Amazon vs. Hachette Update - It's About Price

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

They don't need to pay a dividend: investors are making money through the relentless increase in the share price: up from $20 in 1997 to $320 today.

Amazon don't really lose money, of course. They make boat-loads of money - they simply reinvest it all in infrastructure (building distribution centres, etc).

Actually, it seems that they do lose money. In this article about how Amazon is now removing the pre-order buttons for Disney DVD and Blu-Ray titles as part of their contract negotiations with Disney, it mentions that Amazon lost $126 million last quarter and is projected to lose as much as $810 million this quarter.


http://online.wsj.com/articles/dispu...&mg=reno64-wsj

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Actually, it seems that they do lose money. In this article about how Amazon is now removing the pre-order buttons for Disney DVD and Blu-Ray titles as part of their contract negotiations with Disney, it mentions that Amazon lost $126 million last quarter and is projected to lose as much as $810 million this quarter.


http://online.wsj.com/articles/dispu...&mg=reno64-wsj

As usual, whatever you say means nothing until you stop posting links behind paywalls. It makes it very difficult to actually carry on a discussion when most of it is blocked from view.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by rhadin

We know that Amazon took a loss on "some" ebooks because the numbers were publicly known. We do not know that Amazon still made an overall profit on ebooks because the numbers are not public. The assumption is that they made a profit but that is all it is

As I recall we do know that they made an overall profit on eBooks from the big five/six because it came out as part of discovery during the DOJ's case against the publishers and Apple. Just as part of the settlements is that all retailers can, for now, discount but must show an overall profit on each publishers titles.

[JoHunt]

Amazon and Disney lock horns over DVD pricing

Embracing its recurring role as the hyper-capitalist antihero, Amazon.com is refusing to accept pre-orders for DVDs of a handful of Walt Disney box-office smash hits, including “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” and “Maleficent,” as the online hypermarket presses for better payment terms.

Amazon played a similar game of hardball earlier this year with Warner Brothers and, most notoriously, the e-commerce giant is waging a long-running contract fight with book publisher Hachette that has made prisoners of war of many best-selling authors.

So while this is a familiar story likely to be sorted out in a predictable way – with a meeting in the middle over DVD pricing and Disney’s cut – there are a few important differences between Disney’s jam-up with Amazon and Hachette’s.

For one, Disney needs Amazon a lot less than Hachette or any book publisher does. Books are all the publishers sell and Amazon is by far the biggest distributor. For Disney, physical DVDs remain a nice business, but are in broad decline as streaming video takes over.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazon...140940292.html

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Amazon don't really lose money, of course. They make boat-loads of money - they simply reinvest it all in infrastructure (building distribution centres, etc).

From The Wall Street Journal:

For the second quarter, Amazon is expected to post a 23% rise in revenue to $19.3 billion and a loss of 15 cents per share, according to a consensus of analysts from Thomson Reuters. “It’s a feat to lose money with $20 billion in net revenue,” said BGC Partners analyst Colin Gillis in a note to investors.
. . .

Dare We Say the “P” Word?: Amazon has for years been given something of a hall-pass on profits. Unlike for many companies, investors are willing to forgive narrow profits or even losses on the belief that Amazon is simply plowing its ever-rising revenue back into hardware and services development.
But shares are down 10% this year, which some analysts attribute to pressure on Amazon to begin to show a profit. And with many of Amazon’s once-secret hardware projects now available to the public, the Seattle company may have to spin its investment story anew to win over weary stakeholders.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

As I recall we do know that they made an overall profit on eBooks from the big five/six because it came out as part of discovery during the DOJ's case against the publishers and Apple. Just as part of the settlements is that all retailers can, for now, discount but must show an overall profit on each publishers titles.

Amazon's profits or losses were not disclosed. There was no discovery of Amazon's P&L. And none of the publishers had the data. They wanted to discover it, but weren't permitted to do so.

Cote's order did order retailer profitability, but how this was to be proven was left in the air. Because the retailers weren't part of the lawsuit, Cote's order lacks enforceability against them. Basically the only option is to include a audit clause in future contracts, but if Amazon is unwilling to disclose such information to shareholders, it is unlikely to be willing to disclose such information to Hachette, and Cote cannot force Amazon to do so.

Amazon is not bound by the judge's order; only the parties to the lawsuit are.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by rhadin

From The Wall Street Journal:

Oh, so you agree that Amazon makes boatloads of money, they just reinvest it instead of stockpiling it in a war chest?

Because nowhere in your link have you proven otherwise!

Or even indicated it, even. That link pretty much stereotypes every fool who says "Oh. Em. Gee. Share prices have fallen. That must be because Amazon is losing money, not because of a complex haystack of causes which in this case should probably involve people wanting to see that war chest and being unhappy with Amazon because of it, because stock prices have nothing whatsoever to do with the inherent value of the company and everything to do with the value of the company's public image".

And in doing so, you have kind of proven our point...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Actually, it seems that they do lose money. In this article about how Amazon is now removing the pre-order buttons for Disney DVD and Blu-Ray titles as part of their contract negotiations with Disney, it mentions that Amazon lost $126 million last quarter and is projected to lose as much as $810 million this quarter.

Oh yes, I know Amazon post a loss, but that's just creative accountancy - it doesn't mean they're losing money. They don't want to make a profit - they'd have to pay tax on it if they did. Making a loss is good: no tax. My accountant always seems to figure out a way for my business to make a loss .

[gmw]

Originally Posted by ApK

[...]And you are free not to give it if you don't think it's in your best interest, of course.
Or even if you thought it was.
I happen to agree with Amazon, and I'm still not writing Hachette.

Of course, my status as "a KDP author" barely moves the needle in to the "technically true" range so I doubt anyone cares.

Your last bit is true of all but the few most successful self-published authors. Which makes Amazon's request all the more strange. Why should Hachette care what a bunch of relatively small author's - that they've already rejected (well, some of them probably) - have to say?

Of course, it's not really that strange. It was a PR stunt, just like much of what has gone on with this dispute. And being a stunt, brings me back to arguing that they are attempting to use authors as pawns, even if their wording makes it sound like they're looking for allies (that's just part of the stunt).

[ApK]

Originally Posted by gmw

Your last bit is true of all but the few most successful self-published authors. Which makes Amazon's request all the more strange. Why should Hachette care what a bunch of relatively small author's - that they've already rejected (well, some of them probably) - have to say?

Of course, it's not really that strange. It was a PR stunt, just like much of what has gone on with this dispute. And being a stunt, brings me back to arguing that they are attempting to use authors as pawns, even if their wording makes it sound like they're looking for allies (that's just part of the stunt).

Unless you consider that, as was said earlier, authors are readers first, and readers are customers, and Amazon has more of them on their side.
In which case, I guess it's still a stunt, but a good one, if it works.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

As usual, whatever you say means nothing until you stop posting links behind paywalls. It makes it very difficult to actually carry on a discussion when most of it is blocked from view.

Not everything in the world is free. Sometimes, if you want good info, you have to pay for it.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Not everything in the world is free. Sometimes, if you want good info, you have to pay for it.

Perhaps I don't consider The Wall Street Journal to be enough good info to be worth the subscription, or I am already paying for other sources, or have more than enough info from all the multitudes of free sites that stumble over themselves to tell me things...

There you go. Three reasons why not, two of which I'd love to see you argue with -- although doubtless you will say of the third, that news sites which don't use paywalls obviously have nothing worth paying for.

So if you're finished assuming that: anyone worthy of arguing with you must believe in your theory of news, AND believe that The Wall Street Journal in particular is required reading... then try to be more interesting when you post things.

Or at least quote relevant sentences, like everyone else does. (Even when they aren't dealing with paywalls.)

Seriously. This is not the first time this has been pointed out to you, and not just by me.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Oh yes, I know Amazon post a loss, but that's just creative accountancy - it doesn't mean they're losing money. They don't want to make a profit - they'd have to pay tax on it if they did. Making a loss is good: no tax. My accountant always seems to figure out a way for my business to make a loss .

Obviously, the only way to know is to look at Amazon's books, something that I doubt Amazon will make public. The other way of looking at it is that Amazon has painted themselves in a corner with their over head costs. I'm sure that they are having to eat a lot of cost with the free 2nd day shipping for prime customers. I'm pretty sure that they still have to pay taxes on the value of what is in their warehouses each year.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Perhaps I don't consider The Wall Street Journal to be enough good info to be worth the subscription, or I am already paying for other sources, or have more than enough info from all the multitudes of free sites that stumble over themselves to tell me things...

There you go. Three reasons why not, two of which I'd love to see you argue with -- although doubtless you will say of the third, that news sites which don't use paywalls obviously have nothing worth paying for.

So if you're finished assuming that: anyone worthy of arguing with you must believe in your theory of news, AND believe that The Wall Street Journal in particular is required reading...

And you wonder why I point out your fondness for strawman arguments. Regardless, Amazon is removing the pre-order button from Disney, was reported to have a loss last quarter and is expected to post a much bigger loss this quarter. I posted the link that is the source of my statement. If you don't like the link, too bad.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

And you wonder why I point out your fondness for strawman arguments. Regardless, Amazon is removing the pre-order button from Disney, was reported to have a loss last quarter and is expected to post a much bigger loss this quarter. I posted the link that is the source of my statement. If you don't like the link, too bad.

Really, in what way is this a strawman argument? You seem to feel that anything which disagrees with you is a strawman argument, you see them everywhere.

If I cannot verify your link, then it is hardly a source, now is it?

Don't try telling me I am required to pay money in order to verify what you said.

I know why you posted a paywalled link -- you must be afraid that if we can see where you are basing your claims on, it will turn out you are taking things totally out of context, or jumping to conclusions that are unrealistic. (I could say maybe you made the whole thing up and are hoping nobody will realize, which is technically a valid concern, but unrealistic, because no one is that pathetic. So I won't go there.)