Authors Group Urges Opposition to E-Book Settlement

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Maybe the DOJ can weigh in and say that if the retailers refuse to provide the necessary data, the retailers don't get to discount from the publisher set price. Things are still fluid and the DOJ can still tweak the terms.

The DOJ doesn't have jurisdiction over retail pricing unless it can claim a point of law that supports the restriction. It can veto contracts involving the settlement 3, and the other 2 publishers if they lose the lawsuit, but it can't make Amazon comply... and at this point, Amazon is possibly perfectly willing to forego all ebooks by the Agency 5, at least temporarily, while they hammer out contracts it finds more advantageous. (It may demand lower wholesale rates or extra payments to compensate it for extra data processing, for example.)

If publishers are *required* to get certain data from retailers in order to sell books to them, the retailers have a great advantage--of which Amazon's in the strongest position to leverage; BooksOnBoard and Diesel don't have the resources to say "we'll just go without your books for several months while we wait for you to agree to the terms we like."

While the DOJ is not going after Amazon, I'd like to believe they're not oblivious to the problems of handing a huge market advantage to a single retailer. (Which is different from "not taking action against a single retailer with huge market advantage," which was the state before Agency pricing. Amazon had the lion's share of the market because it had built a business plan that did so, not because of shady deals or special legal loopholes.)

[stonetools]

The DOJ doesn't have jurisdiction over retail pricing unless it can claim a point of law that supports the restriction. It can veto contracts involving the settlement 3, and the other 2 publishers if they lose the lawsuit, but it can't make Amazon comply... and at this point, Amazon is possibly perfectly willing to forego all ebooks by the Agency 5, at least temporarily, while they hammer out contracts it finds more advantageous. (It may demand lower wholesale rates or extra payments to compensate it for extra data processing, for example.)

THe DOJ does control the terms of the settlement, however... and it can say, "If the retailers won't agree to disclose the necessary data, you don't have to change the terms of the existing agreements." Amazon would have the choice either to disclose, and have to chance to negotiate agreements allowing them to discount, or continue under the current no-discount arrangements. I think Amazon will likely go with (1), although very reluctantly.(Amazon is pretty anal about discounting sales data).

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Another way of looking at it is that the big six can't afford not to sell at Amazon, and have to have this clause in place, so may have to accept worse contracts in order to get Amazon to provide the sales data. Maybe the next split will be 65/35 rather than 70/30.

Amazon needs them in order to sell Kindles. So I don't think Amazon would say no just to not have to give sales data. The BPHs won't be stupid and give things away just because it's Amazon.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by stonetools

THe DOJ does control the terms of the settlement, however... and it can say, "If the retailers won't agree to disclose the necessary data, you don't have to change the terms of the existing agreements." Amazon would have the choice either to disclose, and have to chance to negotiate agreements allowing them to discount, or continue under the current no-discount arrangements. I think Amazon will likely go with (1), although very reluctantly.(Amazon is pretty anal about discounting sales data).

The DoJ could also say..."If the retailer won't agree to handing over sales data, you don't have to sell to them.". I think that's more likely.

[crossi]

Why would the settlement require Amazon to turn over sales data to the publishers? Isn't the DOJ the agency monitoring the settlement? Wouldn't the data be given to them and they would only inform the publishers if Amazon was selling at a loss or not? Amazon and the publishers while not exactly enemies are on opposite sides of the barganing table and requiring that propriatory info be given to their opponents doesn't seem right.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The BPHs won't be stupid and give things away just because it's Amazon.

What does BPH stand for?

I'm guessing Big Publishing House, except that a lot of people around here seem to think they are stupid.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

What does BPH stand for?

I'm guessing Big Publishing House, except that a lot of people around here seem to think they are stupid.

Yes, Big Publishing House.

I don't quite think they're stupid except in the ways that any large corporation gets stupid--too caught up in profits-right-now for shareholders and unable to focus on the core purpose of their company. Combine that with the problem that *all* media companies are having with the changes brought by the internet, especially older ones, and you have "lack of flexibility that gives a good impression of utter stupidity."

For a long time "books" and "blocks of paper" were so entertwined that publishers didn't have to sort out which one they were more interested in selling--in order to sell book-content, you needed to sell blocks-of-paper, and that meant printers, distributors, front-facing in stores, and a large secondhand market driving new sales by established authors.

That's all wonky now. And it's understandable that they've been thrown for a loop. And they're really not stupid... but wow, they've got a lot of inertia (and a lot of investments) tied up in that "books=blocks-of-paper" concept, and they're fighting hard to keep it that way.

Which, when directly compared to small, nimble companies and individual author success stories, makes them look stupid. (And then they lash out at authors, which makes them look more stupid.)

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I'm guessing Big Publishing House, except that a lot of people around here seem to think they are stupid.

I don't think they're stupid. In the words of Charles Portis:

"You think I am wrong."
"I think you are wrongheaded."

It pretty much sums up how I feel about a lot of traditional publishing houses.

[plib]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I don't think they're stupid. In the words of Charles Portis:

"You think I am wrong."
"I think you are wrongheaded."

It pretty much sums up how I feel about a lot of traditional publishing houses.

Is that different from:

"You think I am thick."
"I think you are thickheaded."

[stonetools]

Note that despite the popular meme here that authors and BPHs are opposed, in the end they are on the same side.They are both in the book creation game-which is why authors are supporting the BPHs in this dispute.
Both are eating from the same pot-which is why there are going to oppose those who might want to make that pot smaller.

[DiapDealer]

It's also a popular meme to invent imaginary memes... or a non-existent consensus where none actually exists. There is no X is completely hand-in-hand with Y against/for Z.

I would also argue that publishers are not really in the "creation game." They are in the business of making money from other's creations... nothing more. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that. They are in the selling/promotion game after all.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Note that despite the popular meme here that authors and BPHs are opposed, in the end they are on the same side.They are both in the book creation game-which is why authors are supporting the BPHs in this dispute.

Some authors are supporting the BPHs. Authors who are making a living away from them, are not. Some of the authors who are making a living with them, aren't happy about their activities. When almost 2/3 of a group of employees (or clients, or whatever authors are to BPHs) would switch to a different company *for the same amount of money*... they're doing something wrong.

Several BPHs seem to have the attitude of, "as long as we all offer the *same* lousy terms to authors, none of us will have problems signing on enough talent, because there's nowhere else they can go."

Both are eating from the same pot-which is why there are going to oppose those who might want to make that pot smaller.

They're not eating from the same pot. That's part of the BPH propaganda: that only X people are reading, and they're only willing to spend Y dollars, and therefore all marketing, contract negotiations, and sales venues are a zero-sum game; there's no *gain* in ebooks, just a transfer of income from paper to e-formats.

It's not true. John Locke sold a million one-dollar ebooks to people who would never have bought a paper copy. There's no evidence *at all* that he would have sold 200,000 paper books at $4.99 instead; his ebook market didn't cut into the paper market. Konrath's publishing house believes that his ebooks "need" to be priced at $7-12 to profit; Konrath's self-releases are proving that very wrong.

BPHs are invested in selling books to their known market pool. Indie authors are able to look outside of that, to people who never bought books directly from BPHs--both the used-book market that's happy to buy books at $4 or less, regardless of whether those books give royalties to authors, and a large market of mostly-non-readers who will try books if they're convenient enough.

BPHs are trying to push ebooks on them, and making decent sales with their $12.99 sales pitches. And then they're *losing* those customers as they slowly figure out that a BPH logo is not a mark of literary or formatting quality in ebooks, and with a bit of time spent reading reviews, they can happily glut themselves on $4 books that are just as enjoyable.

[stonetools]

Some authors are supporting the BPHs. Authors who are making a living away from them, are not. Some of the authors who are making a living with them, aren't happy about their activities. When almost 2/3 of a group of employees (or clients, or whatever authors are to BPHs) would switch to a different company *for the same amount of money*... they're doing something wrong.

One of the things a few authors do these days is pop off on the Internet about disputes with their publishers. Publishers could respond in the same fashion but don't, for various reasons. These author's rants tend to be rebroadcast by folks who have an axe to grind against the "BPHs", . Those folks then go on to talk about widespread author discontent with publishers. In reality, the vast majority of authors are OK with their publishers. They may not LOVE their publishers, but so what-its a business relationship. If another publisher came up with a better offer, I would switch too.

Several BPHs seem to have the attitude of, "as long as we all offer the *same* lousy terms to authors, none of us will have problems signing on enough talent, because there's nowhere else they can go."

Oddly, most of these BPHs seem to have no problem signing and keeping authors-including authors who have had success self-publishing. Maybe those terms aren't so lousy in reality.

They're not eating from the same pot. That's part of the BPH propaganda: that only X people are reading, and they're only willing to spend Y dollars, and therefore all marketing, contract negotiations, and sales venues are a zero-sum game; there's no *gain* in ebooks, just a transfer of income from paper to e-formats.

It's not true. John Locke sold a million one-dollar ebooks to people who would never have bought a paper copy. There's no evidence *at all* that he would have sold 200,000 paper books at $4.99 instead; his ebook market didn't cut into the paper market. Konrath's publishing house believes that his ebooks "need" to be priced at $7-12 to profit; Konrath's self-releases are proving that very wrong.

Ah,but they do eat from the same pot . Both BPHs and self-pubbers do the same thing-they create books. They make money by creating books which other folks-book sellers-distribute and sell in one form or another. Mr. Locke, BTW seems to believe that there is a market for print sales of his books

Self-published author John Locke has signed a deal with a traditional publisher. The print editions of John Locke Books will be sold and distributed by Simon & Schuster, the company announced Monday

In the statement, Locke added, "I applaud Simon & Schuster’s incredible vision, and their willingness to provide a vehicle that allows all readers traditional access to my books."

LINK

No enmity there.

BPHs are invested in selling books to their known market pool. Indie authors are able to look outside of that, to people who never bought books directly from BPHs--both the used-book market that's happy to buy books at $4 or less, regardless of whether those books give royalties to authors, and a large market of mostly-non-readers who will try books if they're convenient enough.

Actually, indie authors-like BPHs-are looking for paying customers anywhere they can-as it should be. Indies are making a bet that their book can find a market on the Internet, and price their books to sell in the hopes of finding that market. Once they find that market, they become attractive to traditional publishers, who may have "passed" on making a bet earlier. The authors and publishers then "make a bet" on the next book, and the publisher is now more comfortable on laying money down in the form of an advance. In that way the publisher splits the risk of future success or failure with the author, instead of the author laying down only his money alone on the next "hand".
FWIW, its not clear at all to me that non-readers are prevented by price or inconvenience from trying books. My experience is that people either like to read, or they don't-and if they like to read, they'll buy books .

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

FWIW, its not clear at all to me that non-readers are prevented by price or inconvenience from trying books. My experience is that people either like to read, or they don't-and if they like to read, they'll buy books .

I used to think that. Since my husband got an ereader and showed it around to the guys in his model club, several of them have gotten ereaders and started reading. They'd been effectively non-readers for decades--but now that "book" didn't mean "carry around heavy block paper" or "carry one flimsy block of paper and hope that when you're in the mood to read, it's the right genre," they've rediscovered reading.

Most of them are happy with Gutenberg's collection; they each have a list of classics they'd always intended to read and never gotten around to, and are delighted to find that they're available for free and can be carried in their pockets.

Also, the notion that "if they like to read, they'll buy books" assumes that books are within their budget. The BPHs disdain any customers whose book budgets are less than $10/month--and miss out on the fact that there are millions of those people. (A lot of those are minors. Their transition into the ebook market is bumpy; they have a choice of "adult-controlled reading" or "random freebies" or "bootleg books." Those who like reading don't tend to settle for the adult-control requirements, and whichever of the other options they choose, the BPHs have lost a chance to build connections with a future customer.)

[kennyc]

I agree with everything Elf says and disagree with everything tools says.