Quote:
Originally Posted by leebase
It's exactly what I and many others have been saying, and which the dissenting opinions ALSO say.
The notion that putting all the best sellers...the most profitable books during their most profitable window....on sale below cost (or even wholesale) is not merely a "loss leader".
The court made it's decision, but it was a bad decision, and it was not a unanimous decision.
They don't think it was a barrier to entry. Really? You want to enter a market where the top 100 books to sell are sold by the competition at a loss...forever?
This isn't "Walmart is selling the latest Harry Potter book for $9.99" to get people into the store to buy other products. This is the entire NYT Best Seller's list -- always.
And it was changing the concept of "a new book costs $25-$30"....to "New books cost $9.99"
The publishers are supposed to compete against the other publishers....not have one of their distributers destroying their business model.
|
I don't get your argument. The fact that they may have been planning to do this "forever" doesn't make it not a loss leader. Nor does the amount of profit per sale that they decide to forgo in the process.
A loss leader is "a product sold at a loss to attract customers". This seems to fit the definition perfectly. They sold a subset of best sellers at a loss in order to attract customers. If I know that Amazon will always have the best price on the new book I want, then I'm more likely to go there to buy it, in the process becoming more comfortable with their website and process, all of which guides me to go to them for other purchases.