Amazon vs. Hachette Update - It's About Price

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

But wait, I don't count. I am a member of MobileRead, and not representative. Guess what, you are a member here, does that mean ...

I'm certainly not representative of the book-buying public at large or even of the ebook readers here at MR. I read several books a week, usually nonfiction. I buy a large number of hardcovers (in the last 2 days, for example, I received 8 hardcovers that I had purchased online) and much fewer ebooks (on average, I buy 8-12 hardcovers a month and 3-4 ebooks; those numbers do not count the free ebooks I also download). I do not buy or read paperbacks.

The average reader is said to read 1 book a month, regardless of format. I suspect that people on MR read more than 1 a month on average, but I doubt the majority on MR read much more than that average. And many people on MR only read free ebooks, and ebooks only.

So, no, I'm not representative either, and never claimed to be.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by rhadin

I'm certainly not representative of the book-buying public at large or even of the ebook readers here at MR. I read several books a week, usually nonfiction. I buy a large number of hardcovers (in the last 2 days, for example, I received 8 hardcovers that I had purchased online) and much fewer ebooks (on average, I buy 8-12 hardcovers a month and 3-4 ebooks; those numbers do not count the free ebooks I also download). I do not buy or read paperbacks.

The average reader is said to read 1 book a month, regardless of format. I suspect that people on MR read more than 1 a month on average, but I doubt the majority on MR read much more than that average. And many people on MR only read free ebooks, and ebooks only.

So, no, I'm not representative either, and never claimed to be.

Just curious if you actually have anything to say in reply to the actual point of DuckieTigger's post...

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Just curious if you actually have anything to say in reply to the actual point of DuckieTigger's post...

Appreciate that. I guess the point is that I left a snark in my post. And that snarky remark left the door open to simply ignore what I said. That is ok, it means you either agree with (part of) it and not say so, or you disagree and want to reply and cannot find a good enough argument against.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Barcey

Ah yes the 50's. It was a different time. Employees took a job expecting to stay with a company for life. Employers invested in their employees. Some large corporations sent silver spoons to their employees when they had babies (engraved with the baby's name). It was a different time, we could wax nostalgic about ages past but alas.... times have changed. So have large corporations and publishing companies.

Actually, the 60's. But the same sort of thing is still going on. One only has to look at the first Wheel of Time novel (one of the better books I've read) and the later ones to see the difference that an editor can make. Yes, I know that Jordon still had an editor (i.e. his wife), but like a lot of best selling authors, once they hit the big time, they no longer have to listen to their editors. Clancy went through the same thing.

Several current authors have written blog posts about the process of writing and the back and forth they have with their editors. Of course, established writers have learned the craft of writing and don't need as much help, but a lot of first time writers need the help. Try reading some of the things that Patrick Rothfuss says about his editor.

http://blog.patrickrothfuss.com/2012...ove-my-editor/

Here is one from before his first book actually came out

http://blog.patrickrothfuss.com/2010...u-when-i-knew/

[darryl]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Appreciate that. I guess the point is that I left a snark in my post. And that snarky remark left the door open to simply ignore what I said. That is ok, it means you either agree with (part of) it and not say so, or you disagree and want to reply and cannot find a good enough argument against.

Exactly right.

[Shane R]

Mr. Preston is certainly losing this battle.

Mr. Preston is not one of those writers who checks his Amazon ranking on a regular basis, or even totes up his sales. He would rather be writing. But he recently thought he should get some numbers from Hachette. They came in the other morning, and they seemed worth sharing with his wife, Christine.

About half his book sales used to come from Amazon. But since the retailer started discouraging orders, his paperback sales are down 61 percent and his e-book sales are down 62 percent. His last novel, written with Mr. Child and published by Hachette in November, was “White Fire.” A week before publication, 25,000 Amazon customers had ordered a copy.

Their new novel, “The Lost Island,” came out Tuesday. It had only a few thousand pre-orders, all made before Amazon lowered the boom on Hachette and stopped selling forthcoming Hachette books.

Mrs. Preston, a photographer, studied the bleak sheet.

“It’s gotten personal,” she said. “I knew you were going to take a hit, but I had no idea it would be like this.”

If those are total percentages and not just "at-Amazon" percentages, I don't get why he's advocating for Hatchette.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/bu...azon.html?_r=0

[HarryT]

I'm slightly puzzled why these contract negotiations would impact eBook sales. There's no restriction on pre-ordering or buying eBooks.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

Exactly right.

Or it could mean that he's not particularly interested in doing duckie's research for him. If he want's to know how many authors who signed the letter are Hatchette authors, he has the list available to him. My guess is that since it's currently the Hatchette authors who are being harmed by Amazon's game of hardball, they are more likely to sign the letter, but that's just a guess and I don't think it matters enough to check. I will say this. I'm willing to wager you won't find very many Amazon authors on the list.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Shane R

Mr. Preston is certainly losing this battle.



If those are total percentages and not just "at-Amazon" percentages, I don't get why he's advocating for Hatchette.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/bu...azon.html?_r=0

Because Hatchette isn't the company that is causing the issue?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Or it could mean that he's not particularly interested in doing duckie's research for him. If he want's to know how many authors who signed the letter are Hatchette authors, he has the list available to him. My guess is that since it's currently the Hatchette authors who are being harmed by Amazon's game of hardball, they are more likely to sign the letter, but that's just a guess and I don't think it matters enough to check. I will say this. I'm willing to wager you won't find very many Amazon authors on the list.

Except for the part where DuckieTigger responded by saying that was his whole point.

Spoiler:

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Rhadin, you are missing the point. It wasn't meant what percentage the Hachette authors get per book , but how many of those signatures are from Hachette authors. Oh wait, let me guess, Hachette already told every author that they are going to get a cut per ebook sale since the shareholders come first.

It is a bunch of baloney too that ebooks have to subsidize the risks of pbooks. The 60% can change real quick if the publishers weren't so stuck up living in the past. The reason for not advocating ebooks is their fear of competition. If they convince people to switch to ebooks then they run the risk of becoming useless. And if they actually and truely are so wonderful, they would remain usefull and wonderful even with a split of 85% ebook to 15% pbook?

But wait, I don't count. I am a member of MobileRead, and not representative. Guess what, you are a member here, does that mean ...

DuckieTigger is saying that that is his whole point. He knows the list is basically just a bunch of Hachette authors, and feels that that is proof that it means nothing.

Hachette authors complaining about Amazon when Amazon is in a business dispute are proof of nothing whatsoever. Complaints only mean that an author is picking a side, not that that side is intrinsically right. And unsurprisingly, Hachette authors are picking the side of the people with the power to pay them their money.

It would mean a whole lot more if authors everywhere stood united. For that matter, if this letter was inherently right and just, and you feel that all those authors signing it is proof of that, then surely Amazon authors should be signing it as well.

Unless it is entirely reasonable that Hachette authors (who have an obvious bias in signing the letter) are simply pointing out an objective truth for the good of all, but Amazon authors (who have an obvious bias in NOT signing the letter) are biased for not signing the letter?

In light of a recent claim you made regarding regarding strawman arguments, I just want to point out this post of yours, and just ask you to... think about it.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Because Hatchette isn't the company that is causing the issue?

Hmmm.

Who began this dispute? (Hachette, wanting agency pricing.)

I don't really consider anyone blameless over here. For some really odd, stupid, bizarre reason, I count Hachette among the "everyone".

This is a standard business dispute between vendors and suppliers, and it sucks to be caught in the middle. But Hachette could end this just as quickly as Amazon can, thus it is every bit as much their fault as it is Amazon's -- and the other way around, too.

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm slightly puzzled why these contract negotiations would impact eBook sales. There's no restriction on pre-ordering or buying eBooks.

I doubt Amazon is doing much advertising or notifying of new titles by Hatchette authors.

Down 60+% across all sellers shows off Amazons strength relative to others selling books and it's not immediately obvious what the authors/publishers can do to change those buyers habits.

Amazon owns the relationship and by most accounts is effective in warding off any significant defection from it.

[Shane R]

There is some very fine hairsplitting going on in the authors letter.

Our books launched Amazon on the road to selling everything and becoming one of the world's largest corporations. We have made Amazon many millions of dollars and over the years have contributed so much, free of charge, to the company by way of cooperation, joint promotions, reviews and blogs. This is no way to treat a business partner. Nor is it the right way to treat your friends.

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/b...to-amazon.html

[tubemonkey]

Our books launched Amazon on the road to selling everything and becoming one of the world's largest corporations. We have made Amazon many millions of dollars and over the years have contributed so much, free of charge, to the company by way of cooperation, joint promotions, reviews and blogs. This is no way to treat a business partner. Nor is it the right way to treat your friends.

We made you what you are...

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Hmmm.

Who began this dispute? (Hachette, wanting agency pricing.)

I don't really consider anyone blameless over here. For some really odd, stupid, bizarre reason, I count Hachette among the "everyone".

This is a standard business dispute between vendors and suppliers, and it sucks to be caught in the middle. But Hachette could end this just as quickly as Amazon can, thus it is every bit as much their fault as it is Amazon's -- and the other way around, too.

Or Amazon by wanting Hatchette to reduce the price they charge Amazon per ebook sale, so Amazon can make more money selling at a reduced rate.

Amazon seems to feel that they have established $10 as the new standard for best seller ebooks, and now they are pushing back on the publishers to accept a reduced rate based on that price point.