Amazon vs. Hachette Update - It's About Price

[eschwartz]

Don't forget, you are trying to prove something to me. Why do you persist in saying the equivalent of "you're wrong, and if you want to know why, look it up"?

[mrscoach]

pwalker8, I don't understand your refusal to quote articles. It is allowed, you know, as long as you give credit where it is due. I don't even try the links you post because of paywalls you insist on hiding behind.

Even regular news agencies quote other news agencies and give them credit. I have heard and/or read "CNN is reporting" or "The Washington Post reported". Just don't quote the whole article and you are fine.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by mrscoach

pwalker8, I don't understand your refusal to quote articles. It is allowed, you know, as long as you give credit where it is due. I don't even try the links you post because of paywalls you insist on hiding behind.

Even regular news agencies quote other news agencies and give them credit. I have heard and/or read "CNN is reporting" or "The Washington Post reported". Just don't quote the whole article and you are fine.

As I said

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I know why you posted a paywalled link -- you must be afraid that if we can see where you are basing your claims on, it will turn out you are taking things totally out of context, or jumping to conclusions that are unrealistic. (I could say maybe you made the whole thing up and are hoping nobody will realize, which is technically a valid concern, but unrealistic, because no one is that pathetic. So I won't go there.)

There just isn't any other logical explanation.

[Barcey]

This is a better article on Amazon's latest financial report.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...-services.html

Amazon is in an investment cycle that benefits customers and will eventually end, said Szkutak, without specifying when that will be.

“We have a tremendous amount of opportunity,” he said. While it’s impacting short-term results, he said “we’ll obviously be looking to get great returns on invested capital.”

Looking ahead, Amazon projected sales of $19.7 billion to $21.5 billion for the current quarter. Operating losses are projected to be $810 million to $410 million, Amazon said.

The world’s largest online retailer had a second-quarter loss of $126 million, wider than analysts’ $66.7 million average estimate and a $7 million loss a year earlier. Sales climbed 23 percent to $19.3 billion, while operating expenses increased 24 percent to $19.4 billion, Amazon said in a statement today.

Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bezos’s strategy since Amazon’s inception has been to invest heavily to expand and earn customer loyalty. While the approach has disrupted industries from bookstores and electronics outlets to providers of Web-computing software, it’s been expensive. Amazon began posting quarterly losses in 2012 after being consistently profitable for almost a decade.

“As long as there is money to pour into the business, they will be pouring money into the business,” said Sucharita Mulpuru, an analyst at Forrester Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “If you can spend down all your profit and nobody is going to penalize you for it, why show a profit?”

[gmw]

Originally Posted by ApK

Unless you consider that, as was said earlier, authors are readers first, and readers are customers, and Amazon has more of them on their side.
In which case, I guess it's still a stunt, but a good one, if it works.

Yep, it's quite one sided in that regard. Readers buy from Amazon, and they might choose a book by author, but I know very few who know - let alone care - who the publisher was. (The most I'll usually do his hunt down UK or Australian editions - to avoid the worst of the American covers, I don't really care about the language aspect, we're bilingual here in Austalia, we read both English and American .) From a PR perspective Amazon is well ahead - with or without their self-pub author email stunt.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by mrscoach

pwalker8, I don't understand your refusal to quote articles. It is allowed, you know, as long as you give credit where it is due. I don't even try the links you post because of paywalls you insist on hiding behind.

Even regular news agencies quote other news agencies and give them credit. I have heard and/or read "CNN is reporting" or "The Washington Post reported". Just don't quote the whole article and you are fine.

I did quote it, or at least paraphrased. The precise quote is
"
...
At the same time, Amazon may feel pressure to improve its profitability after a disappointing second quarter wounded its stock last month. The company reported a wider-than-expected loss of $126 million despite a 23% jump in revenue. It projected an operating loss of as much as $810 million in the current period.
...
"

[JSWolf]

have a look at the following article...

Four Questions for...Hugh Howey
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/b...ugh-howey.html

With the Amazon-Hachette dispute showing no signs of resolution, PW spoke to Wool author Hugh Howey, who has been an outspoken advocate for Amazon, about the ongoing stalemate, e-book pricing and where he thinks this situation is headed.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

As I said



There just isn't any other logical explanation.

Seriously, what is your problem? The logical answer is that I happened to see the information that was pertinent to the matter being discussed, so I posted the information and included a link. If you are too cheap to pay for information and too lazy to research it yourself, that's not my problem.

[JSWolf]

Our books launched Amazon on the road to selling everything and becoming one of the world's largest corporations. We have made Amazon many millions of dollars and over the years have contributed so much, free of charge, to the company by way of cooperation, joint promotions, reviews and blogs. This is no way to treat a business partner. Nor is it the right way to treat your friends.

We made you what you are, so now let us screw over your customers.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Eventually they did, but there was a time when buying direct from S&S was generally the best price out there (barring a big sale somewhere like Fictionwise). For me that was the only reason to buy direct from a big publisher.

I once bought an ePub from S&S and it was a broken mess. Try finding where to contact someone about a problem with an eBook at S&S is worse then pulling teeth with no pain killer.

I did finally manage to fix the mess. The CSS was a nightmare and it had to be cleaned up/fixed. If I was unable to strip the DRM, I would never have fixed it.

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

have a look at the following article...

Four Questions for...Hugh Howey
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/b...ugh-howey.html

Very well put. Thanks for posting this!

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Seriously, what is your problem? The logical answer is that I happened to see the information that was pertinent to the matter being discussed, so I posted the information and included a link. If you are too cheap to pay for information and too lazy to research it yourself, that's not my problem.

I have already answered you above, but in case you didn't notice, I will reiterate:

I am confident in my sources, which say you are wrong. You are trying to prove to me otherwise, and thus, the burden of proof is on you. Your sources are not available to me, so now you try telling me:

that I am required (!!!) to pay money in order to make your arguments more effective!

Does anyone else here get the feeling that we are in Wonderland?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I have already answered you above, but in case you didn't notice, I will reiterate:

I am confident in my sources, which say you are wrong. You are trying to prove to me otherwise, and thus, the burden of proof is on you. Your sources are not available to me, so now you try telling me:

that I am required (!!!) to pay money in order to make your arguments more effective!

Does anyone else here get the feeling that we are in Wonderland?

What do you mean I was trying to prove you otherwise? I was responding to a totally different poster. The fact that I quoted Harry T's post in my reply was probably a real big clue to anyone who was actually paying attention.

So your anonymous sources trumps my linking to the WSJ. Hum, I think I'll stick with the WSJ on this one. They have a pretty good track record for financial matters. Yea, I feel like I'm in Wonderland, but I suspect we disagree on who the Mad Hatter is in this thread.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

Very well put. Thanks for posting this!

Your welcome.

I think what Hugh Howey said is very clear and very relevant.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

We made you what you are, so now let us screw over your customers.

We, meaning the people who buy eBooks shortly after release, made they what they are?

What about those who buy hardcovers, at or near list price, from independent bookshops?

What about acquisitions librarians who buy Hachette eBooks at much higher prices than were charged under agency?

What about the book purchasers in France, where I think Hachette still sells more books than in the English speaking countries combined, and where book discounting is legally limited to 5 percent?

What about the people who buy several Hachette titles from remainder tables, rather than one new one?

What about me, when I flew on an Airbus? (Hachette's parent had a significant stake, since sold.)

What about Malcolm Gladwell?

What about Robert Galbraith AKA J. K. Rowling?

What about J. D. Salinger?

What about the editors?

What about the janitors who make it a clean place to work?

I'm not dismissing the importance of the people you term "we" when it comes to making Hachette an artistic and commercial success, to the degree it is either. But this "we" shouldn't be considered more important than the other groups making the company what it is.