Judge approves settlement. Says It's In The Public Interest To Stop Price Fixing

[david_e]

Originally Posted by kennyc

You're still wrong.

How eloquent, to which I can only reply, Says You!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by david_e

How eloquent, to which I can only reply, Says You!

Unfortunately you neglected to include my full post and additionally provided no indication that you had clipped it.

[david_e]

Originally Posted by Graham

Advertise through other channels? Like just about any other product?...

Maybe, but it's a hard uphill climb, offering a significant price decrease to make it worthwhile AND do a big advert campaign. You run the risk of decreased revenue from your existing base and not picking up enough from new customers to even cover what you've lost.

Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[cfrizz]

Outstanding post and right on the money!

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

There is, however, a lot of evidence, as well as the fact that these publishers settled.

No one can predict the future. But everyone noticed how quickly book prices went up with agency, and there's no reason to assume that they will go back down.

And if most readers choose to buy their books from Amazon because of lower prices or better service or whatever - that is good for the consumer. Eliminating price competition is bad for the consumer.

Then they weren't harmed by the collusion in the first place. E-books going from $9.99 to $14.99 is, of course, only a problem if you bought a $9.99 book in the first place. If you never paid more than $2.99 for a book, then you weren't harmed when the price went from $10-$15, either. So you there's no reason you should get anything from the settlement.

The settlement also doesn't stop hunger, cure cancer, or decrease ennui. There are millions of things that the settlement doesn't do. So what?

This makes no sense. Cheaper e-books are bad because they will undercut paper books, which will cause e-book prices to rise. So the solution is to keep e-book prices at a high level so that e-book prices don't rise to a high level.

And I don't know what your point is about "world wide readers." E-book prices - book prices generally - in the US are much cheaper than those in Europe. Which is a big reason why the US has 80% of the e-book market.

And while it's true that $9.99 is going to be a big expense for someone in a third world country, so is $24.99 for the same hardback.

*Amazon* won't destroy the paper book market. If the paper book market is destroyed, it will be because consumers preferred to buy e-books.

I don't think you hate Amazon. I think you hate consumers.

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by kennyc

You're still wrong. DRM removal is trivial (whether this MR population or the population at large) and it will go away just as it did for music.

I hope so, but I'm not so optimistic. It's on the rise instead in the PC software industry (especially thanks to 'friendlier' DRM like Steam).

If DRM went away, we'd actually have a fair market where companies could compete with each other on price and service - how markets are SUPPOSED to work. You could buy your book from whatever company had the better price, or that you preferred to do business with.

[frahse]

These are all approximate costs, but I think realistic in time.

A new digital book (fiction) should normally cost $9.99.
In 2 years, the cost of the 9.99 book should be no more than 7.99. (This is because there is not a used market.)
Exceptions for the above would be
1. If it is a really greatly anticipated book and then for the first year it should cost as much as the market will bear. Also it might be a very large book. Or a great author.
2. If it is an author trying to get a build up acceptance and their name and willing to cut prices in order to gain a following.

((Remember, no trees are involved in printing these books, no printing presses or binding, very little shipping costs. Yes editing, writing, merchandising, advertising, etc., still go into the book, but the great material costs go way down.))

For non fiction there are other factors so I am not so sure of the pricing.
I could see good non fiction books maintaining their price for years even if sales aren't high. Again, a different situation.

Now after I have said the above I will say this.
Any author, or publisher, or book seller can price their books at any price even if the price exceeds any reasonable logic. At least they can in America.
However if Amazon wants to buy their $19.99 book and sell it for $9.99 it has a right to do that too.

Personally I wouldn't do it, but then I am not as smart and rich as Jeff Bezos.

[Sydney's Mom]

Might not be $9.99, but at least there will be price competition, which we haven't had with the advent of the MFN clause, which is banned for 5 years. Yes, I remember all the silly boycotts--silly because Amazon never said all books would be $9.99, but just that NYT Best Sellers would be that price, and I think they did usually fall to that price once they made the bestseller list.

Price competition is good for consumers. Remember Under the Dome - that book fell to $7.00 before Amazon, Target and Wallmart were through.

I think the reinstitution of price competition will serve to cement Amazon's dominance with the kindle. Not only is the kindle widely available, you can bet Amazon will match anyone on price.

One of my collegues (who is everything Apple) said this is a sad day for the quality of books. I understand that this decision may end author advances, but authors should still be able to make money. And given that Fifty Shades has been at the top of the NYT bestseller list for a long time, I think we can say that agency pricing is not a barometer of quality in the written word.

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

One of my collegues (who is everything Apple) said this is a sad day for the quality of books. I understand that this decision may end author advances, but authors should still be able to make money. And given that Fifty Shades has been at the top of the NYT bestseller list for a long time, I think we can say that agency pricing is not a barometer of quality in the written word.

First (and backwards), 50 Shades isn't quality by any definition of the word, but it has been eerily popular. (I still think the author must have sold her soul to the devil for that to have become as popular as it is! )

Second, I have to admit, I have a hard time understanding why the ability to discount eBooks has become the the tipping point in the house of cards that is the publishing industry. If they were truly interested in protecting advances and print publishing, why not put this in place across the board?! Why is it only ebooks and not paper?

I've said it before, but if the pricing had been equitable, I still would have grumbled, but I wouldn't have stopped buying agency ebooks, if they had been priced the same - no discounts allowed - as print. While I think they are "worth" less than print because of the restriction in digital, I know that's not true for everyone. It just ticked me off that a book I could buy at 25% off at Target or Wal-Mart or even 10% off at B&N if I had their loyalty card couldn't be purchased for the same price in digital format.

[wyndslash]

I think what we all just want (and what is sorely lacking, it seems) some common sense for the big publishing houses.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

I think the reinstitution of price competition will serve to cement Amazon's dominance with the kindle. Not only is the kindle widely available, you can bet Amazon will match anyone on price.
One of my collegues (who is everything Apple) said this is a sad day for the quality of books. I understand that this decision may end author advances, but authors should still be able to make money. And given that Fifty Shades has been at the top of the NYT bestseller list for a long time, I think we can say that agency pricing is not a barometer of quality in the written word.

Under the Conspiracy and MFN, Amazon matched anybody on price.
And better'ed them on services.
After the conspiracy, they can match anybody on price. They can also strategically undercut anybody *if* needed. That is the biggest change. And it is a conditional change.
The sky ain't falling on the hyper-ventilating traditionalists.

[tomsem]

I'm still waiting for 'reaction' to Judge Cote's decision (from parties who were claiming the sky would fall). Has anybody seen any?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by tomsem

I'm still waiting for 'reaction' to Judge Cote's decision (from parties who were claiming the sky would fall). Has anybody seen any?

I think rescuers are still shoveling sky as fast as they can in hopes of getting to those trapped beneath it, but time is quickly running out.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tomsem

I'm still waiting for 'reaction' to Judge Cote's decision (from parties who were claiming the sky would fall). Has anybody seen any?

There's the comments to this report:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/b...book-case.html

But they're probably thinking the sky *did* fall because of this:

The real pain of the settlement for the settling publishers is in compliance. Not only will new retail agreements need to be executed, each settling publisher will now have to engage in a number of compliance measures, including: the appointment of an Antitrust Compliance Officer; training for relevant staff delivered by an attorney; an annual compliance audit; “maintain[ing] and furnish[ing]” a log of all oral and written communications, excluding privileged or public communications, between any employees involved in e-book strategy. The DoJ can also visit the publishers’ offices with written notice, and the publishers must furnish copies of all “books, ledgers, accounts, records, data, or documents” relating to the settlement upon request. DoJ officials can also interview employees or agents of the company.

Yup!
5 years of Government oversight on their contract negotiations and book-keeping.

As hilariously clueless as some of the comments there are, I rather like this one:

Publishers now have to staff and pay people to format ebooks. God only knows how many more techies that involves.

I guess techies have cooties.
And the publishers have to staff and pay hordes of them!
Worse, they might even (shudder) try to *mingle* with the superiors, the producers of culture!
Brrr!

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I guess techies have cooties.
And the publishers have to staff and pay hordes of them!
Worse, they might even (shudder) try to *mingle* with the superiors, the producers of culture!
Brrr!

[Sydney's Mom]

Did you see this comment?

Laura Van Wormer · Top Commenter · Founder, Publisher & CEO at Author & Company, LLC

If Macmillan and Penguin successfully defend themselves against the "evidence" provided to the Department of Justice by Amazon, are the publishers just stuck with the millions of legal bills or does that establish grounds to seek damages from Amazon?

I guess just because they are immersed in books all day, they don't necessarily know anything.