Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieTigger
So what is it? For a publisher's best interest concerning maximizing profit is it embargo or no embargo? It cannot be both at the same time. Macmillan believes in embargo while PRH opposes limited supply at release. One of them is wrong, you pick. Except you already said that both have profit as top priority.
|
For Macmillan they believe that the embargo is the way to go. For PRH they don’t. They’ve both got their own figures to make these decisions.
I don’t believe I’ve said Macmillan was flat out right to do this, I’ve said I support their right to make this choice and I can see their reasoning. The libraries and those who can’t or won’t buy new releases might not like the decision but most of that group isn’t going to affect the publishers bottom line by a significant amount from what the publisher has decided to do.
I also support PRHs right to make their choice which the libraries etc are likely to love.
If you’d care to give me both publishers data, which I appreciate you can’t because neither will release it, I’d say what I would do.
I have also defended the libraries right to raise awareness in the press about the issue and to try to educate their patrons about the issue. That is their business after all though they are a non profit.
What I do not support is a library refusing to supply the public with the books from one publisher indefinitely (again I refer you to their statements which do not include an end for not purchasing) while also trying to whinge that the publisher is the one making it harder to read new books.
Nor do I support the libraries very intentional misrepresentation of the terms laid out by Macmillan in an attempt to garner sympathy. It’s lying through omission. I don’t need the nitty gritty breakdown of the finances but to leave out the broader details is a very good way to make me suspicious of your (the libraries) motives.
Macmillan presented the broader picture. They omitted the nitty gritty financial details but I’m going to assume they do not want to lose money, and they believe this is the right path.
In comparing their release to the libraries statements it’s rather clear the libraries were depending on pathos based arguments while the publishers presented logos based ones. As the libraries have already tried to deceive me in this situation I’m inclined to overlook their claims in favor of those of Macmillan.
I’d cover overdrive but their bias in wanting ebooks to be unrestricted to the libraries colors everything they say. And I’ve already talked about their using statistics without providing the raw numbers.