Amazon vs. Hachette Update - It's About Price

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

We, meaning the people who buy eBooks shortly after release, made they what they are?

We means Hatchette. And because you got that wrong, the rest of your post isn't relevant. Sorry,

I'm not dismissing the importance of the people you term "we" when it comes to making Hachette an artistic and commercial success, to the degree it is either. But this "we" shouldn't be considered more important than the other groups making the company what it is.

Again, we is Hatchette.

[ST-One]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

have a look at the following article...

Four Questions for...Hugh Howey
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/b...ugh-howey.html

From one of the comments:

Amazon wants to keep its customers happy, but is tired of footing the entire bill to do so.

Sorry, but that is Amazon's problem and no one else's.
And, btw, their "footing the entire bill" just means "less profit per sold book".

Unlike Amazon, the publishers aren't just selling a medium (book), they are selling the content via that medium. Right or wrong, they think that is worth a little bit more than what Amazon thinks should be charged.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by ST-One

Unlike Amazon, the publishers aren't just selling a medium (book), they are selling the content via that medium. Right or wrong, they think that is worth a little bit more than what Amazon thinks should be charged.

Then raise the wholesale price.

[ST-One]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Then raise the wholesale price.

Isn't the ebook-price basically just that?

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by ST-One

Isn't the ebook-price basically just that?

I think Amazon would be thrilled to have a wholesale price of just under $10 and the ability to discount. Problem solved. Except Hachette won't play along.

What I don't get - they basically admitted of having no chance in court and that is why they settled. So why are they (Hachette) trying to draw attention to them by still wanting to enforce agency pricing?

How long is the court order still good for everybody to discount?

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

I think Amazon would be thrilled to have a wholesale price of just under $10 and the ability to discount. Problem solved. Except Hachette won't play along.

That pretty much sums it up.
Amazon : We want a higher cut, while still selling at $10.
Hachette : No.
Then lots of posturing from both sides.

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

What I don't get - they basically admitted of having no chance in court and that is why they settled. So why are they (Hachette) trying to draw attention to them by still wanting to enforce agency pricing?

They were in court for colluding with other publishers and Apple, agency pricing is not illegal and they are within their rights to want it.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

That pretty much sums it up.
Amazon : We want a higher cut, while still selling at $10.
Hachette : No.
Then lots of posturing from both sides.

No, not talking about the offer for bigger cut at $9.99 agency price, but back to wholesale. And a listprice so that Amazon can sell at $9.99 without having to pay more than $10.

They were in court for colluding with other publishers and Apple, agency pricing is not illegal and they are within their rights to want it.

Yes, agency pricing is what was illegal about the collusion. Technically the wording of the MFN clause that the Apple lawyers put in each contract and were arrogant enough to think they could get away with. Chances that they get away with it are looking really slim to none - have to wait and see. That in turn forced each publisher to bully Amazon into agency pricing as well. Not illegal yet, but it turned illegal price fixing by forcing higher prices on the consumer. So no, it was not agency pricing, but the scheme to screw over Amazon. And in turn customers.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

No, not talking about the offer for bigger cut at $9.99 agency price, but back to wholesale. And a listprice so that Amazon can sell at $9.99 without having to pay more than $10.

That was my understanding as well.
"If you won't do a wholesale/retail arraignment, and you require us to be your agent, selling at your price, then make it a price we all can make the most money on, or else we'll choose not to be your agent at all"
Whether it's true or not or good or not is under debate, but I didn't think there was any mystery about what they were claiming to want.
Not sure how MikeB arrived at his sums....

Yes, agency pricing is what was illegal about the collusion.
[...]
So no, it was not agency pricing, but the scheme to screw over Amazon. And in turn customers.

Thank you, Kevin Nealon.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by ApK

Thank you, Kevin Nealon.

Darn, now I have to google Kevin Nealon, and see if my picture pops up.

Since MikeB said that agency pricing is not illegal (lawyer talk), in the Apple and publisher case it somehow got illegal after all (normal person talk). So I tried to make the distinction - lawyer talk vs. common sense. Technically a monopoly is not illegal either, only abusing it is. Common sense person would say "monopoly is illegal", when a lawyer would disagree and conclude "abusing a monopoly is illegal, having a monopoly by itself is perfectly legal."

Darn I need my morning coffee and then I need to go back to bed.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Josieb1

I'm not informed on all this but I just don't understand why Amazon doesn't let Hachette do what it wants and let the readers decide.

The readers don't want agency pricing. We already know this.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Except right now agency model would be unfair for Amazon unless they also put a MFN clause in. Otherwise Apple could underprice them since they have the right to discount at the moment. If they said that they wouldn't take advantage of it is irrelevant. Hachette is not going down that rabbit hole down again if they can help it.

I don't think MFN is allowable.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Crusader

Here's Hachette's CEO's response to people who complied with Amazon's request to email him: http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2014...the-way-we-do/

And as we see, the BPH want to do away with mass market for these other papberback formats so they can charge more.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by leebase

Because there is a predator that is threatening to destroy the book retail business.

That predator is not Amazon per se though.
It is free lance editing businesses and digital distribution, which is allowing authors to retain copyrights. Amazon is the 800 lb gorilla from a digital distribution angle, but taking amazon out would just let the other players grow.

It's hard to be a slide rule manufacturer when everyone caries a computer.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I don't think MFN is allowable.

For Apple MFN is not allowable for 5 years - not sure that is only on agency contract or even applies to any non agency contracts - and only for the 5 publishers in lawsuit. Nobody else has the limitation of NO MFN clause, only Apple.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

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

Ah.

So it was Amazon who dictated the abandonment of wholesale pricing.

Brilliant observation.