Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
Proof? That's a little strong here. But, yes, there is evidence in support of your statement.
|
Nope. I'm sticking with proof positive.
Agency hampers Amazon's ability to find that magic (and constantly fluctuating) price point that maximizes sales while still protecting slim margins. So while agency may "force" them to make more money per BPH sale, they don't make as much money
per title in the long run because of lower volumes sold. Amazon's constantly updated algorithms do a much better job of finding that moving, magic target price than the BPH's ever could with their ham-fisted,
we-think-THIS-ebook-price-will-protect-our-print-book-sales-'cause-we-clicked-our-heels-together-three-times-and-consulted-our-magic-eight-ball-on-it minimum retail-price restrictions.
If Amazon had the power to deny agency terms in these latest contracts with BPH's they most certainly would have (bad publicity or no--though I believe the "avoiding bad publicity" theory is more of a stretch than my "proof positive" claim). They make more money (per title) with their own pricing algorithms. Funny thing is, those same algorithms would make more money for the BPH's in the long run, too. They're just too busy bemoaning the devaluation of print books to realize it.