Amazon makes a direct offer to Hachette authors: 100% ebook royalties

[SleepyBob]

Originally Posted by Crusader

Excuse me for being skeptical but I don't believe either version of the story. Hachette isn't the evil incarnate it's made out to be, nor is Amazon the dashing hero trying to save the day. This offer from Amazon is more a PR stunt than anything. It's easy to offer something you know will be rejected.

Like they say, there's always 3 sides to a story. I'd be interested to know the truth.

Sure, it's a PR stunt, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether the things they stated about negotiations are true or not.

[TimW]

Originally Posted by Crusader

Excuse me for being skeptical but I don't believe either version of the story. Hachette isn't the evil incarnate it's made out to be, nor is Amazon the dashing hero trying to save the day. This offer from Amazon is more a PR stunt than anything. It's easy to offer something you know will be rejected.

Like they say, there's always 3 sides to a story. I'd be interested to know the truth.

Hachette put out a statement rejecting Amazon's proposal but didn't bother denying the part about the lack of negotiations and that they've had no contract for four months. If that was a lie, Hachette would have been happy to call them on it. They murmured something about them "continuing" to negotiate in good faith which apparently is ironic, Hachettespeak for "we're stalling until September when we will issue a no-discount agency ultimatum."

As for the third side, that may be when the DoJ decides to get involved.

[Shane R]

Roxana Robinson, president of the Authors Guild, dismissed the proposal.

“If Amazon wants to have a constructive conversation about this, we’re ready to have one at any time,” she said in an email. “But this seems like a short-term solution that encourages authors to take sides against their publishers. It doesn’t get authors out of the middle of this — we’re still in the middle.”

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/0...hette-dispute/

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Roxana Robinson

It doesn’t get authors out of the middle of this — we’re still in the middle.

But in a better position to keep food on the table.

[TCSimpson]

Konrath has a pretty good write up about it with Zacharius from Kensington publishing trying to do some rebuttals.
http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/0...-proposal.html

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

But in a better position to keep food on the table.

Notwithstanding any possibly strong PR value or leverage, how would accepting the offer put any money in authors' pockets since Hachette controls the rights?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Notwithstanding any possibly strong PR value or leverage, how would accepting the offer put any money in authors' pockets since Hachette controls the rights?

It wouldn't. The authors have no voice in the fight.

Amazon proposed paying the authors directly *if* Hachette agreed.
(Knowing full well that Hachette wouldn't.)
(After all, Hachette rejected the previous offer of a compensation pool.)

Now it is up to the authors to beg Hachette to change their mind.
(They shouldn't hold their breaths.)

The purpose of the proposal is to make the point that if any author is losing money and facing hardship (which doesn't include the oh-so-vocal millionaires) it isn't Amazon's doing but Hachette's. Which is why Amazon also revealed that Hachette's contract with them expired way back in March, which means that Amazon owes nothing to Hachette nor its authors. If they really wanted to get nasty, they would have delisted them back in April and they would have been completely within their rights. (And they probably will, soon.)

No contract, no talks: no sales.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by darryl

The OP quotes Hachette as wanting a contract "whose terms allow Hachette to continue to invest in writers, marketing, and innovation."

What does this even mean? Continued investments imply investments that Hachette are already engaged in. Is this a plea for more money for Hachette. It's authors, with the exception of a very few, would seem to receive better terms from Amazon. As for marketing, I would say that Amazon's marketing of it's products is certainly not second to Hachette's. Anyway, would not Hachette have terms in at least some of it's author's contracts allowing recovery of such marketing costs? Is Hachette expecting Amazon to subsidise the continuation of it's old business method's by contibuting to Hachette's marketing costs of books which do not sell. And the only recent innovation I can think of which Hachette participated in was agency pricing!

Long live Amazon. Yes, it may later obtain and abuse monopoly status, but it is far from that position at the moment, and certainly a far preferable choice to dominate the market than our wonderful traditional large publishers.

What this means is that Hatchette wants to go to Agency pricing and Amazon isn't allowing them to do so. So Hatchette are trying everything they can to get Amazon to give in so Agency pricing can happen.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

What this means is that Hatchette wants to go to Agency pricing and Amazon isn't allowing them to do so. So Hatchette are trying everything they can to get Amazon to give in so Agency pricing can happen.

Well, everything except actually talking to Amazon about it, though I also guess that means nobody violated any NDAs.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Which is why Amazon also revealed that Hachette's contract with them expired way back in March, which means that Amazon owes nothing to Hachette nor its authors. If they really wanted to get nasty, they would have delisted them back in April and they would have been completely within their rights. (And they probably will, soon.)

No contract, no talks: no sales.

So, rather than cutting back and withholding services, Amazon has been going above and beyond the provisions of the (nonexistent) contract.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Barcey

It also makes the Hachette authors look silly when they've been claiming they know what the disagreement is about and it's all Amazon's fault.

The authors don't know the details, nor do we. But the authors do know that the dispute is about who gets more money, the publisher who pays them, or the retailer who doesn't.

As a largely nonfiction reader, my interest is in Hachette having the money to buy book proposals. Giving authors who already completed their books more money than they anticipated when they accepted the Hachette advance and other terms (the 100 percent) will do nothing there.

The devil is in the details of Amazon's proposal.

You could say that the same people who would get royalties should get the 100 percent money. But that doesn't seem fair to me, since most of these books weren't ever going to earn out their advance.

And what happens to translators? What happens to ghost writers? And what about the books where the Hachette editors put in more work than the author whose name is on the cover? If Amazon and Hachette can't ever agree on a contract -- and I don't see why they have to -- when does the 100 percent stop? Another big question is where Perseus authors fit it.

Financially, the 100 percent would hurt Hachette more than Amazon. Authors who want to get advances in the future will see this and be unlikely to fall for the Amazon stunt.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

So, rather than cutting back and withholding services, Amazon has been going above and beyond the provisions of the (nonexistent) contract.

Dude.. The point is there is *no* contract. It expired in March/April. Are you saying that Amazon should continue to honor an expired contract with a publisher that apparently refuses to negotiate?

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Dude.. The point is there is *no* contract. It expired in March/April. Are you saying that Amazon should continue to honor an expired contract with a publisher that apparently refuses to negotiate?

?????

Didn't I write that they are going above and beyond the provisions of the nonexistent contract? Does that mean something different?

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

?????

Didn't I write that they are going above and beyond the provisions of the nonexistent contract? Does that mean something different?

There is no contract. So, there is no above and beyond. How can you go above and beyond something that doesn't exist.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

There is no contract. So, there is no above and beyond. How can you go above and beyond something that doesn't exist.

0.00001 is above and beyond 0