Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeD
There's me thinking I'd offered proof from a company who's conclusions are based on actual sales data no less, to show that agency IS reducing growth rate.
Ah, I understand how it works then. You make a statement and offer nothing to backup your claim, yet when disagreed with, insist I prove my claims with actual sales data, but remain unable to accept a quote from a company that is based on that actual data without having to offer similar support for your own claims.
That said, this is perhaps futile to continue, but...
See previous post, best sellers could remain best sellers despite a reduction in growth of the market for agency books. Not saying that is the case, just stating that as evidence a best seller list proves nothing with regards to the current topic.
I've made my point either way, I doubt we'll reach any kind of agreement  |
Amazon's statement:
Quote:
|
Unsurprisingly, when prices went up on agency-priced books, sales immediately shifted away from agency publishers and towards the rest of our store. In fact, since agency prices went into effect on some e-books in the US, unit sales of books priced under the agency model have slowed to nearly half the rate of growth of the rest of Kindle book sales.
|
isn't "actual sales data." And as I have said, publishers and authors are interested in maximizing REVENUE, not UNIT SALES. (There's an argument that what's a stake here goes beyond just revenue maximization, too, but we'll skip that for now). Even then, unit sales of agency priced ebooks continued to grow, just at a lower rate.
Faced with such data, opponents of agency pricing are going to have a hard time proving the publishers are "over pricing" their books. This doesn't even get into such points as the argument that the publishers are trying to prevent Amazon trying to establish a monopoly in ebooks, etc. Courts and regulators are also interested in preventing the development of monopolies.
Your point pretty much amounts to " I hate higher prices and I blame the publishers" . That's an understandable reaction from a consumer, but isn't the totality that a regulator or court must consider.