Amazon pulls MacMillan?

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by Boston

The problem with Macmillan's argument is that the same could be applied to setting of paper prices as much as electronic prices. And given the list retail prices for paper books nowadays, the last thing I want is publishers setting fixed prices - for paper or electronic.

I think the who blinks first depends on whether the other publishers follow.

I can't see Amazon blinking. Amazon is about volume and efficiency so they can sell cheaper. If the publishers fix the price how can they compete? Why would people buy from Amazon rather then Apple, Sony, Kobo or any other ebook vendor? They can only do so much on the ease of buying front and website.

I think they understand this is a battle for the future of their book business.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

There's a number of authors who are making absolute clowns of themselves over this, including a number who I'd of formerly named as some of my favourite ones. Turns out instead of being smart, they're simply self-centred. Go figure, I'll just buy them second hand forever more.

One of my housemates who also posts on these issues, but tends to go to blogs rather than forums, has just thrown two Scalzi books of his out the window in the garden and is frothing at the mouth. And after reading why, I cannot disagree with him. He was genuinely trying to have a rational discussion and to help, and the sheer level of rudeness displayed would of caused me to walk away regardless. I think he may have a point about allowing the idiots to burn, honestly, if the view is that black, white and self-righteous.

The only even remotely sensible analysis I've seen so far is Cory Doctorow, and even he hasn't addressed the issue of why book publishers should have the right to set prices. (And personally, I don't much like his books, and actively dislike the latest, Makers)

I hope they burn (metaphorically speaking) them and the whole blasted game they allow to exist by not standing up for themselves. I don't expect anything less from any of those published under the rotting system that's in place now. They sold out for cents on the dollar, expecting any of them to grow a spine now is wishful thinking.

Oooh, and link to the Scalzi thing, I've always suspected there was something douchey about him.

[Seli]

Originally Posted by Barcey

I can't see Amazon blinking. Amazon is about volume and efficiency so they can sell cheaper. If the publishers fix the price how can they compete? Why would people buy from Amazon rather then Apple, Sony, Kobo or any other ebook vendor? They can only do so much on the ease of buying front and website.

I think they understand this is a battle for the future of their book business.

In the scenario proposed by Macmillan (seller as a sales-rep with 70/30 division on the RRP) Amazon can do the same thing they do now, eat some of their own profit to gain marketshare. I truly do not see the problem, as long as RRP is reasonable of course.

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Many traditionally published author contracts have a clause that reads something like, 'publisher has right of first refusal on next book.'

This varies in wording--some only get right of first refusal in the genre, some only get right of first refusal for a series, some get it for anything the author writes.

I'm not sure there is an easy answer to your question, but in general, the author doesn't have a ton of power to wield in many cases. IT's damned hard to get published in the first place. There's some loyalty involved, there's a lot of hard work--on the part of editors, artists, publicity, copyeditors--and the author. So this mess doesn't do them any favors and just walking away isn't likely to be a great choice for anyone.

Exactly.

As far as clout is concerned, in a matter like this, the answer is none. I doubt that even the head folks at Tor have much clout, since they're just one imprint owned by a conglomerate. (Just guessing: I imagine they have a voice, but just how much is another matter.)

When an author leaves for another publisher, it's generally because they got a better offer, or because of overall dissatisfaction over how their books were handled. Or maybe because their editor left and went to another house. One thing you don't do (even if you could) is pick up and leave in a snit because one thing happened that you didn't like. (Within reason, obviously.)

Also, please remember that at this point ebooks are still a very small part of an author's royalty check, if there is a check, and if ebooks are visible at all. That'll change. But right now, a publisher's ebook policy is something to get annoyed about, maybe, but not a reason to part company.

[jgaiser]

Some recording artists have discovered that there is a market for their music outside the industry that tries to control them.

Maybe it's time for authors to find another business model.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Some recording artists have discovered that there is a market for their music outside the industry that tries to control them.

Maybe it's time for authors to find another business model.

There needs to be a mass growing of spines first. You tell me where the bravery is coming from when authors gladly accept making less per year from their creative endeavours than they would working part-time at McDonalds? The publishers and agents have them firmly by the stones. It's a bully routine, but unfortunately, the bullies win most of the time.

[JSWolf]

I still blame Apple for giving publisher's the ability to set prices. If Apple didn't do that, then McMillan would not be trying to get the same deal from Amazon and this issue would not be an issue. Well done Apple. Yet another thing you've screwed us on. MP3 player pricing was also something you've screwed us on.

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Name the industries, please, where the wholesaler dictates to the retailer the actual pricing. Not RRP, actual pricing.

Well, I haven't noticed too much price competition on Windows upgrades. Actually, I've always wondered how MS maintained such tight control on the retail price of Windows. For that matter, look at Apple. How much competition do you see in pricing of Apple products?

In any case, I'm not arguing in favor of this model. I just don't see why it's so evil for a publisher to say, "You act as our sales agent, and we pay you a commission." It strikes me as one reasonable model, but not the only one.

They also offered Amazon the choice of continuing as is, but getting the ebooks later. Again, I'm not in favor of it, and I'd rather they didn't do it, but it's no worse than holding the paperback for some time after the hardcover.

Those outrageous profits that everyone seems to think the publishers are raking in is one of the things that makes it possible for them to publish less profitable authors like me, and to take risks on new authors.

Depends if you mind the big spike in darknet activity for ebooks it'd cause. And for every ebook, mind, not just those directly affected (although somewhat more for the directly affected ones).

The darknet is already sucking up books left and right. Doesn't matter if they're even in ebook; somebody scans them and puts them up. Hell, when I was putting together my own ebooks, a darknet version someone sent me of one of my pre-computer novels was what I used as a starting point. I don't see $15 ebooks as driving that at all.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by Seli

In the scenario proposed by Macmillan (seller as a sales-rep with 70/30 division on the RRP) Amazon can do the same thing they do now, eat some of their own profit to gain marketshare. I truly do not see the problem, as long as RRP is reasonable of course.

That's not how I read it. It said that the price would be set for each book individually. It's not a recommended retail price it's a price fixed by the publisher.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I still blame Apple for giving publisher's the ability to set prices. If Apple didn't do that, then McMillan would not be trying to get the same deal from Amazon and this issue would not be an issue. Well done Apple. Yet another thing you've screwed us on. MP3 player pricing was also something you've screwed us on.

Apple should ressurrect that old slogan of theirs from '97 but they have to change it from Think Different to Think Exactly Like Us

[Seli]

Originally Posted by Barcey

That's not how I read it. It said that the price would be set for each book individually. It's not a recommended retail price it's a price fixed by the publisher.

As far as I understand at the moment Amazon buys books from the publishers at a fixed prize as well (percentage of RRP). So I do not see the difference.
I have to admit I am used to a country (Netherlands) were book prizes in stores are determined by the publishers, so I am not too shocked by the idea.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I still blame Apple for giving publisher's the ability to set prices. If Apple didn't do that, then McMillan would not be trying to get the same deal from Amazon and this issue would not be an issue. Well done Apple. Yet another thing you've screwed us on. MP3 player pricing was also something you've screwed us on.

It was my understanding this issue has been brewing well before Apple got into the eBook business...maybe this was just the tipping point?

[Lemurion]

Maybe I'm strange: but I don't have a problem with what Macmillan seems to be proposing. I know the price range that John Sargent mentioned is right in line with what I consider reasonable. Roughly $15 for "get it while it's hot" and apparently dropping to perhaps as low as $5.99 for books in paperback.

[Robotech_Master]

I really don't think that we need publishers having the authority to set retail prices. It's anti-competitive. It means the end of loss leaders that make such good bargains for consumers, where the store decides to give away money on one item in the hope of making it back on others.

Publishers shouldn't get to decide anything but whether they sell to retailers, when they sell to retailers, and for how much they sell to retailers. What retailers do with it afterward should be out of their hands.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

I really don't think that we need publishers having the authority to set retail prices. It's anti-competitive. It means the end of loss leaders that make such good bargains for consumers, where the store decides to give away money on one item in the hope of making it back on others.

Publishers shouldn't get to decide anything but whether they sell to retailers, when they sell to retailers, and for how much they sell to retailers. What retailers do with it afterward should be out of their hands.

I can't imagine any other industry that would even dare to set the price beyond the initial sale to a retailer. I'm truly unaware of any analog, but willing to be surprised.