Amazon pulls MacMillan?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kaas

@Harry

Only titles sold directly by Amazon have been pulled. Third party offers are still there...

cheers,
kaas

No, they are available directly from Amazon on the UK site, eg here, for example.

[HarryT]

Just realised that it's probably because the UK publisher isn't Macmillan, but Orbit.

[charleski]

I checked a few Panmacmillan books and they all seem to be there still on the UK store.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by charleski

Wow.

I predicted the disagreement would erupt into overt war between Amazon and the publishers, but I didn't expect it to happen this soon. This is a very significant development. The real question now is whether other publishers climb on board over the coming weeks.

Amazon and the Kindle are certainly in a strong position, but the ebook marketplace still has a lot of room to grow and there's plenty of space for retail competitors to muscle in. Everyone at B&N must be wearing a big sloppy grin right now.

Personally, I'm wary of agency pricing for books. It was tried in the UK for a long time and it didn't work. But Amazon's flat-pricing model is even worse and Amazon's levels were unsustainable. The tiered, dynamic pricing that Sargent refers to in his letter (prices ranging from 14.99 for new releases to 5.99 for backlist) makes much more sense and will be better for the industry as a whole.

There are a lot of people on MR who don't see further than the price at the checkout and seem to think Amazon is some sort of consumer's champion. But I'm with Macmillan on this. The industry needs greater flexibility to remain healthy and a healthy industry is good for anyone who loves books.

Personally I'm not concerned about an Amazon monopoly. They can't have one selling a virtual product. The retail price needs to be reasonable and something the consumer is willing to pay or it will be nothing. I can go to the library, buy from an indie author or read classics for the rest of my life. Other consumers will choose alternate forms of entertainment. Other potential consumers will file share.

Consumers will compare the price of the virtual book to the price of an equivalent physical book and expect the virtual book to be much cheaper.

Amazon has demonstrated an understanding of this. The publishers haven't.

I'm far on the side of Amazon on this one.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by starrigger

Macmillan, for not getting my Tor novel into ebook format as promised.

That's the killer irony here. Of the major publishers, Macmillan (at least the Tor imprint, and I don't have any reason to believe their other imprints fare any differently) has by leagues the worst track record around in terms of actually publishing e-books. Price point is pretty much irrelevant if you're not actually offering to sell any products.

I can't help but laugh when I see Charles Stross hailing Macmillan as the author's economic saviour in e-publishing when none of his work from Tor/Macmillan is for sale in electronic format. I have no real way of knowing just how much he makes from electronic sales of his e-books published by Ace/Penguin under the onerous shackles of the current regime and price structure, but I have to assume it's a sum greater than the $0.00 he's getting from Tor/Macmillan.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Maybe, but if they didn't whack Macmillan in the knees, all the major publishers were likely to demand the same terms from Amazon as they've gotten with Apple.

Which would be precisely why Apple offered those terms in the first place, of course. Call me a cynic, but that strikes me as the whole point of Apple's move.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Barcey

Personally I'm not concerned about an Amazon monopoly. They can't have one selling a virtual product. The retail price needs to be reasonable and something the consumer is willing to pay or it will be nothing. I can go to the library, buy from an indie author or read classics for the rest of my life. Other consumers will choose alternate forms of entertainment. Other potential consumers will file share.

The publishers depends on the hardcover sales of best sellers. From comment I have seen this issue is about that. So it is probably only the bestsellers that will have the highest price and for them you cannot go to the library.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by charleski

[b]
Personally, I'm wary of agency pricing for books. It was tried in the UK for a long time and it didn't work. But Amazon's flat-pricing model is even worse and Amazon's levels were unsustainable. The tiered, dynamic pricing that Sargent refers to in his letter (prices ranging from 14.99 for new releases to 5.99 for backlist) makes much more sense and will be better for the industry as a whole.

There are a lot of people on MR who don't see further than the price at the checkout and seem to think Amazon is some sort of consumer's champion. But I'm with Macmillan on this. The industry needs greater flexibility to remain healthy and a healthy industry is good for anyone who loves books.

I agree. It seem to me that Amazon is trying to force the publishers to sell the books to them for less by selling the books with a loss.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by tompe

The publishers depends on the hardcover sales of best sellers. From comment I have seen this issue is about that. So it is probably only the bestsellers that will have the highest price and for them you cannot go to the library.

Country specific I guess. In Canada we have first release best sellers in the library. You generally have to go on a waiting list to read them though.

I also don't care what the publishers depend on for their revenue. If a best seller hardcover is selling at Walmart for $14, I'm not going to pay $14 for an ebook edition of it. I'm also not going to buy the Walmart pulp edition. I just won't buy it.

[JSWolf]

I can pay say $9.99 for a current selling hardcover that goes for $15 or more or the publisher can get no money from me. I think they'd want my money.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Is this only affecting Amazon US? I see that, for example, all Robert Jordan's books continue to be available on the UK Amazon site.

It's only the US Amazon that's affected.

I read somewhere (I looked at a lot of blogs & news posts about this yesterday, so I don't remember details) that the Amazon/Macmillan contract was up, and as they didn't reach a solid agreement *and* Amazon was unhappy with the ebook terms offered, Amazon pulled all their books. However, the contract was only a US matter, so those books are still available in other domains.

I'd wondered why Amazon could get away with pulling all their books--don't they have some kind of contract? And on looking, found out, no... and while Amazon might continue to list Macmillan books if they believed they'd be happy with the terms of the new contract, they don't have an obligation to do so.

Amazon's on strike against Macmillan. Which I find hilarious, 'cos it's not like Amazon is the oppressed underdog in this equation. (And neither is Macmillan.)

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by starrigger

What's wrong with what he said there? I found it less interesting and less persuasive, but nothing to get riled about.

Personally I felt that firmly positioning the timing of Amazon's move on a Friday as driven by fear of economic loss and/or fear of public scrutiny without raising the hint of a possibility that just maybe Amazon reacted on Friday to the ultimatum Macmillan dropped on them late on Thursday was at best churlish.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

That's the killer irony here. Of the major publishers, Macmillan (at least the Tor imprint, and I don't have any reason to believe their other imprints fare any differently) has by leagues the worst track record around in terms of actually publishing e-books. Price point is pretty much irrelevant if you're not actually offering to sell any products.

I can't help but laugh when I see Charles Stross hailing Macmillan as the author's economic saviour in e-publishing when none of his work from Tor/Macmillan is for sale in electronic format. I have no real way of knowing just how much he makes from electronic sales of his e-books published by Ace/Penguin under the onerous shackles of the current regime and price structure, but I have to assume it's a sum greater than the $0.00 he's getting from Tor/Macmillan.

It's been a while since I checked, but all the Macmillan-US publishers were pretty bad at releasing ebooks.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

It's been a while since I checked, but all the Macmillan-US publishers were pretty bad at releasing ebooks.

Holzbrink's (the kraken of which Macmillan-US is a tentacle) corporate approach to the rise of e-publishing seems to be "If we stick our fingers in our ears and hum real loud maybe it will go away."

Which makes me think that all the stuff John Sargent said in his open letter about sliding price scales and prices dropping over time is a steaming pile of bovine faeces and the real plan is "We control the vertical. We control the horizontal. We do not publish electronically. If we do deign to publish electronically, you will pay 15 dollars for an e-book long after the 7 dollar paperback has gone out of print and thank us for the privilege."

[brecklundin]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Indeed, it was driven by people telling them it was too cheap. But, that's more than one book, Harry. Unfair comparison.


brecklundin - "Gimmick", really? No, it's a very smart move on Baen's part. An early access premium. It's far from uncommon as a move in other content industries too. (For example, I bought Sins of a Solar Empire about a year before it was released, and got beta access...)

As usual you have zero clue about what was written...you chose to assume a comment is negative in order to be consistently argumentative and confrontational all the freaking time.

My use of the word GIMMICK it's a tool to entice customers to more purchases...a GIMMICK...and here I thought one who reads as much as you claim would have some comprehension...