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

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I actually don't recall Rhadin's post about specific legal issues, and thought I responded, so I'll go back and review. I do note though that Judge Cote cited the Leegin case in her decision.

"Conspiracy" might be a bit harsh, but you said in several posts that there was obvious crony-capitalism going on, but couldn't produce anything to substantiate that. As for your links from Fortune above, thank you. I haven't read those yet and will, but I appreciate that they appear to be more substantive than opinion pieces from the WSJ.

I admit it: I stopped reading this thread in detail 5 pages ago, so I'm assuming that somebody, somewhere in time, has already said this, but:

isn't the simple answer that Hachette, et al, set up their OWN Amazon?

If the persuasive argument is that quality literature is worth more--and we beg the question by assuming arguendo that BPH=quality, but that's a somewhat separate issue--then why not just make your own Amazon? (Add books and stir...) Then everyone really COULD vote with their wallets. RH, Brown, etc., and the entire kit and kaboodle could pool their monies and sell from their own BPHLLC.com website.

Of course, here's the reality: they've looked into this and have already realized that the overhead is MASSIVE. The Tech support is a giant pain in the ass. They'll lose the mobi market, in toto, because they won't have a DRM method, and it's unlikely that Amazon would sell it to them. However, all that being granted, if they feel that Amazon is the beneficiary of their artistic heights in literature, then the obvious ploy is to withhold the books, period. Do what Harlequin did, and sell them from their very own websites. Eat the bullet now.

Their choice is that of EVERY publisher, big, little and wee: is it more headache to sell your book from your own website than it is to pay Amazon? (We have over 2,000 clients, many of whom tried, and chucked it in less than 6 months--actually, ALL chucked it within 6 months, due to the tech support needs and drain on their resources.) Because THAT is the real value that Amazon provides. Not just foot-traffic, although, let's face it; that's mighty, as well. What Amazon brings to the table are the readers (both digital and bodies), the tech support for every confounded person who can't load a book to a device, and DRM. That's the bottom line. From personal experience, I can tell you, the 500th time you've had to tell someone how to DOWNLOAD a file, your head starts to explode. How many people will RH have to employ to answer those instant-response phones? To help readers sideload files?

So, if you're RH...what's that worth, PER BOOK?

Screw the political and conspiracy theory and all those arguments; here's the core of it. If they have complaints, do NOT SELL THERE. Do it themselves. isn't that the obvious solution? Then, as they have not already done this, we can only surmise that in their (undoubtedly many) investigations, they've realized that it's less overhead per book to go with Amazon than it is to do it themselves--no????

(Apologies if it's rambling or unclear: eating painkillers for issue under dentistry bridge in mouth. Could be making NO sense, for all I know...probably should wait to post, but...)

Hitch

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Hitch

I admit it: I stopped reading this thread in detail 5 pages ago, so I'm assuming that somebody, somewhere in time, has already said this, but:

isn't the simple answer that Hachette, et al, set up their OWN Amazon?

If the persuasive argument is that quality literature is worth more--and we beg the question by assuming arguendo that BPH=quality, but that's a somewhat separate issue--then why not just make your own Amazon? (Add books and stir...) Then everyone really COULD vote with their wallets. RH, Brown, etc., and the entire kit and kaboodle could pool their monies and sell from their own BPHLLC.com website.

Of course, here's the reality: they've looked into this and have already realized that the overhead is MASSIVE. The Tech support is a giant pain in the ass. They'll lose the mobi market, in toto, because they won't have a DRM method, and it's unlikely that Amazon would sell it to them. However, all that being granted, if they feel that Amazon is the beneficiary of their artistic heights in literature, then the obvious ploy is to withhold the books, period. Do what Harlequin did, and sell them from their very own websites. Eat the bullet now.

Their choice is that of EVERY publisher, big, little and wee: is it more headache to sell your book from your own website than it is to pay Amazon? (We have over 2,000 clients, many of whom tried, and chucked it in less than 6 months--actually, ALL chucked it within 6 months, due to the tech support needs and drain on their resources.) Because THAT is the real value that Amazon provides. Not just foot-traffic, although, let's face it; that's mighty, as well. What Amazon brings to the table are the readers (both digital and bodies), the tech support for every confounded person who can't load a book to a device, and DRM. That's the bottom line. From personal experience, I can tell you, the 500th time you've had to tell someone how to DOWNLOAD a file, your head starts to explode. How many people will RH have to employ to answer those instant-response phones? To help readers sideload files?

So, if you're RH...what's that worth, PER BOOK?

Screw the political and conspiracy theory and all those arguments; here's the core of it. If they have complaints, do NOT SELL THERE. Do it themselves. isn't that the obvious solution? Then, as they have not already done this, we can only surmise that in their (undoubtedly many) investigations, they've realized that it's less overhead per book to go with Amazon than it is to do it themselves--no????

(Apologies if it's rambling or unclear: eating painkillers for issue under dentistry bridge in mouth. Could be making NO sense, for all I know...probably should wait to post, but...)

Hitch

No, no, you have simply restated with more elegance and personal experience, what many people here have suggested.

Once again, an excellent rant.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Eat the bullet now.

In all honesty, I can not tell if you meant "bite the bullet," i.e. "bear with the temporary pain while you do what needs to be done for long term improvement"

or if you really did mean "eat the bullet," i.e. "shoot yourself and die."

Either one might work in that context, depending on your level of optimism.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by ApK

In all honesty, I can not tell if you meant "bite the bullet," i.e. "bear with the temporary pain while you do what needs to be done for long term improvement"

or if you really did mean "eat the bullet," i.e. "shoot yourself and die."

Either one might work in that context, depending on your level of optimism.

Both, really. I sort of deliberately mixed my metaphors, because while the attempt, internally to the BPH's might be viewed as biting the bullet, I think that the RESULT would be equivalent to shooting themselves in the head.

I have more thoughts on the books output by Indies, and the reading appetite of the public, but those have to wait until my braincells are not quite where they are right this second, in some sort of pain purgatory on the road to hell.

Hitch

[darryl]

Fantastic first post. Of course, your suggested course of action for Hachette and the others should have been followed many years ago for it to have reasonable prospects of success.

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

That's... odd. The above link continues to hit the paywall for me. Are you getting the paywall on that link?

I guess I assumed something must've changed on their end, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what might be the problem on my end.

Now here's a funny thing: Using Google to get to the article, I run into the paywall just like you. Using Bing - I don't...

[shalym]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

Now here's a funny thing: Using Google to get to the article, I run into the paywall just like you. Using Bing - I don't...

I can't get to it using either google or bing in Firefox. If I use Internet Explorer I can get to it using either search engine.

Shari

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Well, yes -- I would do that, except that WSJ has apparently caught on, since that hasn't worked for a while now. I suggest you try it and see.

Google webcache does not make that page accessible either, for obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by pidgeon92

I tried it earlier this afternoon, when I found a different article that was behind the WSJ paywall, and it worked just fine.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

That's... odd. The above link continues to hit the paywall for me. Are you getting the paywall on that link?

I guess I assumed something must've changed on their end, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what might be the problem on my end.

google the phrase "google bubble"

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

google the phrase "google bubble"

What is the possible relevance? I googled the title itself, derived a http://www.google.com/url?{stuffness} and was sent to the right page, I simply got the paywall alert. Do you have a particular reason for thinking Google gave me a different link for the same page than everyone else is some people are getting?

Are you by any chance a Google conspiracy theorist? And does that by any chance enhance this discussion at all? (Hint: We are discussing Amazon/BWM conspiracies, not Google ones.)

How about this. Do you get the paywall when you use my link above? Do you get a different result when googling it yourself?

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by darryl

Fantastic first post. Of course, your suggested course of action for Hachette and the others should have been followed many years ago for it to have reasonable prospects of success.

(Still on painkillers for dentistry. If this is nutty, you've been warned.)

@darryl:

Not necessarily. It's really pretty simple; if they withhold their products from Amazon, assuming that people want them, they'll buy them from BPHLLC. If BPHLLC continues to sell on Amazon, well, then...no, a BPHLLC venture shan't work. That much is inarguable. What's arguable is whether or not they can sell their own books, from their own (joint, I should think) website, and make AS MUCH MONEY as they do from Amazon, with their ease of shopping, customer service, TECH SUPPORT, et al.

It's a gamble. But this is BUSINESS. Inasmuch as some people on this thread, and in MR, and the world, want to make this about "art" versus evil capitalistic pecuniary practices, publishing IS BUSINESS. These folks aren't publishers for their good health. (And, in fact, although my business is not a publisher, and thus, I cannot speak to their precise end, I can tell you, from the parts that we do deal with, it's CERTAINLY NOT for their health. I can also relay that I've yet to meet a single trade-pubbed author that EVER thought that their publisher did enough for them, or who didn't think that the publisher had skimmed their due royalties. It is precisely those sentiments which have prevented me from being daft enough to enter that end of the biz. I have a hard time believing that in this day and age, the money is worth the agita.)

Therefore, if their belief is that they would be better off had Amazon ne'er hatched, then they need to take direct action on that, and withhold their products. I do not see this as more complicated than that. They have pretty significant financial resources; they can certainly build a spiffy e-commerce site; put the Gillian Flynns, et al, of the world, on their OWN site. Do their OWN fulfillment. Hire nerds for tech support, for the endless emails and phone calls from those folks who can't make carts work, or download files.

Bob's yer uncle. That's the whole equation: risk-->reward. They either try it, or they play by Amazon's rules in Amazon's playground. It's simplicity itself.

All the other arguments are just noise about literati versus not, whether or not capitalists are intrinsically evil, yadda yadda yadda. The social thing: are "real" publishers elitists versus self-pubs being (eeek!) for the masses...I mean, really, c'mon, now. Let's all stop playing silly buggers.

This is PUBLISHING. This is about MONEY. Grown-up stuff. If it was about ART, "for art's sake," (ye gods, I wish I'd never heard that term!), then everybody would be putting their books up for FREE on Smashwords and Scribd, right? People who write just to write are on Goodreads and Wattpad, those places. People who want MONEY are on Amazon. Poof, there it is.



Hitch

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by Hitch

....
Screw the political and conspiracy theory and all those arguments; here's the core of it. If they have complaints, do NOT SELL THERE.

Really? Why don't you just turn that argument around? If Amazon didn't like the agency pricing model of the large publishers, then why didn't Amazon stop selling them and concentrated on its own publishing instead? After all, it's Amazon who are claiming that the publishers are obsolete.
You know why? Because their bookshop would be nothing more than a waste of bandwith without the books of the large publishing houses. So instead of letting "the market decide" they rather went to complain to their enforcer at the Justice Department who then weighed in on behalf the biggest schoolyard bully.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

Really? Why don't you just turn that argument around? If Amazon didn't like the agency pricing model of the large publishers, then why didn't Amazon stop selling them and concentrated on its own publishing instead? After all, it's Amazon who are claiming that the publishers are obsolete.
You know why? Because their bookshop would be nothing more than a waste of bandwith without the books of the large publishing houses. So instead of letting "the market decide" they rather went to complain to their enforcer at the Justice Department who then weighed in on behalf the biggest schoolyard bully.

Quite simply, because it's AMAZON'S STORE. Amazon can decide not to carry the publisher's books at any time, just as the publisher can stop selling at any time. I don't think you've quite thought through what you've said here. Amazon is selling books on the terms it finds acceptable. The publishers are, by and large, obviously going along with it, aren't they? It's not up to Amazon to stomp its feet and kick the publishers out; they're selling as they see fit. If the publishers don't like Amazon's terms, it's on THEM to move out and sell somewhere else--it's not Amazon's job to push them out. Again, it's the dissatisfied party that needs to leave--not the party who owns the sandbox.

I don't think I'm clear on what you think happened at the Justice Department????

Hitch

[rhadin]

After reading an article in yesterday's New York Times about another ruling by Judge Denise Cote ("Prison for Ex-Manhattan Assemblywoman in Sham Marriage Case"), I believe even more strongly that Cote predecided the "conspiracy" case and made sure that the evidence that was admitted fit her predetermination.

Don't get me wrong about yesterday's case. The woman pled guilty and did commit a crime. I just find disturbing Cote's reason for sending the woman to jail rather than following the probation department's recommendation. Increasingly Cote sounds like she has a screw loose and is very vindictive.

It will be interesting to see what the ultimate disposition of the Apple case will be.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by Hitch

..Amazon is selling books on the terms it finds acceptable. The publishers are, by and large, obviously going along with it, aren't they? ..

When the publishers were pushing for the agency model Amazon didn't just delist them from its bookstore. It went to the Justice Department to complain, and the Justice Department was happy to oblige by hitting the publishers with fines while ignoring Amazon's stranglehold on the market. Talking about "the market" is all nice and well, but it's much nicer to have big government on your side, isn't it?

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

When the publishers were pushing for the agency model Amazon didn't just delist them from its bookstore. It went to the Justice Department to complain, and the Justice Department was happy to oblige by hitting the publishers with fines while ignoring Amazon's stranglehold on the market. Talking about "the market" is all nice and well, but it's much nicer to have big government on your side, isn't it?

When one publisher went to them and demanded agency (Macmillan) Amazon delisted them. When it was apparent that all the publishers had conspired to demand agency at the same time Amazon complained to law enforcement because that's against the law. The DoJ investigated and found that Amazon's complaint was valid. A new head of the DoJ took over and also agreed and proceeded with charges. Separate investigations in the EU and Canada found the same thing but were settled outside of court.

The 'market' does not mean colluding with your competitors. That's anti free market and illegal.