been closely aligned. And the reason is that, like ISIS, Amazon is so determined to wreak havoc on the culture that unlikely alliances have been formed.”

I'm sure you've heard of Godwin's Law? The longer a discussion goes on, the probability that the Nazis or Hitler is invoked approaches one. The person who commits the Reductio ad Hitlerum automatically loses, of course. A reasonable corollary would be comparing one person or group to a second group who happen to be bloodthirsty murderers, when the first group has murdered no one at all. Making such an outrageous comparison is positively obscene. It mocks the victims of ISIS and makes their painful deaths by decapitation morally equivalent to a retailer operating in a non-murderous fashion. Yes, Wylie automatically loses. There is nothing I could say that could be considered an ad hominem against Andrew Wylie when he administered the coup de grâce against himself with that foul statement.

Edit: I'm finished with any references to ISIS. I don't want the thread to degenerate into a P&R discussion; that happens easily enough. Rant over.

[pwalker8]

Even Hitler wasn't always wrong. He was well known to be very fond of dogs.

The point is that if you simply dismiss something because of who says it, rather than the accuracy of what is being said, then you it's a fallacy to say that the point is wrong. Does he engage in hyperbole? Sure, but it's not like we don't have more than our share of hyperbolic pronouncements by posters here. Perhaps Amazon isn't intentionally wreaking havoc on the publishers and main stream authors, but there is no doubt that the publishers and many main stream authors see that as the likely outcome of Amazon's drive to commoditize books.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Even Hitler wasn't always wrong. He was well known to be very fond of dogs.

Now there is your strawman. Sure, dogs can be very nice animals, but the domesticating and breeding from wolf to dog is rather cruel.