Literary elites v. Amazon: yes, it's class warfare

[darryl]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Go to the book clubs section of MobileRead:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=245

Then look at the threads on nominations and voting.

I haven't worked out the statistics, but most of those titles are from large commercial publishers, even though the great majority of available eBooks are self-published.

So, when it comes to what counts most for me -- product quality -- not only do I praise the traditional publishers, so do a great many of us here, as shown by actual behavior. And this is despite being in a forum unusually friendly to self publishing.

I would point out that we are in a period of transition and will be for some time. I expect we will see more Indie titles as time goes by.

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

One part of their business model that's becoming obsolete is the cookbook. It is being harmed by free recipes on web sites. But that's not what these threads are about.

True. Though I suspect there will always be a place for a well done (no pun intended) printed cook-book with nice colour photographs.

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Not obsolete is the model of paying advances to narrative authors on speculation that their book proposals, or manuscripts in need of editing, can be shaped into profitable products. This still works by producing books I wish to read. And the model of high prices for customers who who buy books shortly after release, and lower prices (or free through library borrowing) for the masses who wait, still gives them moderate profits, and me great reading experiences.

You have picked only two elements of the BWM publishers business models to comment on. For both, I think time will ultimately tell. I don't think paying advances is necessarily obsolete, though I do expect advances will become much harder to come by. Nevetheless, I can't see the Stephen King's of the literary world ever having any trouble whatsoever in this regard. Likewise, the model of charging more for a book immediately after release and later reducing prices will probably prosper even amongst Indies. Baen's eARC (electronic Advance Reader Copy) concept goes even further.

One aspect of the BWM business model worth considering are the terms of their contracts with authors, including royalty rates and the way royalties are calculated, the treatment of the authors intellectual property, the authors influence over promotion, etc. I expect to see BWM publishers losing authors to Amazon and other ebook publishers, though not the very cream of the best seller authors who are well looked after under the existing model.

The BWM publishers do bundle some very useful services to authors, but they can ultimately come at a very high cost to the author. The unsuccessful books are, in a very broad sense, subsidised by the successful ones. This is a viable business model with higher prices, but much less so in a highly competitive environment, which we now have with ebooks.

But one of, if not the greatest problem for BWM publishers is the conflict between their print book and ebook businesses. I do not think consumers will accept paying print book prices for ebooks, yet the availability of cheaper ebooks no doubt has a detrimental effect on Print Book sales. Thus the BWM, to preserve the viability and maintain the level of their print book business, seek sometimes to delay ebook releases. But more importantly, they set ebook prices by reference to print book prices. This is not a problem faced by Amazon and other Publishers of EBooks where the only time such books see paper is through a print on demand service, if at all. They thus have no need to reference print book pricing at all in the pricing of their ebooks, as they don't really care about preserving a print book business.

And make no mistake. Whilst there will no doubt always be some demand for printed books, ebook are overwhelmingly the way of the future.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I'm afraid that I can't share your faith in the US government as a fair and unbiased arbitrator. The term "crony capitalism" came about for a reason. For all practical purposes, it's impossible to maintain a monopoly without government support and intervention.

In other words, this Administration loves Amazon and hates Apple and the Big 5?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by darryl

And make no mistake. Whilst there will no doubt always be some demand for printed books, ebook are overwhelmingly the way of the future.

Truth!

[Lemurion]

I just figure they should all do what they think is best and let the customers vote with their wallets. Amazon can price books the way they want, BPHs the way they want.

For me, the deciding factor is simple: how badly do I want this book. The more I want it, the more I'm willing to pay. It really is that simple. I'll pay $20 for a book I really want right now, but another may only be worth $0.99 to me. Most importantly, though, this decision is completely decoupled from the question of the publisher.

I don't care who publishes a book: only how much I want to read it.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

For all practical purposes, it's impossible to maintain a monopoly without government support and intervention.

Once again, the parallels between the Apple anti-trust suit and the Microsoft anti-trust suit are quite striking.

Those two cases could not be any more different. One case (Microsoft) the defendant won, the other case the prosecutor won. In both cases both Amazon and Microsoft were not found guilty of breaking the law. Amazon because it was not on trial, and Microsoft because they won in court. In that sense intervention is necessary to protect the status of monopolies. Except not the way you are thinking. A monopolie's status needs to be protected from competitors that try to illegally break them apart if they are uncapable to do so in a fair and legal way. And the status also needs to be protected from forced splitting up without legal grounds.

In an uncontrolled capitalism (no government laws / regulations) eventually there would be nothing but monopolies.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by darryl

If the article did warrant a political rant, it would have been nice if it had more than marginal relevance. The thread had moved to some discussion on accessibility of books. Not to a discussion of greedy billionaires and work practices and allegedly "parasitic" business models. Nor of the taxi industry in your particular part of the world.

Finally, it is interesting to note that you avoid any discussion of the conduct of the traditional publishers but actually praise them!

Don't I love people who appoint themselves arbiters of the discussion. You are at liberty to discuss what you want but you don't own the discussion.

Anyway, I don't have an issue with the publishers. I don't complain about people who provide me with a valuable service wanting to make a decent profit.
The publishers have brought us the wide choice and quality of books that we enjoy today. The publishers aren't easily expendable, but Amazon is.
If Amazon were to collapse tomorrow, the reading habits of most people in the Western world wouldn't change a bit, let alone anywhere else.

Those who are supporting Amazon on MR seem to have a huge sense of entitlement. They want to read the books that are published by the publishers, but they believe that they are entitled to dictate the prices of those books. The ranting against "the elites" is basically not much more than the demand that others should offer you their work at bargain prices.
If indie publishing and Amazon's publishing are so great, then why don't you stick to those books and ignore the ones published by the major publishers?

We have heard plenty of pundits declare all sorts of business models as obsolete in the past, which are still going strong today. I don't believe in unlimited growth of ebooks to the detriment of paper books. Publishers will be around for a long time.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

Those who are supporting Amazon on MR seem to have a huge sense of entitlement. They want to read the books that are published by the publishers, but they believe that they are entitled to dictate the prices of those books.

Set prices too high... well, there are plenty of torrent sites around that have better pricing

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

Don't I love people who appoint themselves arbiters of the discussion. You are at liberty to discuss what you want but you don't own the discussion.

Anyway, I don't have an issue with the publishers. I complain about people who provide me with a valuable service wanting to make a decent profit.
The publishers have brought us the wide choice and quality of books that we enjoy today. The publishers aren't easily expendable, but Amazon is.
If Amazon were to collapse tomorrow, the reading habits of most people in the Western world wouldn't change a bit, let alone anywhere else.

Those who are supporting Amazon on MR seem to have a huge sense of entitlement. They want to read the books that are published by the publishers, but they believe that they are entitled to dictate the prices of those books. The ranting against "the elites" is basically not much more that the demand that others should offer you their work at bargain prices.
If indie publishing and Amazon's publishing are so great, then why don't you stick to those books and ignore the ones published by the major publishers?

We have heard plenty of pundits declare all sorts of business models as obsolete in the past, which are still going strong today. I don't believe in unlimited growth of ebooks to the detriment of paper books. Publishers will be around for a long time.

I'm generally pro-Amazon, but it's not that I want to dictate the prices anyone charges for books. I simply insist on determining the price I am willing to pay. If the BPH charges too much for my tastes, I buy something from someone else, maybe an indie, maybe not.

I may believe some of their prices are out of whack with perceived value, so they would be more successful if the prices were more in line with those perceptions, but that's not the same as saying I'm entitled to lower prices.

I just won't buy it if I think the price is a rip-off, whether it's BPH or indie.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Set prices too high... well, there are plenty of torrent sites around that have better pricing

BINGO! Sooner or later BWM will either comply with the law and with what people want, or the people will find ways around to get what they want without any involvement with the BWM at all! Whether that is going with indies or torrents, we will get what we want one way or another.

The music industry had to learn the hard way, so will the BWM.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

BINGO! Sooner or later BWM will either comply with the law and with what people want, or the people will find ways around to get what they want without any involvement with the BWM at all! Whether that is going with indies or torrents, we will get what we want one way or another.

The music industry had to learn the hard way, so will the BWM.

To my knowledge agency pricing isn't illegal. Therefore I suppose that your demand that the publisher shall "comply with the law" really translates as: "they shall give me the stuff I want for the price I'm willing to pay"
Quite remarkable how the masks are dropping here. All that whining about the nasty publishers and how they broke the law, but if you don't get the stuff you want then you will use illegal means?
It's also quite telling as regards the regular claims that you don't need books published by the publishers with all those indies around.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

In other words, this Administration loves Amazon and hates Apple and the Big 5?

In other words, this and every government tends to listen very closely to those who give them lots of campaign contributions and knows how to play the game. Bezos and others at Amazon donate quite a bit to political groups. There is a reason that many large corporations having lobbying offices in Washington and give money to whomever is in power at the time. Microsoft was sued by the feds in 1998 at the urging of the Netscape CEO, Marc Andreessen.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Those two cases could not be any more different. One case (Microsoft) the defendant won, the other case the prosecutor won. In both cases both Amazon and Microsoft were not found guilty of breaking the law. Amazon because it was not on trial, and Microsoft because they won in court. In that sense intervention is necessary to protect the status of monopolies. Except not the way you are thinking. A monopolie's status needs to be protected from competitors that try to illegally break them apart if they are uncapable to do so in a fair and legal way. And the status also needs to be protected from forced splitting up without legal grounds.

In an uncontrolled capitalism (no government laws / regulations) eventually there would be nothing but monopolies.

You should know that Microsoft was initially found guilty and the judge talked about breaking Microsoft up. The judgement was over turned on appeal and the judge in the case was reprimanded for his lack of impartiality. I note that like Amazon, Netscape was not found guilty of anything either, possibly because both were attempting to take advantage of their contact in the government to gain a competitive advantage. It didn't work out well for Netscape. Amazon seems to be a better run company with an actual plan to make money, something Netscape never seemed to have.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

You should know that Microsoft was initially found guilty and the judge talked about breaking Microsoft up. The judgement was over turned on appeal and the judge in the case was reprimanded for his lack of impartiality. I note that like Amazon, Netscape was not found guilty of anything either, possibly because both were attempting to take advantage of their contact in the government to gain a competitive advantage. It didn't work out well for Netscape. Amazon seems to be a better run company with an actual plan to make money, something Netscape never seemed to have.

Who cares about initially? You are still hoping that Apple will turn over on appeal. And I hope they don't. And even if Apple magically overturns, it changes nothing in regard of Amazon.

You are clutching at straws when you want Apple to use Microsoft as precedent when it comes to impartiality of judge.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

BINGO! Sooner or later BWM will either comply with the law . . .

What publisher violated the law this year?

What publisher other Macmillan (who settled last, in February 2013) violated the law last year?

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by rhadin

True, but we aren't discussing conspiracy to fix prices; we are discussing whether the publisher or the retailer should be able to set the price. As even the DOJ conceded, agency pricing is not illegal; what is illegal is entering into a conspiracy.



The fallacy here is that it assumes there is an entitlement to have immediate access to all things. Being able to own a car is also important. The fact that I can't afford a Rolls Royce doesn't mean RR needs to lower its price so I can buy one. I need to wait and save my money. Readers aren't entitled to immediate access and if they want immediate access, they spend the money on the book instead of a meal out or some other thing. We all have to make choices in daily purchasing.

As for being part of the conversation, the fallacy with the argument is that it assumes (a) everyone wants to be part of the conversation immediately and (b) that everyone is entitled to be part of the conversation immediately. Neither has never been the true and never will be true. Even the vaunted Athenian democracy only allowed certain citizens to participate. And it was centuries before women were allowed to participate in the conversation and when the suffrage movement was active here in the United States, many more women opposed suffrage than supported it.



The argument to let the market work for itself cuts both ways, but in the end, in the discussion about whether publishers or retailers should set prices, it is an argument as much in favor of agency pricing as against agency pricing. So I am not certain what your point is.

And I never suggested that the article said that all things should be cheap. I was saying that there is no particular reason to single books out to be cheap but not other more-in-demand commodities. If all books should have a ceiling price, so should every other commodity.



I don't think BPHs are hard to defend at all, except here on MR where Amazon is king and BPHs are the villains. And it is hard here on MR because so many commenters are blind to any of the arguments that favor pricing higher than they believe books should cost. Inability to defend BPHs has nothing to do with facts; it has to do with people's mindset and unwillingness to accept that there may be another side to argument.

I don't believe there is a "fallacy" in the author's argument (at least not the arguments you point to), because he doesn't assume a right to immediate access. His argument, as I recall, was that immediate access was beneficial. Similarly, his argument was that it is beneficial to give people greater access because then they can be part of the conversation, not that everyone necessarily wants or needs to be part of that conversation. This reading of the article is more consistent with the author's overall point, that the issue is really a "Morlocks vs. Eloi" issue.

As far as defending Amazon or the BPHs, I'm somewhat indifferent. I favour cheaper books since I pay for them, so if a retailer wants to use their market power to negotiate lower prices, great. Neither side is a paragon of virtue or doing anything but trying to benefit their own profits (which I don't have a problem with) but Amazon's interests, in this, aligns with my own for the moment.

If nothing else, I think the article does highlight some of the tiresome hyperbole spewing, at least form one side.