Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
Random House on why it switched to agency:
PER PUBLISHERS WEEKLY
Bottom line: RH switched to help out retailers who couldn't make it on lower margins (read: everyone but Amazon).
Will RH stay with agency ? My guess is most likely, because RH is looking to establish its own sales channel, jointly with other publishers-Anobii and Bookish. You'll hear more about those two ventures shortly, IMO. |
or maybe Random House switched because
1) similar to the other publishers, they want to slow down the adoption of ebook in order to protect their print business DESPITE gaining marketshare
2) Barnes and Noble decide "not to feature Random House in any future advertising" as punishment for not switching to agency pricing.
http://dearauthor.com/features/indus...mes-important/
Quote:
The CEO of Barnes & Noble emailed Sargent to let him know that B&N had Macmillan’s back. ”Barnes & Noble would ‘go to the mat’ for Macmillan. In an attempt to assist Macmillan during the negotiation process, B&N moved its titles to the top of its merchandizing pods & search results on the Nook.”
Amazon learned that five of the six publishers agreed to the Agency model and that these five accounted for about half of Amazon’s ebook business and thus Amazon caved to Macmillan. (In Judge Cote’s decision we find out that Amazon was presented with this information on the same day (Jan 20) by four different publishers)
When Random House refused to move to Agency, David Shanks of Penguin went to Barnes & Noble “I would hope that [Barnes & Noble] would be equally brutal to Publishers who have thrown in with your competition [Amazon] with obvious disdain for your welfare.” B&N continued to promote RH titles and so Shanks went back to B&N. ”Following this contact, B&N’s management decided not to feature Random House in any future advertising.”
Random House eventually caves.
|