Latest Authors United letter to Amazon Board

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I think this non-big-five book, which I recommend, is relevant:

http://www.thebigsort.com/home.php

As explained in the book, once you get even 60 percent of the people in a neighborhood agreeing on something -- anything -- opinions tend to ramp up in intensity until you start seeing righteous certainty. This kind of thread is such a neighborhood.

Perhaps there are listservs, restricted to major-published authors, where they similarly ramp up until there are comparable statements of certainty, albeit with opposite content. Good thing, for those authors' sake, that, AFAIK, any such forums are non-public. Neighborhoods of certainty do not look so attractive from the outside.

Personally, I don't like this kind of rah-rah our side is right. Maybe it's for the same unknown reason that the sports fan gene seems to have mostly skipped my family.

I am unsure how anyone can fail to agree that this letter was full of basic grammar problems on the first line, general misunderstandings of "consumer products" to the point where I would like to mail them a dictionary, and baseless accusation of any non-book products as being Chinese garbage.

I would happily consider anything any Hachette supporter says to be utterly wrong, but to go the next step and accuse it of being a pile of steaming garbage requires that it remind me of a one-time headline "Literarcy Week Observed".

When I said "This objection is a steaming pile of garbage . . ." it was just my way of at someone who seems to feel that any accusation of "steaming pile of garbage" is automatically "[I] disagree with the authors, then it's a steaming pile of garbage" and in doing so, has committed the same fallacy of automatically dismissing the opponent's arguments because he disagrees.

Naturally, I and others went on to provide reasoning behind what we say, which helps to justify our certainty. It helps when the other side obliges by not offering any reasoning going the other way.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

And... They still haven't fixed the typo in the first sentence. Anybody know a good editor that can help these poor starving snowflakes?

That's not a typo: it is a stylistic choice...

[DiapDealer]

All ur adressees are belong to us. We will sent you things.

[conan50]

Maybe authors can't be outsourced to China, but editors have been outsourced to India.
I was reading a book by a major publisher awhile back and could not believe it was touched by an editor. The word "had" was used on every page probably 50-100 times, often two to three times in each sentence. These publishers make even hardcover books so cheap they break at the spine. <expletive> if they could outsource authors they certainly would. These authors ought to think about that next time they are cheering these big publishers on.

[K. Molen]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

And... They still haven't fixed the typo in the first sentence. Anybody know a good editor that can help these poor starving snowflakes?

What typo is that? I've re-read it several times and can't spot it, but lots of people have mentioned a typo, so I'm sure it must be there.

Is it the way they parsed Amazon's business name? Here's the first sentence:

We are writing to you in your capacity as a director of Amazon.com, Inc.

Edit: I found it. I've been focusing on the first line in the letter, not the first line of the post. It's in the pre-amble:

The letter, with the list of signatories attached, will be sent by Federal Express to each of the ten board members of Amazon.com.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by K. Molen

The letter, with the list of signatories attached, will be sent by Federal Express to each of the ten board members of Amazon.com.

Yep, that's it. And to think that *all* those authors *read* this letter and not a single one caught it. Kind of makes you wonder how many really read it or just put their names on another Hachette hatchet job.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Yep, that's it. And to think that *all* those authors *read* this letter and not a single one caught it. Kind of makes you wonder how many really read it or just put their names on another Hachette hatchet job.

Or maybe they delegated the letter to the same folks at the publisher who take care of all the tedious, trivial stuff so they can focus on writing. Because they are so very important pee-pull!

Unlike the folks making razor blades and consumer products and rocket engines...

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

More recently, I've heard a rumor that Hachette has no intention whatsoever to negotiate because they have been building their own ebookstore to try to sell watermarked ebooks directly to Kibdle customers. Unfortunately, the thing isn't working just yet...

I've bought a fair number of Hachette books for my Kindle. Each one happened because I ran across a good sale at Amazon. They would need to drastically undercut Amazon's prices to tempt me. Even then, I'm disinclined to set up yet another account.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

Thanks for your post, Steve. The phenomenon you discuss is a very real one. Discussions get boring very quickly when there are no opposing views. The statements you quote are mine.

I freely concede that I am biased. I dislike the BWM publishers because I think I paid extortionate prices for books for most of my life before Amazon came to the rescue. So did my parents on my behalf. And they continue to try to overcharge Australians even today, at least in my view. I also confess a pecuniary interest to the extent that I love paying less for my ebooks. I love Amazon, what they have done and what they are doing. I do not, however, think that they are perfect nor do I think they are motivated by altruism.

I do recognise that there are some reasonably arguable views contrary to my own. But I am surprised that such a strategy as this letter was ever seriously contemplated let alone implemented. However, given that it was, I would have expected that such a letter signed by such writers would have put those arguments intelligently, articulately and most of all persuasively. Instead, it is full of spin and half-truths and worse. I genuinely think that this letter has far more likely harmed their cause than enhanced it. I can do no better than refer you to the various links in this thread where the numerous shortcomings of the letter are discussed, starting with Hugh Howev and J.A. Konrath.

My "steaming pile" rhetoric may be a little bit strong. But I was seeking an appropriate way to express my disgust, and this was what I came up with. And not just a normal steaming pile. I'm thinking the scene with the Vet in Jurassic Park.

So far as my other comment goes, it is accurate. The letter is delusional in the sense that it shows a real disconnect from the real world and real people. Honestly, books are not consumer products! Patronising? The air of we are prominent authors and we are special and entitled to special treatment which permeates the letter is almost overpowering. Insulting. That they actually seem to believe that they can turn the tide of public opinion with this ill conceived piece of spin. Well, I suppose they did fool one reporter at the New York Times, who others have followed. Stupid? Overlaps with patronising and insulting. The whole strategy is flawed. A piece of spin like this needs to be done well. And just plain wrong? Look at the many criticisms for examples. I particularly liked the concept of the advance for the untried author to give up their day job and write their first book. In response to this I can't resist quoting part of Susanna Kearsley's comment linked to by AnemicOak in Post #3. I might add that she makes her point forcefully and elegantly, as one should be able to expect from quality authors:

Disconnect? Not really. It seems obvious to me that what the authors mean is that books are not consumer goods from the stand point that people do not go out and buy generic books. They go out and buy the latest J.K. Rowlings or whomever is their favorite author. Sure, there are a handful of people who buy "generic books", some of whom are quite vocal here, but they are outliers. There are some genres where the author isn't nearly as important as the imprint. The old Harlequin romance novels are prime examples, but by in large, the people are looking for something specific when they buy a book. The majority of the time, it's the author's name. That's why authors can move between publishers and people still buy their books at more or less the same rate.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Disconnect? Not really. It seems obvious to me that what the authors mean is that books are not consumer goods from the stand point that people do not go out and buy generic books. They go out and buy the latest J.K. Rowlings or whomever is their favorite author. Sure, there are a handful of people who buy "generic books", some of whom are quite vocal here, but they are outliers. There are some genres where the author isn't nearly as important as the imprint. The old Harlequin romance novels are prime examples, but by in large, the people are looking for something specific when they buy a book. The majority of the time, it's the author's name. That's why authors can move between publishers and people still buy their books at more or less the same rate.

People do not go out and buy generic cars either. Or generic brands of many, many other products. In fact, economics has a term for this attraction of customers to particular brands. It is called goodwill, and it is often very valuable. It does not mean these products are not consumer goods. But, more importantly, it does not mean that these products are entitled to special treatment and that Amazon is not entitled to refuse to sell them or discriminate in any way against them from its own site. The so-called special snowflake argument, or, for Australians, perhaps we should call it the special grain of sand argument, has been extensively discussed and thoroughly debunked. Is this really the best argument that they can come up with? That
Amazon can do anything in relation to consumer goods on its own site, including refusing to sell them or discounting them. But not books. Because, through some magical but illogical approach, books are somehow not consumer goods because they have a characteristic which is shared with many other consumer goods, including my example of cars.

This letter is signed by a group of people who are supposed to be great communicators. Perhaps you, or Steve, or someone, anyone, can explain to me logically why books are not cousumer goods and what characteristic or characteristics they possess which entitle them to special treatment.

[fjtorres]

I *would* be interested in knowing how a copy of any book is any different from a CD, DVD, game disk, poster, or piece of clothing (say a baseball cap with a team logo).

[DiapDealer]

Those aren't lonely, quirky, painful endeavors.

And while I have no doubt that a "popular" author's fans would follow them to another publisher. There can't be THAT much evidence to support such a theory. Namely because anyone signing a contract with a Big 5 publisher isn't likely to be going anywhere else very soon. Even if they wanted to. There's no willy-nilly Big5 publisher swapping going on ... especially among authors whose fanbase would be large enough and/or zealous enough to survive such a hop.

[lovewisdom]

The only real winner is Amazon, always. Amazon manipulates and manages its website networks to quench down nearly all competitors and opponents, then good for itself for money sucking.

[lovewisdom]

So called customers are only Amazon's hostages to get more and more profits from others. Amazon is run for its money, not for the people or so-called customers. Don't be blinded or fooled by Amazon's business strategies.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

And while I have no doubt that a "popular" author's fans would follow them to another publisher.

And mostly because, I'd wager, the majority of readers don't pay attention to publishers in the first place. (Who can keep track of imprints, anyway?) A lot of their fans probably wouldn't even notice the change unless it was pointed out to them. I mean, if my favorite moisturizer switched from Chattem to Proctor & Gamble, would I notice? Probably not, as long as it was still for sale at the same store. So I don't think that even counts as "following" because it's generally not a conscious decision - nothing has changed as far as that consumer is concerned. They look for their preferred author brand, and buy it, the same way I look for my favorite moisturizer.

Which leads to - BPHs aren't special snowflakes either.