Write-in campaign claims that no readers were harmed by the agency model

[jgaiser]

Oxford English Dictionary:

fungible

Pronunciation: /ˈfʌn(d)ʒɪb(ə)l/
adjective
Law

(of goods contracted for without an individual specimen being specified) replaceable by another identical item; mutually interchangeable.

Derivatives

fungibility
Pronunciation: /-ˈbɪlɪti/
noun

Origin:

late 17th century: from medieval Latin fungibilis, from fungi 'perform, enjoy', with the same sense as fungi vice 'serve in place of'

Cars are not fungible - I lend you my car, I want that same car back.

Gasoline is fungible - I lend you a gallon of gasoline, any old gallon of gasoline returned is the same.

Books are not fungible - I lend you Fifty Shades of Grey (current NY Times Bestseller), I don't want a copy of Ed McBain's Cop Hater in return (even if I really want to read it).

[yoho]

Originally Posted by LovesMacs

Well yeah, no readers were physically harmed by the agency model, but they (we) sure were impacted financially.

good point!

[caleb72]

There is a certain amount of fungibility in book purchasing. A Twilight book bought at Amazon is pretty much interchangeable with one bought in Barnes & Noble. If Little Brown ceded publishing rights to Haper & Collins, there would be a certain fungibility between the Little Brown release and the H&C release.

I agree that not any book will do for a large majority - but any Twilight book may do.

Having said that, no Twilight book will do for me. But for the sake of using the existing examples...

So I guess it depends on whether you think each book/title/work should be considered a commodity in its own right - ie reasonably fungible, or whether we can only play this game looking at all books collectively.

I would think the collusion at hand increases this notion of fungibility because you remove price differences for individual titles as well as the inherent content interchangeability.

[MikeB1972]

It also depends on if you want a certain book (obvious I know).

If I want the next Terry pratchett then it is not interchangeable.
However if I want to try a new author then things become a lot more fungible.

So to see if anyone was harmed by the agency model just check how many (agency published) new first time authors books were bought compared to the same time the previous year.

[miguel1626]

Originally Posted by caleb72

There is a certain amount of fungibility in book purchasing. A Twilight book bought at Amazon is pretty much interchangeable with one bought in Barnes & Noble. If Little Brown ceded publishing rights to Haper & Collins, there would be a certain fungibility between the Little Brown release and the H&C release.

Books in general are NOT fungible. A specific book title may be fungible (e.g. two Twilight paperbacks in ~mint condition).

But the argument quoted in the first post tries to make the case that books in general are fungible, so even if publishers are screwing you on a few titles you can substitute for a lower-priced book elsewhere. But the guy is obviously economically ignorant (or a liar). By the way, I wonder if he'd be willing to trade his books in a commodity exchange - I'd be particularly interested in books futures derivatives

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

So to see if anyone was harmed by the agency model just check how many (agency published) new first time authors books were bought compared to the same time the previous year.

When it comes to our favorite authors (and best-selling authors are always someone's favorite authors), most people demand curves have a price elasticity < 1. Even if Stephen King's books were to double in price overnight, his total sales wouldn't fall in half.

[petrucci]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Oxford English Dictionary:

I realize that the OED is considered the canonical reference. However, in this instance I found that the definition from other dictionaries to be more informative. Webster's makes reference to the interchange satisfying an obligation.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...1&t=1337080371

I think that it is crucial to consider the circumstance in which the items are interchangeable.

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Cars are not fungible - I lend you my car, I want that same car back.

There are circumstances in which cars are interchangeable. When I go to purchase a new car, pretty much any new car of the same make and model, with the same accoutrements will do.

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Gasoline is fungible - I lend you a gallon of gasoline, any old gallon of gasoline returned is the same.

High octane gasoline may not be fungible with low octane gasoline. Just as diesel is not fungible with regular, and leaded gasoline is not fungible with unleaded.

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Books are not fungible - I lend you Fifty Shades of Grey (current NY Times Bestseller), I don't want a copy of Ed McBain's Cop Hater in return (even if I really want to read it).

I agree that there are circumstances in which books are not fungible. However, there are also circumstances in which they are. Consider the process of buying a book as a gift. It is quite likely that several books would make an equally good gift. A similar situation may occur if you are browsing for a book in a store. It may be that any one of several books may satisfy your desire to read.

In any case, trying to get back on topic, it will be interesting to see the upshot of the case. In looking into the economics of books, I have found references that state that they (the economists) are lacking information.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by miguel1626

When it comes to our favorite authors (and best-selling authors are always someone's favorite authors), most people demand curves have a price elasticity < 1. Even if Stephen King's books were to double in price overnight, his total sales wouldn't fall in half.

I know, thats why I said new first time authors (i.e. people who are having their first book published).
If everyone was dead set against agency prices any book by a new author that an agency publisher brought out recently should have completely tanked.

[QuantumIguana]

A Lincoln might be an acceptable substitute for a Cadillac, a Chevy Aveo probably would not. If I broke your Cadillac, and offered you a Lincoln in exchange, you might think about it, but if I offered an Aveo, no one would consider that a fair exchange. Books and cars have very limited fungibility. Just as not just any car will do, not just any book will do.

[jgaiser]

@petrucci - All the hand-waving in the world still doesn't change that fact that the book *I* want is *not* interchangeable with a book that I don't want, but is cheaper, which is precisely what the publishers seem to be saying in their write-in campaign.

[JonathanH]

Just an addition to my post that started the thread: this is a write-in campaign intended to change the proposed terms that some publishers had previously agreed to, in order to avoid the lawsuit. The law says that in such cases, the DOJ must allow 60 days for responses from the public, must publish all such responses, and must take them into account when considering final terms.

This law has generally been used in the past when agreed terms were widely thought to be too lenient - a public outcry and lots of responses could cause the DOJ to make the terms more stringent.

This is a rare case where opponents (i.e. the publishing industry) are trying to use the same law to make the terms more lenient. In other words, the publishers are trying to use the following strategy:
(1) Agree to proposed terms, thereby avoiding lawsuit
(2) Mobilize all of their friends in the industry to oppose the proposed terms
(3) DOJ gets flooded by responses, agrees to reduce proposed terms
(4) Back to business as usual
(5) Profit!

We're about halfway through the 60-day period right now.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by JonathanH

Just an addition to my post that started the thread: this is a write-in campaign intended to change the proposed terms that some publishers had previously agreed to, in order to avoid the lawsuit. The law says that in such cases, the DOJ must allow 60 days for responses from the public, must publish all such responses, and must take them into account when considering final terms.

This law has generally been used in the past when agreed terms were widely thought to be too lenient - a public outcry and lots of responses could cause the DOJ to make the terms more stringent.

This is a rare case where opponents (i.e. the publishing industry) are trying to use the same law to make the terms more lenient. In other words, the publishers are trying to use the following strategy:
(1) Agree to proposed terms, thereby avoiding lawsuit
(2) Mobilize all of their friends in the industry to oppose the proposed terms
(3) DOJ gets flooded by responses, agrees to reduce proposed terms
(4) Back to business as usual
(5) Profit!

We're about halfway through the 60-day period right now.

You may be overthinking this a bit.

The DOJ is well aware that their action is controversial, with most players in the book industry opposed. They are giving a wider circle of the public a chance to weigh in.
At the end of the 60 days, they may tweak the terms a little bit to reflect public sentiment, but that will be the only result.

[JoeD]

Maybe it'll backfire then when people get their pens out and write in with what they really think about the publishers

[JonathanH]

Originally Posted by stonetools

You may be overthinking this a bit.

The DOJ is well aware that their action is controversial, with most players in the book industry opposed. They are giving a wider circle of the public a chance to weigh in.
At the end of the 60 days, they may tweak the terms a little bit to reflect public sentiment, but that will be the only result.

Saying "they are giving... a chance" makes it sound optional, which it isn't. The DOJ is REQUIRED to give 60 days of open comments.

And I don't get where I'm "overthinking". I'm explaining a publishing industry strategy - granted, it's a last-chance hail-mary strategy with a slim chance of success, but it *is* a valid business strategy, and probably their best shot at this point.

Note that e.g. Mike Shatzkin is very explicit about this on his blog:

Remember, the DoJ wants to hear from us about the settlement unfortunately (in my opinion) agreed to by three major publishers. We still have several weeks to get those in. I hope this post contains useful thoughts for some people formulating their response, which I am still doing. Whenever you’re ready, send your letter to:

John Read, Chief, Litigation III Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 5th Street, NW, Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20530

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

Fungible ?

For God's sake, doesn't anyone speak "English/American/Canadian..oh you know what I mean.... anymore in certain arcane circles ?
Obviously not - send 'em over to the Levison Enquiry, Murdoch and Cameron could probably use their services.......

Why not say interchangeable ?
I got so annoyed about having to look it up I nearly took up macrame for something constructive to do with my life.....

And yes, lawyers/professors/word geeks fully appreciate the vital nuances and legal niceties this word has as against any other understandable equivalent, but it was like having Bush in the White House again ...........

I'm sorry if that offends, but if you need to look it up, "fungible" probably don't worry you...

I sincerely hope that you're being sarcastic. To be honest, I'm quite surprised to see this sentiment expressed in a forum full of readers.


As for Bush, I'm guessing he would have read it off his teleprompter as "funable" and wondered why his speech writers were calling oil [his favorite fungible good] fun.

[JonathanH]

Heh. I used the term "fungible" in the OP because I think it's a fabulous word that deserves to be used more