|
What's misleading about the whole agency pricing debate is that the issue for most posters here is not that the publishers acted illegally, rather it's that they acted to raise prices. It's the price raising, not the price fixing that's the problem.
Lets review. It is legal and appropriate for Apple to suggest that the publishers adopt an agency pricing model for ebooks. After all, this is the model Apple uses in its media stores and no one has a problem with it. Indeed, no one has a problem with the *agency model anywhere else - except ebooks.
It is legal and appropriate for publishers to adopt the agency pricing model if they feel its a better model for them. *There is nothing magical about the wholesale model that makes it a better model for selling digital media- quite the contrary. When posters bang on about how the wholesale model is the " traditional model" for selling books, my irony meter goes off the charts. What happened to " innovation" and *" adapting to digital realities"?
It's legal for publishers to set whatever price they like under the agency model. They can set the price to the same level as the *discounted retail price. They can set it LOWER than the retail discount price. They can set it higher than the *discounted retal price. In each case they are acting legally. They may not be acting sensibly: but they are acting LEGALLY.
Now they have generally set the price higher than the *discounted retail price. In effect, they are setting the prices about where the suggested retail price used to be. Now it's not the suggested retail price: it's just the retail price. Instead of the retailer controlling whether to discount, the publisher does that now.*
Now if the publishers set the prices at the retail discount price or lower, would we be hearing about " cartels" or the "price fix six"? You know we wouldn't . Instead we would be hearing paeans *about the wonders of agency pricing and how farsighted and wise the publishers were in moving to agency pricing. **
There is evidence that the publishers acted together in moving to adopt the agency model. Again, that's legal. The publishers conduct only becomes illegal if they act together to raise prices. *If they raise prices independently, based on what their market research tells them, thats legal.*
Is there any *evidence that these publishers got together and said , " The price for book X will be 14.99 and the price for Book Y will be 13.99?" I haven't heard any such evidence.*
What is the indirect evidence that the publishers acted in collusion - other than the Steve Jobs quote, which doesn't prove that the publishers actually did anything.*
Is there uniform pricing across categories? Nope.
How about bestsellers? Are they all priced the same? No again. Most are in the 12.99-14.99 range but there are some higher and a few lower. About all you can say about bestsellers is they aren't as cheap as they were when Amazon was discounting them below cost. The fact that those books are BESTSELLERS tends to prove that the publishers did not overprice the books. *
All this is to say that the DoJ case for collusion is not the slam dunk that people on this forum think it is. Even if the DoJ wins, it doesn't mean the end of agency pricing or even higher prices for *bestsellers.*
Suppose this case goes to trial and *the court finds that the publishers acted independently and legally to raise prices . Would folks here be happy? You know they wouldn't be. People would be muttering about how the publishers had bought the courts, etc.
If the DoJ wins, then what? Can the DoJ order the publishers to go back to the wholesale model? Probably not. There will be damages and fines but the agency model will continue, maybe with more freedom for the retailers to discount . *If the publishers can justify higher prices on the basis of market research, those higher prices will continue too.
|