Latest Authors United letter to Amazon Board

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

That's easily explained: There is no such party.

I've never met, or privately corresponded, with pwalker8. Many months ago I put a post on Mike Shatzkin's blog, and he replied to it there -- which was cool -- but that's where the conspiracy began and ended.



Me too, although the statements that confuse me may be different ones.

Despite have missed the signup for his party membership card, I thought this Shatzkin post was on good take on what's most confusing:

http://www.idealog.com/blog/motivati...tariat-figure/

Actually, if you stop and think of it, it's really not that hard. Deep down, people tend to be tribal, i.e. support their own tribe over outsiders. I'm sure that quite a few indies feel a lot of loyalty to Amazon since Amazon is giving them their chance to be a published author, just as a lot of published authors feel a lot of loyalty to their publishing houses. Thus, it's quite normal to support your tribe even if it's not in your personal best interest.

There is a great book out there called "How We Decide" by Jonah Lehrer. There is a lot of research looking at brain activity while making decisions. In general, people tend to decide things on an emotional basis very quickly, then rationalize it. A really interesting book and worth reading.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Actually, if you stop and think of it, it's really not that hard. Deep down, people tend to be tribal, i.e. support their own tribe over outsiders. I'm sure that quite a few indies feel a lot of loyalty to Amazon since Amazon is giving them their chance to be a published author, just as a lot of published authors feel a lot of loyalty to their publishing houses. Thus, it's quite normal to support your tribe even if it's not in your personal best interest.

There is a great book out there called "How We Decide" by Jonah Lehrer. There is a lot of research looking at brain activity while making decisions. In general, people tend to decide things on an emotional basis very quickly, then rationalize it. A really interesting book and worth reading.

Oh, so that's why you get so defensive of the publishers!

Remember, your logic cuts both ways.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Oh, so that's why you get so defensive of the publishers!

Remember, your logic cuts both ways.

Oh, I remember. Of course, I don't get defensive of the publishers. I'm a lot more focused on the authors that I read and like than who publishes them. I just don't get all gushy about Amazon like some here.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Oh, I remember. Of course, I don't get defensive of the publishers. I'm a lot more focused on the authors that I read and like than who publishes them. I just don't get all gushy about Amazon like some here.

I make no distinction between getting gushy about publishers, and getting gushy about publishers as a proxy for authors.

Your tribalism is still just as blatant as ours, the difference is we are at least honest about our bias.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I make no distinction between getting gushy about publishers, and getting gushy about publishers as a proxy for authors.

Your tribalism is still just as blatant as ours, the difference is we are at least honest about our bias.

And that is a good thing? You know you have a bias and refuse to make the effort to think clearly and correctly to overcome your bias?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I make no distinction between getting gushy about publishers, and getting gushy about publishers as a proxy for authors.

Your tribalism is still just as blatant as ours, the difference is we are at least honest about our bias.

You really don't see a difference between having favorite authors and being gushy about publishers?

[Yolina]

Meh, they're all behaving like a bunch of bickering 5 year olds, which I'm frankly finding tedious.
I couldn't care less who publishes the books I read and the deals between authors/publishers/retailers is none of my business. I am annoyed when publishers try to artificially up the prices but I don't expect books to be dirt cheap either.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by tompe

And that is a good thing? You know you have a bias and refuse to make the effort to think clearly and correctly to overcome your bias?

What if I think it is a good thing?

Originally Posted by pwalker8

You really don't see a difference between having favorite authors and being gushy about publishers?

Actually I do, and I also see a difference between "having favorite authors" and "being gushy about my favorite authors".

Having favorite authors is neither here no there, the topic is, as you say, tribalism/emotional decisions. All I said is, I make no distinction between tribalistically supporting publishers and tribalistically supporting authors. The end result is still tribalistically supporting publishers.

Is it really such a difficult problem to grasp that?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Yolina

Meh, they're all behaving like a bunch of bickering 5 year olds, which I'm frankly finding tedious.
I couldn't care less who publishes the books I read and the deals between authors/publishers/retailers is none of my business. I am annoyed when publishers try to artificially up the prices but I don't expect books to be dirt cheap either.

Exactly.
And using their pals in the media to spread verifiable lies is just as annoying.

And now the fools are begging for government intervention.
Considering the truckloads of dirty linen in their closets there is no way tgat ends well for the fools.

[Yolina]

Oh and I obviously include Amazon in the bunch of bickering 5 year olds. Since they no longer have a contract with Hachette, they should just stop selling those books (but of course they won't because that would lose them customers who would then *shock horror* go to other retailers). The way I see it, if they all lose out, then they might just be more inclined to sort a deal out.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Yolina

Oh and I obviously include Amazon in the bunch of bickering 5 year olds. Since they no longer have a contract with Hachette, they should just stop selling those books (but of course they won't because that would lose them customers who would then *shock horror* go to other retailers). The way I see it, if they all lose out, then they might just be more inclined to sort a deal out.

Nobody benefits when the government sticks its nose in business disputes.
Eventually consumers end up footing the bill in price hikes or tax hikes. Or both.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Yolina

Oh and I obviously include Amazon in the bunch of bickering 5 year olds. Since they no longer have a contract with Hachette, they should just stop selling those books . . .

Why?

Should neighborhood bookstores stop selling Hachette books because they don't have a contract?

Here's is one place booksellers can go, including, AFAIK, Amazon:

http://www.baker-taylor.com/retails_details.cfm

My interpretation of what is happening is that Amazon is looking for a sweetheart deal so it can bypass wholesalers and undercut smaller booksellers.

Other posters may suppose the opposite -- that Hachette is seeking a sweetheart arrangement where Amazon has to sell at fixed prices while independent booksellers -- including the dozens of legitimate EPUB web sites around the world -- still get to discount.

Eventually someone may write a carefully sourced book about this dispute, and we'll know what the offers and counter-offers really were. But, right now, which side is pushing hardest to be treated as the special snowflake is a matter of opinion.

I don't have a big need for there to be a compromise, but Amazon having no contract with publishers would seem to be one possibility.

[Yolina]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Why?

Because they're harping on about how they don't have a contract but are nice enough to still sell those books, and use that to explain the removal of pre-orders etc.
Neither the publishers nor Amazon are nice or anyone's friends - they are businesses and so obviously just have their own interests at heart. They really need to stop behaving like whining brats (the authors too!), you know the "but they started it" and the "they did this".

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Yolina

Because they're harping on about how they don't have a contract but are nice enough to still sell those books, and use that to explain the removal of pre-orders etc.
Neither the publishers nor Amazon are nice or anyone's friends - they are businesses and so obviously just have their own interests at heart. They really need to stop behaving like whining brats (the authors too!), you know the "but they started it" and the "they did this".

There is actually a purpose to it all. From Hatchette's point of view, they have basically preempted Amazon from playing the evil monopolistic publishers card again. They learned that lesson from last time. Amazon is a bit like Google in that they prefer to have customers think of them as the good guy. They don't particularly enjoy having their business tactics brought out in the light for everyone to see. Thus, from Hatchette's point of view, the publicity of the process works on several levels.

From Amazon's point of view, their strongest asset is the positive feeling that customers have for them. Thus, they have to try to counter any coverage that might cast them in a bad light.

IMPO, both companies are in this for the long haul. Amazon's hope was that they could strong arm Hatchette into accepting Amazon's terms during the time period that Judge Cote had decreed that the contract negotiations had to be staggered and then use that contract to strong arm the other publishers in line. That hasn't worked, but Amazon is now in a situation that they would lose a lot of face and reputation if they backed down. In addition, the bill seems to be coming due for Amazon's grab for market share and Amazon needs someone to help pick up the cost.

The publishers know that if they can't move to control the public's perception of the value of their product, then the future is going to be pretty bleak for them. So from their point of view, this is a fight for survival.

I would not be surprised if this is still going on a year from now. The longer this goes on, the more likely, IMPO, that we will see deep pocketed competition pop up in the ebook store. If that happens, then it will be very good for consumers. Strong competition always improves the product for the end consumer.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

There is actually a purpose to it all. From Hatchette's point of view, they have basically preempted Amazon from playing the evil monopolistic publishers card again. They learned that lesson from last time. Amazon is a bit like Google in that they prefer to have customers think of them as the good guy. They don't particularly enjoy having their business tactics brought out in the light for everyone to see. Thus, from Hatchette's point of view, the publicity of the process works on several levels.

Who are you kidding? Amazon and Google ARE good for their customers. They are that good that enough people hate them for being so good. Both having so many customers, the amount of the ones unhappy is huge, but the amount of happy customers is even bigger. Same with Walmart - small shops hate Walmart with a vengence, but yet there is still a lot of people shopping at Walmart. Business tactics of Walmart are even more obvious than Google and Amazon. Walmart sells a lot of cheap crap, but at those prices it is crap I gotta have. Not everything is cheaper at Walmart, same with Amazon, but on average you save money. Unless you are after groceries - and then Aldi is even cheaper. Aldi makes no secret out of their cheap stuff, they get it cheap because they demand it cheap from their suppliers. It is tough to be an Aldi supplier - the low cost that Aldi pays is offset by high volume.

IMPO, both companies are in this for the long haul. Amazon's hope was that they could strong arm Hatchette into accepting Amazon's terms during the time period that Judge Cote had decreed that the contract negotiations had to be staggered and then use that contract to strong arm the other publishers in line. That hasn't worked, but Amazon is now in a situation that they would lose a lot of face and reputation if they backed down.

That hasn't worked yet. It remains to be seen if it will work or not. The judge on that is still out (pun intended). Even if Hachette waits long enough for more than one publisher to negotiate at the same time, does not mean at all that they will have any stronger pull than alone. What they (the publishers) cannot afford is to uniformly demand the exact same terms - that is what got them into trouble the last time.

In addition, the bill seems to be coming due for Amazon's grab for market share and Amazon needs someone to help pick up the cost.

That remains to be seen as well. We have to wait if and how any court will decide, if it even goes to court.

The publishers know that if they can't move to control the public's perception of the value of their product, then the future is going to be pretty bleak for them. So from their point of view, this is a fight for survival.

So you agree that the mere existence of the business model that Hachette uses is in danger. Maybe instead of fighting for survival of their old model they need to change how they do business? It is far from a black and white decision - even if they survive, they might have to make changes. If they would't survive, they will definitly have to make drastic changes as to not to fall into nonexistance.

I would not be surprised if this is still going on a year from now. The longer this goes on, the more likely, IMPO, that we will see deep pocketed competition pop up in the ebook store. If that happens, then it will be very good for consumers. Strong competition always improves the product for the end consumer.

IMPO, that cuts both ways. Not just for a retail ebook store to give Amazon hell, but also for a new kind of publisher (different from the old model) to give Hachette & friends hell.