Amazon says 'will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan's terms'

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by rmclachlan

Surely the Publisher and the Authors have a right to make a decent living.

No, I have no patience whatever for oligarchical companies holding monopolies anymore. Sure they can make a living, but without the monopolies. Much better, free market enterprise.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by DD1509

That is a silly comment. The publishers and authors continue to make a fine living, without Amazon and they most likely would increase their ability to make money with Amazon.

The publishers signed the deal with Amazon. You think the publishers would have signed the deal if it hurt them in any manner??? They loved every inch of the agreement.

Amazon is not the bad guy by any stretch of the imagination.

I find your logic terribly flawed.

I agree. It's more the publishers here that are trying to control the market and the money, in the same manner as the music business did for ages, screwing over the artist and cheating them out of their rights. The same thing is happens in the publishing industry but it's a lot more subtle. We're going to be much better off once we get to a "new place" in the way this all works and in particular by cutting out the corporate middle that consumes most of the profit -- particularly in a digital media world.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by DD1509

That is a silly comment. The publishers and authors continue to make a fine living, without Amazon and they most likely would increase their ability to make money with Amazon.

The publishers signed the deal with Amazon. You think the publishers would have signed the deal if it hurt them in any manner??? They loved every inch of the agreement.

Amazon is not the bad guy by any stretch of the imagination.

I find your logic terribly flawed.

I find your understanding of the publishing industry to be flawed. Many if not most authors do not "make a fine living," at least not from their writing. If they did, so many would not have to keep their day jobs.

Publishers thought the new deal was better for the long term interests of both themselves and their clients. Amazon disagreed. So far, everything was fine. Companies are allowed to disagree, that's what negotiations are for.

But when Amazon pulled the paper books that were not under dispute, and for which things are not changing, they went too far. That's when they became the bad guy in this particular dispute. They unilaterally widened the scope and they hurt the livelihoods and careers of people who were not directly involved in the dispute.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by TallMomof2

Many US retailers use loss leaders to draw in customers with the expectation that the customer will purchase other items that give the retailer a profit and offset the loss of profit from the loss leaders.

Not just in the US, of course - it happens world-wide.

It's very common to sell products as loss-leaders; a classic example is the ridiculously low price of printers; the printer is basically given away for next to nothing as a way of selling ink, which is where all the profit lies.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

No, I have no patience whatever for oligarchical companies holding monopolies anymore. Sure they can make a living, but without the monopolies. Much better, free market enterprise.

Monopolies occur as the result of "free market enterprise". Indeed, some countries have laws which prevent those companies which have been so successful that they've become a de facto monopoly from subsequently exploiting their success in the free market.

However, I really don't believe that the are any "monopolies" in either the publishing or the retailing end of the book business. Amazon are large and powerful, to be sure, but they are a very, very long way from being a monopoly.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Monopolies occur as the result of "free market enterprise". Indeed, some countries have laws which prevent those companies which have been so successful that they've become a de facto monopoly from subsequently exploiting their success in the free market.

However, I really don't believe that the are any "monopolies" in either the publishing or the retailing end of the book business. Amazon are large and powerful, to be sure, but they are a very, very long way from being a monopoly.

Publishers are (considering that 6 pubs have 80% market share) oligarchs who have monopolies on products. But yes, you're right. I should say that I want a regulated free market, that enforces companies can't become too big for their britches. I wasn't talking about amazon, in any case.
(Because of the oligarchy it's very hard to boycot single publishers, as they control so many 'desirable' authors.)

[HarryT]

Any manufacturer has a "monopoly" over its own products - eg, Kelloggs has a monopoly on Cornflakes; if you want to sell Cornflakes, you have to deal with Kelloggs and accept whatever terms they wish to impose on you. I don't see that publishers are any different in that regard.

[guyanonymous]

So are all the publishers "under the blanket" of each of the big 6, really just companies they own and keep separately named? In other words, leaving just 6 publishers with separate departments? Or is each operating independently and functioning as part of a "trade organization" where they leverage materials purchases etc, but still make all their own decisions?

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Any manufacturer has a "monopoly" over its own products - eg, Kelloggs has a monopoly on Cornflakes; if you want to sell Cornflakes, you have to deal with Kelloggs and accept whatever terms they wish to impose on you. I don't see that publishers are any different in that regard.

Right. Because books are directly comparable to cereals. They're both mass-produced and all that. (Do you really want to argue that Twilight and Harry Potter are interchangeable products?)
Anyway, I'm not really sure why your analogy applies. My point was that a 'mother company' can control so many products that you are practically unable to boycot them, after which you reply that "if you don't a product from a certain company, just go to another company". Sure, but that was hardly the point I was making.

Secondly, manufacturers often only have a de facto monopoly over their trademarks/logos, and not over actual products. There are more than enough knock-off Armani (or w/e) products that are of comparable quality, only lacking the official logo.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Any manufacturer has a "monopoly" over its own products - eg, Kelloggs has a monopoly on Cornflakes;

Yes, and they have a RRP for them. Recommended, not set.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Right. Because books are directly comparable to cereals. They're both mass-produced and all that. (Do you really want to argue that Twilight and Harry Potter are interchangeable products?)
Anyway, I'm not really sure why your analogy applies. My point was that a 'mother company' can control so many products that you are practically unable to boycot them, after which you reply that "if you don't a product from a certain company, just go to another company". Sure, but that was hardly the point I was making.

No, I wouldn't disagree with you at all about that; I'm in complete agreement that the large publishers have a monopoly over their books. My only point was that this is not an abnormal situation; it happens in all areas of commerce, so there's nothing unusual about it occurring in publishing, too. Are you suggesting that it's a bad thing?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Yes, and they have a RRP for them. Recommended, not set.

That's because price fixing is illegal in the EU. I'm pretty sure that what Macmillan seem to be doing in the US would not be legal here.

[guyanonymous]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are you suggesting that it's a bad thing?

I suggest that almost any monopoly is a bad thing in the long run. A lack of competition removes an incentive for true innovation. It removes any need for a manufacturer/retailer/etc to lower price. It takes away choice from the consumer.

And when a select few "compete" against each other while having luncheons to make sure they're on the same page, agree to price points through a third party (Apple), and in the past have magically all set their pricing to the same point within days of each other (paperback book prices)...it's effectively a monopoly.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

And when a select few "compete" against each other while having luncheons to make sure they're on the same page, agree to price points through a third party (Apple), and in the past have magically all set their pricing to the same point within days of each other (paperback book prices)...it's effectively a monopoly.

That's a "cartel" and is illegal here in the UK. Is it not so elsewhere?

[guyanonymous]

You'd think.

The gas/petrol/fuel-guys have been getting away with it for years.

We used to have an independent dealer here on Vancouver Island - Payless Gas, which was privately owned. They regularly initiated price-wars by significantly lowering their price on gas/petrol/fuel. The day the owner sold the company to a major, those price wars stopped. Haven't seen one in over 15 years.

Perhaps not a formal cartel, but effectively they are one. I view the publishing industry, for the most part, as falling into the same class.

"Hey Vern, just to let you know we're putting our prices up to $15.99 if you go along with it to."

"Um. Thanks Sparky, oddly enough we're doing the same thing."

or...

"Steve Jobs here, just wanting to let you all know at this luncheon I've arranged with all of you present that you've all agreed to $15.99 as a new price point, if all of you agree."