Amazon: Business As Usual?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by marcsec

I'm intrigued, however - does anyone know what market share Indies are taking in the marketplace for books? Does anyone track this? Obviously the playing field is changing, but by how much and how quickly?

Have you been to the AuthorEarnings website?
It has been posting reports on the Amazon side of indie publishing. Indies command about a third of unit sales there. Last year, Nook reported that 25% of their sales are indie. Kobo is probably about the same, Apple and Google less.

Current estimates put indie sales on track for about $1B in sales for 2014. Works out to over 300M books sold. No direct threat to the Randy Penguin but since it represents over $500M in author revenue it is equivalent (from the author side) to some $4B in BPH sales.

Whatever the actual numbers might be, two facts are certain: indies make up a significant portion of the trade book business (especially the genres--most especially romance) and it is still growing. Fast.

As to the value of publishing houses; yes, of course they do provide value. It is declining in proportion to the decline in shelf-space in B&M stores and the increas in ebook penetration but still substantial.

The question that indie publishing poses is whether that value is proportional to the contract terms the BPHs impose on (non-brand name) authors. Things like life of copyright deals, low advances, low royalties based on ill-defined "net", onerous non-compete clauses, extended rights of first refusal (one regional publisher demands 21 years), and lately, some contracts don't even guarantee a print edition.

Smaller publishers are less predatory but the big ones can be very hard on an author's carreer. So, lately, a large portion of newcomers are simply opting not to submit at all and ramp up their brand and readership on their own.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Not good for authors, readers, or Amazon.
(Look to Microsoft for a precedent.)

Not going go happen, either.
Worst case scenario would be an 80/20 market split between Amazon and Apple, which is plenty bad anyway.

I agree. You need competition to keep companies in line. If Amazon is the only book seller, then they will jack the prices way up. In addition, competition forces companies to innovate in ways that consumers prefer. The customer wins if you have multiple book stores.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by WillAdams

Yeah, because Amazon does such an amazingly good job of:

- selecting books which are worthy of publication
- editing books so that they have a consistent style / voice
- fact-checking
- clearing copyrights and usages
- designing beautiful text pages
- typesetting beautiful text pages
- re-drawing images so that they represent what the author actually wanted
- hiring illustrators and photographers to make nice covers

Please, I don't see how anyone could describe a descent to all things being self-published as desirable in any way, shape, manner or form.

Exactly. Many great works of literature only exist because they were commissioned by publishers or the publishers served as motivators and critics for the authors.
Well, I was really looking forward to watching "The Third Man" and Fritz Lang's "M" again, but I have been persuaded in this thread that I should rather watch peoples' smartphone cat videos on youtube. So much better than those amateurish works in black and white...

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by sirmaru

So far as I know, no one sells 78 RPM Vinyl anymore. I don't buy CD's anymore but just buy my songs as mp3 files from Amazon. I don't think anyone sells video tape anymore since DVD's are sooooooo much better especially if one rents them from Netflix.

My old TV's, which got 8 stations over the air using cathode ray tubes, are gone forever. My present LCD TV's get hundreds of stations from Cable.

Today's high definition, color movies make the old black and white movies seem to be primitive hobbyist productions. Most can be watched on Netflix within a few months of their introductions in theaters. Thus, I haven't been to a theater since Netflix appeared. Finally, ordinary people with cell phones can take videos of superb quality making the professional black and white films of the past really amateurish.

I used to be able to get a few radio stations over the air on my old radios. Today my internet radios get thousands of stations from radio internet sites all over the planet. My old car radios were lucky to get a few stations over the air. My present car radio gets hundreds of stations from all over the world using Satellites.

So far as I know no one buys books on handwritten scrolls anymore.

Prior to 25 years ago eBooks were not even the subject of science fiction. Not even the old "Twilight Zone" scifi series of the early 60's even mentioned that concept.

NOTHING has stayed the same. So I still think eBooks will replace pBooks for 98% of readers in 10 years. They are more easily distributed, have a variety of fonts for every reader and can be read on all sorts of devices from PC's to Tablets to eInk Readers to cell phones to the new Google Wearables.

Print books, the same as scroll books, will always be of interest to scholars and places of learning. However, for the mass of retail book readers eBooks and even more advanced ways of transferring collections of words will be the way to go.

Finally, the old print books required good vision near 20/20 or glasses to correct to that level to read those books since the fonts were fixed. Today folks with very poor vision can select proper fonts and never need glasses at all to correct vision to read. That factor alone makes print books totally OBSOLETE in addition to making custom reading glasses also totally unnecessary for most people.

In my world more than 50% still listen to the radio either at home or in their vehicles. And probably 90% still use satellite TV as opposed to internet TV.

And even among the young and technical crowd more read paper than ebooks. I see at least 30 people a day reading paper and maybe 20 a week reading electronically other than facebook/twitter etc.. And newspapers disappear faster than the bus can bring them.

Helen

[ebusinesstutor]

I do agree that there can be a problem with self publishing quality, spelling errors, typos, etc. But even ebooks released by many traditional publishers are plagued with these.

As far as traditional publishing being gatekeepers that create quality by only letting good books be published, I don't believe that is true.

Their record is spotty.

Traditional pubishing rejected many authors who are now successful including Agatha Christie, J.K. Rowling, Louis L'Amour, Dr. Suess, Zane Grey, CS Lewis, and many others.

I think that self publishing is great because it lets authors publish more easily and reach readers. Success will be based on how much people like the books and want to buy more rather than your book being rejected for bogus reasons.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by ebusinesstutor

I do agree that there can be a problem with self publishing quality, spelling errors, typos, etc. But even ebooks released by many traditional publishers are plagued with these.

As far as traditional publishing being gatekeepers that create quality by only letting good books be published, I don't believe that is true.

Their record is spotty.

Well, all new ebooks I read do not have this problem. Do you have any example of this for books that are not converted by scanning?

Traditional pubishing rejected many authors who are now successful including Agatha Christie, J.K. Rowling, Louis L'Amour, Dr. Suess, Zane Grey, CS Lewis, and many others.

Well, of course they did not reject the books since they were published. But just because a book at a specific time is right for one publisher does not mean it is right for all publisher at all times.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, all new ebooks I read do not have this problem. Do you have any example of this for books that are not converted by scanning?

I have some examples.

Main Battle Tank by Niall Edworthy (non-fiction):

With the AFV 432 vehicle pinned down by the hail of fire

The correct designation is FV432.

manned by a REME fitter section, and an AVF 430 ambulance.

I'm not sure what "AVF 430 ambulance" refers to. The book is about a British tank regiment in Iraq in 2003. My first thought was that it meant the FV430 Mk3 Bulldog, but that didn't enter service until some years later.

It also uses the acronym "ATW" for "anti-tank weapon", an acronym neither I, nor anyone else I've asked, has ever come across before. The more usual acronyms are ATGW (anti-tank guided weapon) or ATGM (anti-tank guided missile).

Empire of Ivory by Naomi Novik has the remarkable typo "and I hope you will permit me to suggest, Wilberforcewritten had, that any Oriental touch"

Victory of Eagles by Naomi Novik (these are also present in my paperback copy):

‘There girl, hold fast, hold fast—’ The captain of the gun-crew spoke to the canon as if she were a skittish horse,

where two enormous heavyweight dragons were holding on to it: a Grand Chevalier, and a Parnassian, middle-aged, likely traded to France during an earlier peacetime, and a Grand Chevalier.

But the Regal Copper did not take the hint; or at any rate he did not choose to go. but instead settled himself

I've seen others, but those were the ones that I could immediately remember well enough to find easily.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by avantman42

I have some examples.

Main Battle Tank by Niall Edworthy (non-fiction):

The correct designation is FV432.

I'm not sure what "AVF 430 ambulance" refers to. The book is about a British tank regiment in Iraq in 2003. My first thought was that it meant the FV430 Mk3 Bulldog, but that didn't enter service until some years later.

It also uses the acronym "ATW" for "anti-tank weapon", an acronym neither I, nor anyone else I've asked, has ever come across before. The more usual acronyms are ATGW (anti-tank guided weapon) or ATGM (anti-tank guided missile).

These aren't ebook specific AFAIK, IIRC they're the same in the print book and not scanning/ocr errors.

I guess the author is using the generic term AFV (Armored Fighting Vehicle) for some reason? I suppose the 430 ambulance could refer generically to a FV432 that was outfitted as an ambulance since it's part of the 430 series of vehicles?

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

These aren't ebook specific AFAIK, IIRC they're the same in the print book and not scanning/ocr errors.

In the case of Victory of Eagles, the errors are present in my ebook and paperback copies. I imagine the errors will be in the paper copies of the others, too, but I can't say for sure. tompe did specifically ask for examples that were not the result of scanning.

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

I guess the author is using the generic term AFV (Armored Fighting Vehicle) for some reason?

That's my guess, too. None the less, it's an error. British army AFVs are given FV numbers, hence the correct designation for the APC is FV432. In the same way, the current British main battle tank is "FV4034 Challenger 2", not "AFV4034 Challenger 2"

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

I suppose the 430 ambulance could refer generically to a FV432 that was outfitted as an ambulance since it's part of the 430 series of vehicles?

Again, though, it's not the correct designation. All the FV430 series had their own number, and so the relevant number should have been used, especially since there is now (and was in 2010, the copyright date of the book) a vehicle designated FV430 in service.

I'd have accepted something along the lines of "FV430 series ambulance", since that makes it clear that it's a member of the FV430 series, rather than an FV430.

These may seem like I'm being pedantic (and maybe I am), but this is a non-fiction book. When I find errors like that in a non-fiction book, I start to wonder what errors there are that I'm not seeing, and that makes me start to distrust the whole thing. I finally gave up about half-way through, because I just couldn't trust what I was reading

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I agree. You need competition to keep companies in line. If Amazon is the only book seller, then they will jack the prices way up. In addition, competition forces companies to innovate in ways that consumers prefer. The customer wins if you have multiple book stores.

Well, the multiple bookstores went out a long time ago when Barnes & Noble ran most all of the mom & pop bookstores out of business and then one by one, killed the smaller mall bookstores. Barnes & Noble accomplished this feat with discounting, of all things. How ironic. So am I supposed to cry a river for Barnes & Noble now? Here's what you need to do Barnes & Noble ... COMPETE with Amazon. Don't try to sell at your set-in-stone prices and whine that Amazon is taking the lion's share of the business. After all, Amazon was once the "little guy."

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Well, the multiple bookstores went out a long time ago when Barnes & Noble ran most all of the mom & pop bookstores out of business and then one by one, killed the smaller mall bookstores. Barnes & Noble accomplished this feat with discounting, of all things. How ironic. So am I supposed to cry a river for Barnes & Noble now? Here's what you need to do Barnes & Noble ... COMPETE with Amazon. Don't try to sell at your set-in-stone prices and whine that Amazon is taking the lion's share of the business. After all, Amazon was once the "little guy."

Actually, the way B&N won was not by being cheaper, but rather customer experience at roughly the same price. The fundamental difference between Amazon and brick and mortar stores is that a physical store draws customers from those who are within an easy travel distance, while Amazon has no such limitation.

There are few companies that survive for long in a race to the bottom with regards to price. More than price, Amazon provides convenience and customer service. IMPO, an online bookstore could compete with Amazon by providing a better shopping experience. For a long while, there was a big issue with being able to port books from device to device, but with more and more people reading on tablets rather than dedicated ebook readers, I don't think that will be as big of a problem.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I agree. You need competition to keep companies in line. If Amazon is the only book seller, then they will jack the prices way up. In addition, competition forces companies to innovate in ways that consumers prefer. The customer wins if you have multiple book stores.

Maybe they will, but no slid evidence that they will be that stupid. A jack up of prices would be a boon to competition. And Amazon has built their success on innovation.

Both Amazon and Wal-Mart basically started from nothing and 'took over' They both took on centuries of established businesses and rose pretty high. Not saying I like this, but it would just be sour grapes and pointless whining to blame them for achieving what most businesses strive to accomplish.

And neither of them has closed the market to competitors. Someone else will eventually do it as well or better. Nothing new there. Amazon, as I see it is very vulnerable in non US markets. Many of us resent that Amazon prices in our country are higher than B&M stores.

I have seen a lot of big and small businesses become extinct long before the internet and find it regretful in most cases, but it is possibly another form of evolution. The doom you keep prophesizing due to Amazon monopolization is no more likely to happen then It ever was. Amazon too will possibly become a dinosaur one day, but even if they don't I cannot see them gaining world control, even on ebooks.

Helen

[pwalker8]

When you have a monopoly, price and quality tend to slip. I can't think of very many times where this doesn't happen over time and can give a whole lot of examples where it does. It doesn't happen immediately after establishing a monopoly position, but over time as upper management gets complacent and distracted.

It isn't whining to point out that consumers are usually better served by competition than by no competition. You rather obviously misunderstand my position. I like Amazon, they do a good job. I just think that they need competition to keep them focused.

[TCSimpson]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

And probably 90% still use satellite TV as opposed to internet TV.

And even among the young and technical crowd more read paper than ebooks. I see at least 30 people a day reading paper and maybe 20 a week reading electronically other than facebook/twitter etc.. And newspapers disappear faster than the bus can bring them.

Helen

Guess it depends on where you live or what you describe as satellite TV. Here in NYC, it's all things cable with tons of folks watching via the internet over smart phones, tablets et al, or having their internet connected to their TVs and using a service like Hulu, Netflix to catch up on shows.

As far as reading, I ride the subways daily. In every subway car, which routinely carry from 100 to 150 people, there a few things you will see. About 10 to 15 folks reading via their phones or tablets or readers, and maybe 3 or 4 print books. Many other folks are on their phones and tablets playing games etc. Every train has 10 cars.

I'm also in the park on a daily basis here to run and I see more folks with tablets and ereaders than I do print books, lounging on their towels or folding chairs.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

When you have a monopoly, price and quality tend to slip. I can't think of very many times where this doesn't happen over time and can give a whole lot of examples where it does. It doesn't happen immediately after establishing a monopoly position, but over time as upper management gets complacent and distracted.

It isn't whining to point out that consumers are usually better served by competition than by no competition. You rather obviously misunderstand my position. I like Amazon, they do a good job. I just think that they need competition to keep them focused.

Certainly competition is better. And I am not sure what you mean by focused. Are you saying Amazon are not focused?

Anyway bring on the whole lot of examples of monopolies that are independent businesses with a wide variety of products and interests (companies like Amazon that carry a multitude of products for example or even large conglomerates with diverse interests.) that have survived in the general marketplace long enough to destroy all competition or even 50% of it.
When management gets complacent or distracted, then generally the business itself suffers not, as you seem to imply (probably I am misunderstanding you) in a better position to be monopolistic and gouge consumers.

Only way I see it that your fears will realize is if Amazon buys all of the publishing companies, and all of the authors, and all of the diaper manufacturers of all of the goods that they sell. Could happen of course, but seems unlikely. And of course there may be many other ways this can happen that I am unaware of.

Looking forward to the list of very many times you have as I am sure I will learn a lot.

Thanks

helen