Publishers Weekly: Will the Agency Model Survive?

[pwalker8]

I guess this is where I could start comments about Amazon fan boys who think it's great when Amazon uses it's near monopoly to punish suppliers who object to Amazon dictating price to customers, but think it's evil, evil, evil when other companies offer those suppliers an option. It's not the first time that Amazon has used it's market share to retaliate against a supplier who wouldn't cave to Amazon's wishes.

Frankly, if the government would simply stay out of it and stop trying to dictate winners and losers, then the market would resolve all this in time.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Mr Sullivan's titles are available at B&N for immediate pickup or delivery within 24 hours at a 25% discount.

I checked my #1-bestseller-in-genre example (Instinct by T. J. Jakes). Overnight Amazon raised the hardcover price by 46 cents to $15.46, with shipping still 3-5 weeks. Barnes & Noble charges more ($17.50) but marks it "usually ships within 24 hours . . . same day delivery in Manhattan."

Perhaps Sullivan is treated differently because of being paperback-first.

As for who to believe on the question of whether Hachette takes a month to ship orders, since Barnes & Noble can ship same day, and it's in the publisher's interest to ship quickly, I'm thinking the publisher is more credible on that.

Originally Posted by crossi

Why should Amazon's preferred marketing method force lower quality? . . . After the Agency agreement Amazon actually got more money from each sale, the publishers and authors got less and the public paid more. THAT would force lower quality books not anything Amazon did.

If the supposedly ignorant and backward publishers cared only about the profits for the next couple quarters, they would agree with you. But if Amazon can dictate marketing methods, they can dictate prices paid their suppliers, as in the WalMart example. Indeed, I think that the stock market would demand that they use their power to either increase prices to consumers or reduce those paid to suppliers.

[jemc]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I checked my #1-bestseller-in-genre example (Instinct by T. J. Jakes). Overnight Amazon raised the hardcover price by 46 cents to $15.46, with shipping still 3-5 weeks. Barnes & Noble charges more ($17.50) but marks it "usually ships within 24 hours . . . same day delivery in Manhattan."

Perhaps Sullivan is treated differently because of being paperback-first.

As for who to believe on the question of whether Hachette takes a month to ship orders, since Barnes & Noble can ship same day, and it's in the publisher's interest to ship quickly, I'm thinking the publisher is more credible on that.

Because B&N has the book in their warehouse and Amazon has to wait for the "timely delivery" of their order?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by jemc

Because B&N has the book in their warehouse and Amazon has to wait for the "timely delivery" of their order?

Or because they *choose* not to ship as soon as they get the order.

Remember, in the BPH worldview, people who want their books want just that book, regardless of price. (They don't believe in price elasticity, only reader-spend, which is why they want Agency so badly). So they're betting that if Amazon won't deliver it quickly, readers will rush to get it at B&N. A more pliant vendor these days, at that.

Amazon seems to be betting that if Hachette books are harder to get, the reader will move on to the next title on their wishlist. So instead of business as usual--stockpiling, at their expense, weeks or months of any given title--they treat them like special order items and let Hachette decide how fast to fulfill the order.

The Hachette complaint that it's Amazon's fault for placing "small orders" makes it clear both sides are playing one-upmanship. No good guys, no bad guys, no clean hands: just two giant multinationals jockeying for position. Standard business negotiations.

And as typical for the book business, it is the authors who get stuck powerless in the middle.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Or because they *choose* not to ship as soon as they get the order.


Amazon seems to be betting that if Hachette books are harder to get, the reader will move on to the next title on their wishlist. So instead of business as usual--stockpiling, at their expense, weeks or months of any given title--they treat them like special order items and let Hachette decide how fast to fulfill the order.

I am not seeing the point in this. Does the average person have a wishlist that they actually follow and if so, are they that likely to just go with the second choice and forgo the first because of shipping? I would be more likely to exhaust all other options and if another supplier is faster, they may become my first shopping choice.

Before eBooks it wasn't easy to order books in the store. I tried a few times at both large and smaller venders and had zero luck, so I have never developed the habit of pre ordering etc. and I know if I had a wishlist it would grow so fast as to make it too cumbersome to be useful.

My roommates used to order books but always ordered several at once and didn't seem to care when they arrived.

I would think that delay tactics would just send the majority of impatient people to B&M stores or libraries etc.

Helen

[crossi]

Except for a very few must read right now new releases, waiting has never been a problem for me. I always kept a notebook of books I wanted and their projected release dates. If the book was a hardback I noted it's release date and waited a year for the MM paperback, both for the money savings and because I disliked the size and weight of hardbacks or the larger paperback size. My current wishlist must be about 500 ebooks. Some of course I want more than others but on the whole since I'm still working through my already bought ebooks I feel no great urgency to buy them now. Even if I bought them now they would just sit on the bottom of my TBR list for months at least. It seems weird to me to want one and only one book and no other would do for now. So yes if a book isn't immediately available I'm quite happy to go on to one a the 500 other books I want to read.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I would think that delay tactics would just send the majority of impatient people to B&M stores or libraries etc.

Helen

Hachette seems to think do. (Which, again, suggests Hachette is the one delaying deliveries in retaliation for Amazon cutting back on bulk orders.)

Amazon knows their customers, though. While I don't know how many of their customers actively use their wishlist feature, it seems to be fairly popular. They also know know the search and purchase patterns of their customers so they know what percentage of buyers pop in to buy a specific title and only that title.

Time (and the next quarterly financials) will tell who ends up hurting more.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by crossi

Except for a very few must read right now new releases, waiting has never been a problem for me. I always kept a notebook of books I wanted and their projected release dates. If the book was a hardback I noted it's release date and waited a year for the MM paperback, both for the money savings and because I disliked the size and weight of hardbacks or the larger paperback size. My current wishlist must be about 500 ebooks. Some of course I want more than others but on the whole since I'm still working through my already bought ebooks I feel no great urgency to buy them now. Even if I bought them now they would just sit on the bottom of my TBR list for months at least. It seems weird to me to want one and only one book and no other would do for now. So yes if a book isn't immediately available I'm quite happy to go on to one a the 500 other books I want to read.

Well, mostly. I will happily wait for all but a few must-read-nows, until the library has it available or it reaches the front of my TBR. In which case I buy it a few weeks early.

Assuming I want the pbook anyway.

I have no shortage of books to read.

[tompe]

But a book become a bestseller only if people that usually do not read a lot of books buy it and for them a bestseller is not replaceable with another book.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tompe

But a book become a bestseller only if people that usually do not read a lot of books buy it and for them a bestseller is not replaceable with another book.

Hachette accounted for 15% of traditionally published bestsellers in 2013.

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/b...ler-lists.html

66 titles out of well over 300,000 titles in the US. The Randy Penguin alone dropped 50000 titles on the market and over 200 bestsellers.

And, these days bestseller status doesn't necessarily mean 6-7 figure sales, either.

[DiapDealer]

This is really just business as usual between "large" retailers and publishers when it comes time to renew contracts. They fight, they argue, they sling some mud and try to make the other look like the devil. Then they work something out. These battles just usually don't get all that much press is all. I don't remember nearly the same level of public outcry when B&N tried to strong-arm Simon & Schuster in a similar manner a year or so ago.

I have to admit, though; part of me is really appreciating the irony of an original Price-Fix Six publisher's stuff not being discounted enough by Amazon.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Frankly, if the government would simply stay out of it and stop trying to dictate winners and losers, then the market would resolve all this in time.

Perhaps instead of suggesting that the gov't simply stop doing what they're currently actually mandated to do, you might focus your efforts on getting those mandates removed/repealed instead.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I guess this is where I could start comments about Amazon fan boys who think it's great when Amazon uses it's near monopoly to punish suppliers who object to Amazon dictating price to customers, but think it's evil, evil, evil when other companies offer those suppliers an option. It's not the first time that Amazon has used it's market share to retaliate against a supplier who wouldn't cave to Amazon's wishes.

Frankly, if the government would simply stay out of it and stop trying to dictate winners and losers, then the market would resolve all this in time.

Your post is written as if there is some connection between the first paragraph and the second, but I am missing it.

And where in this thread is this fanboy-ism of which you speak?

Helen

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

And where in this thread is this fanboy-ism of which you speak?

Mr. Walker doesn't like Amazon. Therefore *anyone* who writes *anything* in support of Amazon is a Fanboy. Ipso facto.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Mr. Walker doesn't like Amazon. Therefore *anyone* who writes *anything* in support of Amazon is a Fanboy. Ipso facto.

It's not like pointing out the stupidity of Hachette's tactics equals cheering for Amazon.