All The Many Ways Amazon So Very Failed the Weekend

[jmaloney]

Originally Posted by wallcraft

What may bother Amazon the most is the loss of the ability to discount ebooks, because large stores can do this more effectively than small stores.

Exactly. Amazon currently loses money on a bunch of their e-book sales; they're trying to push the Kindle. By agreeing to Macmillan's terms, they're essentially being placed on equal footing with other e-book sellers (i.e., Apple...though will B&N, Kobo, etc. be subjected to this as well?), thus losing the advantage they have.

It's also worth reading Charles Stross's take on this.

[jmaloney]

Originally Posted by milaru

Selling the same product for more money and giving less to the authors sure doesn't sound like not trying to screw the writers, especially on a product that can be essentially reproduced for nothing.

Scalzi stated in an earlier post that he gets a percentage of the sale price. So, if the e-book is selling at a higher price, then he's going to get more money per e-book sold than he would at the lower price point. Whether people will buy the e-books at the higher price point remains to be seen, but if they want to experiment with it, why shouldn't they? They can determine if it was a good decision after looking at the profits they make after implementing the new structure.

Authors seem to be wholly on Macmillan's side in this argument.

[mcl]

Originally Posted by jmaloney

Authors seem to be wholly on Macmillan's side in this argument.

No, a very few quite vocal authors seem to be wholly on Macmillan's side. Others are staunchly against it: http://lynnabbey.com/blog/ , http://www.boingboing.net/2010/01/29...macmillan.html , just as an example.


It's a shame Scalzi and Stross are such utter tools; I've enjoyed reading them both in the past. Hell, I even follow Scalzi and his cat on Twitter. However, I may end up having to avoid them in much the same way I avoid Orson Scott Card for his repeated, outrageous public statements on certain topics.


Many authors believe and/or act as though they have no power whatsoever, and as much as they grouse about their publisher-induced financial woes, they rail against anyone who suggests that perhaps they should try something new.


At least folks like Abbey, Cherryh, and Francher are trying their hand at striking out on their own: http://www.closed-circle.net/WhereItsAt/

Let's hope others catch on and realize they'd make more money selling directly than they'd ever dream of through a publisher.

[dsvick]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Under the Macmillan plan, no one has to pay more than $10 for an e-book if they don't want to. You just can't buy the e-book on the same day as the hardcover release for $10.

If you want first crack at the latest Baen release by one of their bestselling authors in e-book form, you get the E-Arc for $15. If you don't want to pay that, you wait and either buy the single for $6 or get the bundle in webscriptions.

Macmillan's plan sounds suspiciously similar. They're just stretching it over more time and being more granular with intermediate price points.

I hope you're right, but until we see it in practice we'll never know. The Macmillan letter specified a range between $5.99 and $14.99, it did not say that all books would start at the $14.99 and eventually end up at the $5.99, in fact it was pretty lacking in detail as to how it would be implemented. Until we see it, and see over a wide range of books, we have no idea if most books will end up at $12.99 with a few token books at $5.99... only time will tell.

[=X=]

Originally Posted by milaru

yet another reason why Scalzi is misguided in the whole thing. Calling for the support of Macmillian who is rapidly trying to screw their writers seems to be about par for the course for the guy. He doesn't seem interested in fixing the problem, he wants to sell books, but he doesn't get that his publisher is more interested in hurting his book sales than actually letting their product be sold.

+1 This guy is obviously upset about only one thing Amazon denying him sales, and claiming he was an innocent victim. Hey he has his right to be upset, BUT UNDER NO circumstance claim to speak on the readers behalf. I for one support Amazon's action, and from the links on this board it seems most readers do too.

=X=

[kjk]

Originally Posted by =X=

I for one support Amazon's action, and from the links on this board it seems most readers do too.
=X=

I support the authors.

[mcl]

Originally Posted by kjk

I support the authors.

I support the authors who don't support Macmillan.

I'm all for rooting for one's employer and protecting one's livelihood, but there comes a time when one must recognize that their employer is behaving poorly. Even if one cannot do anything about it, other than voice that recognition.

[K-Thom]

Originally Posted by kjk

I support the authors.

Only if you buy books/eBooks directly from the author. Otherwise you support the publisher and the retailer and to a lesser extent the author.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by K-Thom

Only if you buy books/eBooks directly from the author. Otherwise you support the publisher and the retailer and to a lesser extent the author.

I was responding to =X='s comment about people on this board supporting Amazon's actions. I don't support Amazon's actions. I support whatever the authors feel is the best deal for them.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by jmaloney

Scalzi stated in an earlier post that he gets a percentage of the sale price.

One hopes that he merely mis-spoke, and that he actually understands the difference between the list price (which is what standard publishing contracts base royalties on) and the sale price (which is whatever individual retailers sell the book for).

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by kjk

I support whatever the authors feel is the best deal for them.

And it appears that both Macmillan and the authors couldn't care less about the impact of digital piracy. It is all about the lost profits (how big is their fraction of the sale price) and not about lost sales?

I hope they know what they are doing.

[Lemurion]

I support authors - I think we all do.

I also very much dislike bullies; and in this situation it is Amazon that is being the bully. Macmillan gave Amazon options (neither to Amazon's liking) and 60 days warning. That was plenty of time for Amazon to try to suggest alternatives or at least make a counter-offer. Instead they opted for the nuclear option and removed everything Macmillan sells - paper and electronic alike.

This was Amazon's action and this hurt readers and this hurt authors. Books have vanished from peoples' wish lists. People who just discovered authors like Robert Jordan can't buy the next book in the series from Amazon.

Macmillan's pricing scheme and model may be all wrong, I don't know. What I do know is Amazon's response has permanently tarnished them in my eyes and that behavior means I can't consider them the good guys.

Agree with him or not, but John Sargent of Macmillan has come forward and said "this is what we are doing and why." We know where Macmillan stands and the decision-makers there are willing to stand up and put their name behind their position. They even took out a full page ad to make sure their official stance was available.

What did we get from Amazon? A forum post from the "Amazon Kindle team." Not one person has come forward on Amazon's behalf and made a public statement in their own name.

It's that more than the price issue that really made my decision for me.

[jmaloney]

Originally Posted by mcl

NNo, a very few quite vocal authors seem to be wholly on Macmillan's side. Others are staunchly against it: http://lynnabbey.com/blog/ , http://www.boingboing.net/2010/01/29...macmillan.html , just as an example.

Well, they both seem to be saying that they'd prefer not to have to deal with either Amazon or Macmillan (or other big publishing houses). But I don't know that they're staunchly against it. Doctorow even linked to the same Scalzi post I did, saying, "John Scalzi brings the sarcasm and the smarts in this cogent analysis..." And in another post, he links to a different Scalzi post, this time saying "John Scalzi says smart things about the Macmillan/Amazon spat." I don't see that as him disagreeing at all with what Scalzi's saying.

Originally Posted by Pardoz

One hopes that he merely mis-spoke, and that he actually understands the difference between the list price (which is what standard publishing contracts base royalties on) and the sale price (which is whatever individual retailers sell the book for).

I don't know that he either misspoke or fails to understand the difference. From here (emphasis mine):

2. "Net Receipts Percentage" Royalties

Another royalties arrangement is the "Net Receipts Percentage" model, which is applicable when authors approach major publishing houses to market their books. Currently, many publishing houses are now using this royalties model. Some of these are Macmillan, Random House, and Simon & Schuster.

In this model the writer will get a certain percent of the net sale of the ebook. This percentage typically amounts to between 10 and 25 percent of the net proceeds.

For example, first assume that the royalties arrangement is such that the writer gets 20 percent of the net sales. Then also assume that the list price is $20, and that the net sales for the publisher is, say, 60 percent of the list price (i.e., the retailer gets 40 percent). In that case, the author's royalties would be $2.40 per ebook (0.20 x 0.60 x 20).

[mcl]

Originally Posted by jmaloney

Well, they both seem to be saying that they'd prefer not to have to deal with either Amazon or Macmillan (or other big publishing houses). But I don't know that they're staunchly against it. Doctorow even linked to the same Scalzi post I did, saying, "John Scalzi brings the sarcasm and the smarts in this cogent analysis..." And in another post, he links to a different Scalzi post, this time saying "John Scalzi says smart things about the Macmillan/Amazon spat." I don't see that as him disagreeing at all with what Scalzi's saying.

Perhaps that's because you're taking bits and pieces of Doctorow's article, rather than reading it in its entirety. It's clear to me that Doctorow is against Macmillan's actions. He can also freely admire Scalzi's reasoning, and disagree with his position.

I don't know that he either misspoke or fails to understand the difference. From here (emphasis mine):

"net sales" in this case is the wholesale price the retailer pays for the book. Not the price the retailer sells the book for. There are two "sales" here: wholesaler->retailer, and retailer->customer.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by jmaloney

I don't know that he either misspoke or fails to understand the difference. From here (emphasis mine):

Thanks for the link - hadn't run across that before. Doesn't alter the fact that under standard contracts royalties aren't based on the sale price, of course, but it's still good information.