Amazon vs. Hachette Update - It's About Price

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Someone should find out what percentage Hachette authors signed.

What difference does it make? If the author signed for 5% of net or 95% of net, the author knew what was being offered before signing. I don't think authors or their agents are either ignorant or dumb or were forced to sign such contracts, especially in the ebook age of self-publishing.

What would you do with such information? Will it be relevant to any future action you take?

And how would you compare it to Amazon's split without also valuing the services each provides to authors? And how would you assign a value to Hachette's giving the author both print and ebook publication versus what Amazon gives?

The percentage cannot be viewed in isolation if you want to determine its real value. If all you want is a raw number so you can say "see, Amazon likes authors better than Hachette likes authors" you don't need to know the true figure. It is already common knowledge that in certain instances the percentage Amazon pays self-publishers is higher than the royalty percentage Hachette pays its traditionally published authors, so you can scream from the mountaintop now.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by rhadin

So far, Amazon has only brought to the table suggestions that cost Hachette money. I'm waiting for Amazon to bring some sacrifice of its own to the table.

Then go back to the wholesale model. Hachette makes money, Amazon makes money.

[crossi]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Then go back to the wholesale model. Hachette makes money, Amazon makes money.

Tubemonkey is right. In the wholesale model both authors and publishers were getting more and Amazon was getting less. Sounds like a sacrifice on Amazon's part to me.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Shane R

I'd also call you somewhat of an anomaly. That's not a bad thing, mind you, just recognition that most people find a way to acquire the things that they want at the price point that's set by the seller.

You can list me as a cookie cutter anomaly. I grew up in a family of bibliophiles, and this book buying strategy was taught. I suggest that among people who read several books per week Tubemonkey is fairly normal.

[DuckieTigger]

Rhadin, you are missing the point. It wasn't meant what percentage the Hachette authors get per book , but how many of those signatures are from Hachette authors. Oh wait, let me guess, Hachette already told every author that they are going to get a cut per ebook sale since the shareholders come first.

It is a bunch of baloney too that ebooks have to subsidize the risks of pbooks. The 60% can change real quick if the publishers weren't so stuck up living in the past. The reason for not advocating ebooks is their fear of competition. If they convince people to switch to ebooks then they run the risk of becoming useless. And if they actually and truely are so wonderful, they would remain usefull and wonderful even with a split of 85% ebook to 15% pbook?

But wait, I don't count. I am a member of MobileRead, and not representative. Guess what, you are a member here, does that mean ...

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Third, while Amazon wants to encourage ebook sales, not everyone else does. Regardless of whether one agrees with such a decision, it is as legitimate a business decision to not encourage ebook sales as it is to encourage ebook sales, especially in the current market where the majority of sales are still print.

Amazon doesn't care about pbook sales because bookstores are discriminating against their KDP users and refusing to carry their books. Why should Amazon care. (And whose fault is it?)

Finally, the bottom line is that authors do not have to sign on with Hachette or any other publisher. And when they do sign on, they are aware of the terms. That they continue to sign on or want to sign on with a BPH is an indication, at least to me, that there is still perceived value in being published by a BPH and that authors view that value as part of the compensation they receive.

Except for the ones who signed on before the ebook, where the publisher managed to successfully claim the rights to the ebooks that nobody expected then knew about. Or the ones that signed on without being aware of their options, or because the people they talked to put the fear of indie in them.

So far, Amazon has only brought to the table suggestions that cost Hachette money. I'm waiting for Amazon to bring some sacrifice of its own to the table.

They have. They offered a return to wholesale. Hachette is insisting on Agency as a sticking point, so Amazon is now demanding some concessions in return.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Compensation for authors should be based on actual sales; not some perceived value.

I'm not sure how to reconcile this hypercapitalist statement with the known fact that said monkey patronizes socialistic public libraries

Why stop at authors?

Should book editors -- who can be even more important than the author in determining how good the book is -- also have compensation wholly based on a percentage of sales?

Should the pay of professors be 100 percent based on the number of students signing up for their courses?

Should retail clerks, and wait staff, be paid solely based on a percentage of sales that pass through their hands?

Should acquisitions librarian compensation be directly proportional to the number of patrons who borrow the books they select?

Web search indicates that the top leadership of Google and Facebook don't get paid, but Jeff Bezos takes an annual salary, plus $1.6 million for security. Here's a modest proposal. Until he starts giving most of his authors advances, Bezos should be paid just like a Kindle Direct Publishing author -- zero profits to Amazon, zero compensation.

Maybe you are going to say yes to all the above. But it seems pretty harsh to me, especially in the case of low-wage workers such as retail clerks -- and most authors.

Also, as a reader, I believe that if the author doesn't receive an advance, the book is liable to be lousy -- because the publisher has no investment it needs to recoup by making the book as salable as possible. There surely are lots of Kindle Direct Publishing authors who are as good as Hachette authors, but whose books are not, because Amazon has insufficient incentive to improve titles before presenting them to the public.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I'm not sure how to reconcile this hypercapitalist statement with the known fact that said monkey patronizes socialistic public libraries

Why stop at authors?

Should book editors -- who can be even more important than the author in determining how good the book is -- also have compensation wholly based on a percentage of sales?

...
.

It's informative to go read about what Harper Lee went through when she wrote "To Kill a Mockingbird". Apparently, she worked with her editor for two and a half years before she came out with the finished novel. I'm pretty sure this was not a unique experience.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Web search indicates that the top leadership of Google and Facebook don't get paid, but Jeff Bezos takes an annual salary, plus $1.6 million for security. Here's a modest proposal. Until he starts giving most of his authors advances, Bezos should be paid just like a Kindle Direct Publishing author -- zero profits to Amazon, zero compensation.

I agree. I think Bezos is being underpaid as it is.

Maybe you are going to say yes to all the above. But it seems pretty harsh to me, especially in the case of low-wage workers such as retail clerks -- and most authors.

Also, as a reader, I believe that if the author doesn't receive an advance, the book is liable to be lousy -- because the publisher has no investment it needs to recoup by making the book as salable as possible. There surely are lots of Kindle Direct Publishing authors who are as good as Hachette authors, but whose books are not, because Amazon has insufficient incentive to improve titles before presenting them to the public.

The publisher's incentive is to make money. There is just as much incentive without the advance as there is when they pay peanuts in advances.

There are plenty of KDP authors who are good and their books are good, as their sales show. There are plenty of KDP authors who are lousy writers and it reflects in their books and their sales.

There are plenty of authors, both KDP and Hachette, who are good and their books are good, but languish in obscurity because both KDP and Hachette aren't doing a good job promoting them. And in Hachette's case, sometimes, because the book languishes in the slush pile (a concept that once meant the editors read the book and decided it wasn't any good).

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It's informative to go read about what Harper Lee went through when she wrote "To Kill a Mockingbird". Apparently, she worked with her editor for two and a half years before she came out with the finished novel. I'm pretty sure this was not a unique experience.

Ah yes the 50's. It was a different time. Employees took a job expecting to stay with a company for life. Employers invested in their employees. Some large corporations sent silver spoons to their employees when they had babies (engraved with the baby's name). It was a different time, we could wax nostalgic about ages past but alas.... times have changed. So have large corporations and publishing companies.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I'm not sure how to reconcile this hypercapitalist statement with the known fact that said monkey patronizes socialistic public libraries

Why stop at authors?

Should book editors -- who can be even more important than the author in determining how good the book is -- also have compensation wholly based on a percentage of sales?

Should the pay of professors be 100 percent based on the number of students signing up for their courses?

Should retail clerks, and wait staff, be paid solely based on a percentage of sales that pass through their hands?

Should acquisitions librarian compensation be directly proportional to the number of patrons who borrow the books they select?

Web search indicates that the top leadership of Google and Facebook don't get paid, but Jeff Bezos takes an annual salary, plus $1.6 million for security. Here's a modest proposal. Until he starts giving most of his authors advances, Bezos should be paid just like a Kindle Direct Publishing author -- zero profits to Amazon, zero compensation.

Maybe you are going to say yes to all the above. But it seems pretty harsh to me, especially in the case of low-wage workers such as retail clerks -- and most authors.

Also, as a reader, I believe that if the author doesn't receive an advance, the book is liable to be lousy -- because the publisher has no investment it needs to recoup by making the book as salable as possible. There surely are lots of Kindle Direct Publishing authors who are as good as Hachette authors, but whose books are not, because Amazon has insufficient incentive to improve titles before presenting them to the public.

Can we please stop bandying about political labels. They say nothing and act to obscure the real discussion.

So far as why stop at authors go the answer is clear. Writing books is clearly appropriate to this method of payment. Many writers are actually employed, sometimes on salary, in various fields Screenwriting, amd producing technical manuals come immediately to mind. But how many employers are going to pay an author a salary to sit at a desk all day and write a book? How many authors would like or even be able to work this way. Paying by reference to sales is the logical and overwhelmingly most appropriate way to pay for this type of creative work in a way it is not for your examples.

And the top leadership of Google and Facebook don't get paid? Please don't be so naive or pretend to be so naive.

And the only way to make a book as saleable as possible is to have a publisher advance money so that the publisher will then advance more money to make it saleable? Doesn't the author want to make the book saleable. What the author gives up to a BWM publisher makes these little services which may be peformed by such a publisher enormously expensive. Can't the author pay a good editor etc if this is so worthwhile and pay a fraction of what the BWM Publisher extracts (and in dollars too, not flesh).

I think we will find in the future that many self-published authors start using worthwhile services such as editors more and more. A BWM publisher's services in "improving titles" comes at far too high a cost, which is yet another reason their business model is in so much trouble.

[Josieb1]

Originally Posted by darryl

I think we will find in the future that many self-published authors start using worthwhile services such as editors more and more. A BWM publisher's services in "improving titles" comes at far too high a cost, which is yet another reason their business model is in so much trouble.

I the genre I read it's normal to see authors self publish some books and place others with small independent publishers. In both cases the books will be edited, in the case of the self published books the author pays for editing. Even the authors I know who are editors in their day job use a paid editor for their own work.

I find the constant belief that self publishing, ie Indie, means poor unedited work most annoying. Even the print books produced by createspace are of high quality. Perhaps it's time the big publishers looked to the independants for a new business model.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I'm not sure how to reconcile this hypercapitalist statement with the known fact that said monkey patronizes socialistic public libraries

My taxes helped pay for them, so there's nothing to reconcile.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Why stop at authors?

Your examples are about people who are hired to do a particular job. Most authors aren't hired to sit behind desks from 9 to 5 to write books. No parallel.

Maybe you are going to say yes to all the above. But it seems pretty harsh to me, especially in the case of low-wage workers such as retail clerks -- and most authors.

Well, I said no. Most authors aren't salaried. Look; if authors can't support themselves with book sales, then they shouldn't quit their day jobs.

Also, as a reader, I believe that if the author doesn't receive an advance, the book is liable to be lousy -- because the publisher has no investment it needs to recoup by making the book as salable as possible.

Doesn't say much about publishers. How about promoting books so they generate sales? Why do publishers need to be in hock before they do their jobs?

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Josieb1

I the genre I read it's normal to see authors self publish some books and place others with small independent publishers. In both cases the books will be edited, in the case of the self published books the author pays for editing. Even the authors I know who are editors in their day job use a paid editor for their own work.

I find the constant belief that self publishing, ie Indie, means poor unedited work most annoying. Even the print books produced by createspace are of high quality. Perhaps it's time the big publishers looked to the independants for a new business model.

Good point. There are of course many non-BMW authors now who wisely avail themselves of these services. And I agree that the belief you refer to is is both annoying and inaccurate. "Indie" does of course encompass some really terrible writing. When anyone can publish a book so easily this is inevitable. I might add that at least one appallingly written "Indie" book (imho) which I won't name is a runaway best seller. But "Indie" also has a lot of fantastic writing. Personally I have been very pleasantly surprised by the quality, and could easily do without reading another BWM author if I had to. The only thing missing is a good means to sort the wheat from the chaff. But the "chaff" is not limited to "Indie". There is plenty of pretentious garbage and poorly written rubbish published by the BWM.