Amazon - Will they become evil

[darryl]

I know some people believe already that Amazon is the devil incarnate. However, looking at things more objectively that is just rubbish. But the whole buggy whip industry likes to portray Amazon as a monopoly. It is not (see Zombie Meme 1). However, it is fast heading that way, as much because of the unbelievable ineptness and lack of foresight of most of its competitors (and would-be competitors) as for its own foresight and super competence. In the eyes of its critics it is almost left unsaid that if Amazon does become a monopoly it will follow the grand old publishing industry tradition known in academic circles as screwing everyone, including readers and authors alike. Personally I have great difficulty in seeing how this situation would be any worse than under the Oligopoly. However, if we look at Amazon's behaviour now and in the past as a predictor of their future behaviour, things may not be as bleak as they seem.

Firstly, Amazon has significant market power already, but has shown no signs of significantly abusing that power. Certainly not against its customers. And I don't regard what happened in negotiations with Hachette or any of the other big publishers as an abuse of power. In fact, Amazon's offer to insulate Hachette's authors from their publishers greed and stupidity was laudable. Despite being a ploy in the negotiations, I have no doubt that had Hachette agreed Amazon would have come to the party.

Secondly, unlike the conspirators of the oligopoly, Amazon tends to act rationally and not cut off its nose to spite its face. What could be more rational than seeking to price books at the point which maximises the amount of revenue derived? Particularly where the resulting price point is usually half what the conspirators want to charge and are now charging under their agency arrangements. Even if this price point does become a little higher under an Amazon monopoly, I cannot see Amazon pushing prices to the point that they are not maximising revenue. And the conspirators are currently in the process of demonstrating that the market is price sensitive. Based on this, I would not expect to see Amazon's pricing policies change even if they do become a monopoly.

Thirdly, distractions like looking at Amazon's labour practices are just that, irrelevant distractions. Amazon is an employer in a first world country, and must comply with its labour laws. There has been no suggestion that it does not. Meanwhile, whole industries have moved mostly offshore, partly to avoid the extra costs associated with these labour laws. And, of course, the conditions of most of the employees now doing these jobs offshore usually don't even approach US standards. I would hazard a guess that most of Amazon's critics on this aspect of their operations have no qualms buying products produced offshore in far worse conditions than at Amazon, even if the worst of the Amazon Horror stories were completely true.

On the other side, there are some things about Amazon which do trouble me. Firstly, the 1984 incident was a blot on their record which will take some time to live down. It has happened once, and potentially can happen again. Mitigating this slightly is the fact that Amazon responded to the criticism and realised its mistake. However, there is also evidence in the Mobileread forums of Amazon acting with unbelievable arrogance and total disregard of its customers and basic fairness. These threads involve cancelling or denying access to users own accounts where Amazon believes its terms have been breached or that the account is related to another account where its terms were breached. In such cases they appear to refuse to disclose information about the breach or, if applicable, the other accounts. They also appear to phrase their notification along the lines of their decision being final and not subject to review, and force their victims to correspond by email as the Amazon personnel dealing with these matters will not talk on the phone to sort it out. This must be very distressing to those involved, and bas no place at a company like Amazon. If Amazon does become a monopoly losing access to your Amazon account could be a disaster.

Overall, I think Amazon's conduct to date tends to indicate that if they did become a monopoly Amazon would not abuse retail pricing. Nor would there be any need for it to adjust its royalty rates to authors, though final author remuneration must be regarded as still being worked out in relation to KU. If subscription models are indeed the future as some suggest, then it is difficult to even speculate on authors remuneration with any authority. I can't even exclude the possibility that Royalties could fall to poverty line levels. Say as low as 17.6%?

[HarryT]

Do you think that it serves a useful purpose to characterise a company as "good" or "evil"? That suggests a moral (or immoral) motivation for their activities. Company policies are generally not motivated by such things, but rather by the desire to maximise revenue.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's a meaningless question. Companies are neither "good" nor "evil"; they simply have policies which one may personally agree or disagree with. I see no benefit in using such terms.

Well, there is one definition of "evil" that might apply: doing clearly unnecessary harm.
(Like conspiring to limit your own employee salaries and mobility at a time you're sitting on Scrooge McDuck cash reserves. Or making consumers pay more for your product even if it means you earn less.)

On those terms, I would keep an eye on Kindle Unlimited. To date, the exclusivity requirement seems justifiable on the bases of boosting visibility for the enrolled titles: there wouldn't be much of a boost if everything were in it, after all. But if the KU catalog keeps expanding (and competitors keep imploding) the rationale for exclusivity would come into question.

That is a long ways off, though. So far KU adds up to less than 10% of industry cash flow even though it is a very significant source of revenue for Indies.

Even with KU factored in, Amazon isn't doing anything that isn't a common practice in gaming consoles, digital media companies, and other creative tech businesses.

Most of their bad press is simply that; bad mouthing from a culture clash with the legacy publishing establishment suddenly faced with a paradigm shift, a transition to 21st century business practices they can't quite grasp.

People used to 9-5 timeclock work culture who can't grasp the achievement-focused self-starter culture of tech start-ups; people used to soak-the-buyer pricing incapable of understanding basket pricing or loss-leader strategies...

All of Amazon's attributed crimes to date stem from their perceived (and occasionally true) role as instigator of change in an industry that wants nothing to do with modernity. Luddites always see change as evil.

It all comes down to the old Star Trek saw: "the needs of the many (readers) outweight the desires of the few (publishers)..."
Or something like that.

[theducks]

I am already observing some effects of their market dominance (which is similar to what has happened with other chain stores once they get established)

Prices have risen to the point, that bargains are no longer great. In some cases, they exceed local retail (when S&H is included).
The 900 pound Gorilla flexes its muscles at the purchasing table, much to the dismay of the BPH.

Retail stores only stock items with High Volume turnover or High Profit.

Remember Sears & Robuck or Montgomery Wards? America could mail order 1,000's of items that local stores (if there were any) could not stock. They are (mostly) gone.

Amazon has refilled that gap

What is still great about Amazon, is Selection and return policy.
How long will it last before Big Business style management intrudes?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you think that it serves a useful purpose to characterise a company as "good" or "evil"? That suggests a moral (or immoral) motivation for their activities. Company policies are generally not motivated by such things, but rather by the desire to maximise revenue.

+1. Sometimes companies will "do good" to enhance their reputation with their customers. Google and WholeFood both are known for that. To an extent, WholeFood's business model is based on customers feeling good about shopping at WholeFood (hey, I'm not knocking it, I'm a WholeFood customer), but unless it's a privately held company with no stock holders, a business has a legal responsibility to stock holders.

Amazon is no different than any other large corporation in that respect. That isn't to say that you shouldn't vote with your dollars if a company does something you like or don't like, but it's not an emotional issue for the company involved. It's pure dollars and cents.

[Cinisajoy]

Amazon is evil. Have you seen what they do to my poor wallet?

For the record, I have heard of a couple of authors losing their accounts. Heard of more than a couple that had books banned. Heard of some blocking books too but those were usually reinstated after some tweaks.
Note: in almost all of those cases of accounts and banning: the author had published what they knew was against the TOS.

As per the customers: I have heard of Amazon not allowing returns on some accounts. One woman admitted to returning 75% of her purchases.

[Rizla]

The lead post is almost entirely from the point of view of the consumer. Any other perspective is presented as an aside or a "distraction." Perhaps the title of the thread should reflect the thread's single perspective?

i.e. "Amazon - Will they **** consumers once they are the only game in town?"

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by theducks

How long will it last before Big Business style management intrudes?

Well, Bezos is relatively young so... maybe another 20-30 years.

More likely, some whippersnapper in a garage will figure out teleportation and disrupt everything all over again.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Rizla

The lead post is almost entirely from the point of view of the consumer. Any other perspective is presented as an aside or a "distraction." Perhaps the title of the thread should reflect the thread's single perspective?

i.e. "Amazon - Will they **** consumers once they are the only game in town?"

Amazon is a service provider. They make their money providing services to their customers.
In their world nobody else matters.
And shouldn't.

[darryl]

@HarryT. I'm using the term "evil" here in the Google sense of the word.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Rizla

The lead post is almost entirely from the point of view of the consumer. Any other perspective is presented as an aside or a "distraction." Perhaps the title of the thread should reflect the thread's single perspective?

i.e. "Amazon - Will they **** consumers once they are the only game in town?"

Almost but not completely. That doesn't prevent you from contributing in relation to any other point of view you consider worthwhile.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by darryl

@HarryT. I'm using the term "evil" here in the Google sense of the word.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil

Which is amusing considering how Google screwed its own employees by joining the salary-suppression conspiracy in SiliValley.

No angels in business.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Which is amusing considering how Google screwed its own employees by joining the salary-suppression conspiracy in SiliValley.

No angels in business.

Google has done a lot of great things, but I think there are significant infestations of "evil" throughout the company.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you think that it serves a useful purpose to characterise a company as "good" or "evil"? That suggests a moral (or immoral) motivation for their activities. Company policies are generally not motivated by such things, but rather by the desire to maximise revenue.

Which begs the question if these by definition amoral corporations need to be regulated. The new Labor leader in the UK plans to rein in Amazon's and other corporation's tax shenanigans.

[HarryT]

You know as well as I do that posts of this nature belong in the P&R forum.