Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
Y'know, I don't entirely agree with this reading of the circumstances.
Amazon has 25% of the US book market. That is a long way off from monopolistic levels, which are typically around 70%.
AFAIK the typical wholesaler discount is 50-55%, whereas McFarland is only giving Amazon a 20% discount -- the same they offer every other retailer on any transaction. Apparently Amazon isn't that important to them, or big enough volume for them to treat them any differently than a distributor or single indie bookstore.
Many of their books listed on Amazon are very expensive. Most of their books $25-$35, including paperbacks. This is because they're mostly short-run, low-volume reference titles.
We have no idea how much revenue McFarland generates for Amazon. We do know that many of their titles are ranked somewhat low -- e.g. sales ranks of 160,000 or 200,000. Amazon generated $48 billion in sales last year; if McFarland generated $1 million in sales for Amazon, that would be 0.02% of Amazon's business.
Amazon definitely was impersonal and brusque in their treatment of McFarland by demanding changes on short notice and only communicating via email. But the real upshot is that McFarland is being reminded in no uncertain terms that to Amazon they are chump change, and don't have the leverage to demand that Amazon takes less than half the typical wholesale discount on a $35 book.
It does make sense for small publishers to discuss this publicly, since they aren't getting much headway with Amazon and thus don't have much to lose. I'd also think that while McFarland is very small, Amazon ought to have a few reps to manage minuscule pubs like them. That doesn't mean that we have to be a bunch of saps who can be emotionally manipulated by the small pubs and the press, who know that people tend to root for the underdog.
And of course, let's not forget that Amazon didn't exist 20 years ago, was itself an underdog 10 years ago. B&N was the Big Bad who had billions in revenue, lots of cash, access to plenty of credit, lots of stores, the biggest brand, put indie stores on the ropes, tried to merge with Ingram, and got busted for anti-competitive acts like collaborating with distributors to get lower wholesale prices on books. Where are they now? And why do you imagine that any company, even Amazon, is invulnerable to the exact same process?
|
I'm not sure exactly what you disagree with...but my own point of view is colored by what market share Amazon sells FOR ME. So for me, them being a monopoly is closer than even a small publisher.
Also, I don't imagine that Amazon will take a different path ultimately and end up out-marketed by some new upstart. Again, the problem is my self-centered view. They could dominate for 20 years and that means dealing with them and whatever they decide to pay authors (or in the article case, how much they demand). I don't like being boxed in anymore than anyone else.
But you are quite correct if your point is to be more nimble. It is my job (as it is for any publisher) to figure out the best way around the situation. Small fish or nay, we have to keep swimming.