French culture minister: "Allowing publishers to fix prices is best"

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I don't know where you are, but where I live about half the shops in the town centre are boarded up. Most of the remaining ones are either chainstores or bargain/2nd hand shops. That's where "increasing competition" always ends up — with the number of competitors diminishing.

You end up with most of the consumer money going to large multinationals who dodge their taxes in order to cut prices. And then taxes need to rise for everyone else to make up for the shortfall from all the businesses who used to pay their taxes before they closed down. So in real terms it ends up costing more than it used to before you let it happen.

Then there's the people who can't physically get to the large out of town stores, or don't have a computer to get what they need on the internet. "Society" includes all of those people too.

That's a pretty sweeping generalization and you've made a lot of assumptions (e.g. that competition leads to fewer competitors generally, that a few larger competitors pay less taxes overall, etc.). I think you've generalized the experience of your particular town to the entire world, and grossly oversimplified the complex politics, economics and societal factors that have probably resulted in your town being, in technical parlance, a "crap hole".

Everyone complains when a Walmart moves into their town, but no one ever thinks about the cost to consumers of blocking that Walmart and forcing everyone to pay higher prices to subsidize the mom and pop stores. Again, maybe instead of complaining about multinationals, we should raise taxes for everyone and give all small business owners a "thanks for trying" subsidy; that would be more efficient than blocking the Walmart, probably be cheaper, and spare everyone's feelings.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by abookreader

Creators have always had the ability to set their prices - even under the wholesale model they had the ability to price their books however they wanted. They didn't have the ability to set the final retail price, but they could set their wholesale price however high or low they wished. However, there is always a risk that if the price is too high - they will have few sales.

Authors in turn also have the ability to set their prices. They can accept the publishing contracts offered to them, try to negotiate more, or self-publish. Again, there is always a risk that if their price is too high, nobody will buy.

The fuss is over whether they have the ability to collude on their prices and to prevent the retail channels they utilize from competing at a price level.

Yes but, the wholesale and all other models dealing with physical goods do not apply to the digital. If someone does not want their book to be sold for less than what they want, they have that option. All of this is much ado about nothing.

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Different societies value different things and maintain different social contracts.
Each thinks *their* way is best and all others are wrong.
To each their own.

Me; I value "value" and "variety".
I do not value protectionism.

I am no more fonder of ABCNEWS's "MADE IN AMERICA" grassroots protectionist campaign than I am of french ministers who suggest all governments should allow their citizens to be ripped off to protect old, mis-managed companies.

As long as I get what I need on reasonable terms, I won't be slinging molotails.
But don't pretend one size fits all, okay?
And don't expect me to put up with any crap just because others do.
I'm more or less human, not a lemming.

Right on man!

No lemmings here!

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I have a wonderful idea. Why don't we just prevent collusion and price-fixing for books, but take tax dollars and subsidize book stores directly? Seems way more efficient, and effectively what the French minister and Stonetools would like in any event. If we're going to make a public good argument to weaken competition, might as well be upfront about using the public's money.

I have an even better idea. Instead of subsidizing a useless old fashioned book store and its owners and workers, why not just take these people out of their useless occupations and pay them to do useful work.

They can build roads, pick up trash, cut the grass in parks, do something that is beneficial to all.

Do we really need to keep the old book stores and buggy whip factories going?

If someone really wants to keep the old fashioned book store around but not enough to support them, we can put a few of them in museums. Maybe do a National Geographic special on them.

[plib]

Originally Posted by stonetools

What the French Minister is saying is that in effect, such collusion should be legal in order to promote a higher societal good than cheaper books.

OK, let's make a societal deal. The publishers can have collusion as long as they agree that their CEO's be paid no more than 20 times the average salary of their employees, that CEO's are only permitted the same T&E and per diem expenses as their other employees, that they commute to work by subway or cab like their other employees and that they participate only in health and pension schemes available to every company employee. And that the publishers commit to donate at least 20% of their pre-tax profits to charity every year.

All CEO's in favour of a higher societal good - Vote "Aye".

[yoho]

Originally Posted by Top100EbooksRank

http://www.thebookseller.com/news/mi...k-pricing.html

maybe this method will have a negative impact on the pricing mechanism of publishing industry. and it may lead to monopoly.

[HansTWN]

I really cannot follow this logic. If enough people are willing to pay high prices to sustain the small book stores, then those customers can continue to frequent the small bookstores and buy at regular prices. (that actually works in France for small grocers and butchers, apparently people prefer to shop there) If even they are not willing to put up the money and run to buy the books at a chain or online, then what are they complaining about?

And if they do support the small stores and even that is not enough to sustain the stores, well, then that is just too bad. That means the people have spoken.

What Ninjalawyer says does make sense. If you want the small stores to exist, then subsidize them openly. Treat them like the opera, a cultural icon that should be supported. But don't force everyone to pay higher prices.

[Giggleton]

Interesting that you seem to be discussing the price of things, have we decided that pricing things is good?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Interesting that you seem to be discussing the price of things, have we decided that pricing things is good?

Yes, we have moved past the barter stage a few thousand years ago.

[Xoanon]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Cheaper books puts more books into circulation.
That can hardy be a bad thing, can it?

Depends who you ask. As a reader of popular fiction I have gotten the impression over the years that some people don't think the great unwashed masses should be allowed to read books.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Cheaper books puts more books into circulation.
That can hardy be a bad thing, can it?

That was kind of my point, why the confusion?

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Yes but, the wholesale and all other models dealing with physical goods do not apply to the digital. If someone does not want their book to be sold for less than what they want, they have that option. All of this is much ado about nothing.

If someone does not want their book to be sold for less than what they want, they can sell it themselves via their own website. If they want to take advantage of another website's reach, why shouldn't the other website set the price?

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

That was kind of my point, why the confusion?

I think fjtorres was confused that anyone would think differently.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Everyone complains when a Walmart moves into their town, but no one ever thinks about the cost to consumers of blocking that Walmart and forcing everyone to pay higher prices to subsidize the mom and pop stores. Again, maybe instead of complaining about multinationals, we should raise taxes for everyone and give all small business owners a "thanks for trying" subsidy; that would be more efficient than blocking the Walmart, probably be cheaper, and spare everyone's feelings.

In my region, consumers welcomed WalMart and Sam's Club. Both are doing gangbusters business.

So are most of the local competitors; several actually found ways of under-cutting Walmart pricing by tapping the global supply chain to bring in merchandise from India, Brazil, and eastern europe. The end result is that available *variety* of products went way up and consumers have more choices. Some shops *have* closed. But their locales have been snapped up by other entrepreneurs for new types of businesses.

Right now CVS is making a push into town, challenging Walgreens and putting added pressure on local independent pharmacies. The indies' answer? They've joined up in a loose association to pool their buying power and increase their inventory range. Some are expanding to meet the challenge. Some indies *have* gone out of business but the rest are looking stronger and have snapped up all the laid-off staff. (Health care is a growth business.)

Very Darwinian.

Adding aggressive competitors to a market only reduces the roster of consumer choices when the existing players are incompetent, lazy, or so hidebound they refuse to adapt and thus cease to compete.

In the end, it comes back to "competitors compete, losers whine".

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

That's a pretty sweeping generalization and you've made a lot of assumptions (e.g. that competition leads to fewer competitors general, that a few larger competitors pay less taxes overall, etc.). I think you've generalized the experience of your particular town to the entire world, and grossly oversimplified the complex politics, economics and societal factors that have probably resulted in your town being, in technical parlance, a "crap hole".

Everyone complains when a Walmart moves into their town, but no one ever thinks about the cost to consumers of blocking that Walmart and forcing everyone to pay higher prices to subsidize the mom and pop stores. Again, maybe instead of complaining about multinationals, we should raise taxes for everyone and give all small business owners a "thanks for trying" subsidy; that would be more efficient than blocking the Walmart, probably be cheaper, and spare everyone's feelings.

The supermarket prices aren't significantly lower than what the independent retailers used to charge, especially when you factor in the cost of travelling to and from them and the cost of what you end up throwing away because you switch to a weekly shop rather than just buying what you need each day.

But the point was more about the cost to society as a whole rather than to consumers. There's also a cost in employment. Over here we have a new scheme where the large corporations can have free staff under the guise of training, something that is denied to smaller businesses. That in itself cuts down on the number of paying jobs available to those who lost their old one. And with only 1 or 2 large employers in town, pay and working conditions start to be eroded.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

I have an even better idea. Instead of subsidizing a useless old fashioned book store and its owners and workers, why not just take these people out of their useless occupations and pay them to do useful work.

They can build roads, pick up trash, cut the grass in parks, do something that is beneficial to all.

Who would pay their wages, and what would you do with the people who are already doing those jobs?