Publishers Claim Apple Order Illegally Hobbles Return to Agency Model

[library addict]

Since the settlement, we only had one month that Kobo allowed coupons on the big 5 publishers’ books. They still are not eligible for loyalty programs and sales at most stores. So other than the occasional discounted title (which the publisher chooses or sometimes Google or Amazon), when did agency pricing ever actually go away? It's not like we ever got back to the heyday of Fictionwise when all books were eligible for discounts.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by library addict

Since the settlement, we only had one month that Kobo allowed coupons on the big 5 publishers’ books. They still are not eligible for loyalty programs and sales at most stores. So other than the occasional discounted title (which the publisher chooses or sometimes Google or Amazon), when did agency pricing ever actually go away? It's not like we ever got back to the heyday of Fictionwise when all books were eligible for discounts.

I don't know. Seems to me a lot of titles are discounted on Amazon. For 'paperback equivalents' where they were $7.99 under agency a lot are now $5.99 (& sometimes less), at least ones I routinely look at.

I think the problem with Kobo was that they have to make an overall profit on a given publishers catalog and they can't do that with 50%+ discount codes which are their big draw for a lot of people. I'm guessing that's at least part of why they only allowed coupons for a short time after agency. Plus they've stated that they want agency pricing to continue.


I think the only retailer left who has had any kind of rewards program is OmniLit/All Romance and there at least some (can't check them all obviously) HarperCollins are eligible while Hachette, Penguin, Random House and S&S titles aren't. But we don't know why they aren't is it the publishers or is it the bookseller (perhaps because of their cut from the publisher) not allowing them as reward eligible.

Also some stores, like Kobo and B&N, like agency pricing to one extent or another so they don't have to compete on price with Amazon for popular titles. So it may be that they're choosing not to discount (much).

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by TimW

Publishers want preorders to be discounted? I wasn't aware of that. Apple's current price of The Silkworm is $8.99, the list is $14.99. Apple's current price of The Matchmaker by Elin Hilderbrand is $9.99, the list is $14.99. I can find others if you like. Apple doesn't seem to have a problem discounting when they want to discount.

Publishers want preorder sales in order to claim bestseller status. If you follow the links in the article in the OP you find this:

Pre-orders are not just sales – they are a major factor in getting new books to the top of the bestseller charts, so Amazon is denting Rowling's chances of creating another hit title stateside.

Preorder discounts result in higher preorder sales which is good for the publishers. But the discounts come from the profit margins of the retailers:

While the battle is being waged over the price and availability of physical books, Amazon's real dispute is about digital publishing. It takes a 30% cut of most books sold, but any discounts are paid for from that commission. The retailer would like to share the cost of discounting books, but publishers are fighting hard to avoid this outcome.

[library addict]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

I don't know. Seems to me a lot of titles are discounted on Amazon. For 'paperback equivalents' where they were $7.99 under agency a lot are now $5.99 (& sometimes less), at least ones I routinely look at.

I've seen some titles on sale and Google tends to have 25% off some new releases as well.

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

I think the problem with Kobo was that they have to make an overall profit on a given publishers catalog and they can't do that with 50%+ discount codes which are their big draw for a lot of people. I'm guessing that's at least part of why they only allowed coupons for a short time after agency. Plus they've stated that they want agency pricing to continue.


I think the only retailer left who has had any kind of rewards program is OmniLit/All Romance and there at least some (can't check them all obviously) HarperCollins are eligible while Hachette, Penguin, Random House and S&S titles aren't. But we don't know why they aren't is it the publishers or is it the bookseller (perhaps because of their cut from the publisher) not allowing them as reward eligible.

I was told by ARe that it was up to the publisher if they wanted their books to be eligible for the loyalty program.

But leaving it up to the publisher means while agency pricing may be not in effect in theory, it is still in effect in reality.

Sales are all well and good, but if the titles I'm interested in buying aren't on sale than it doesn't matter. I miss the days when all books are coupon eligible. Coupons and loyalty programs are where agency pricing never ended.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Barcey

There was actually a trial and you might not agree with the decision but it was pretty clear.



They didn't conspire with themselves, I don't believe that's possible.

Well, no there wasn't. At least, not one that the big 5 were charged with anything. They settled out of court. The trial that you are thinking of was the US verse Apple and that case is under review.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by rcentros

So what are you whining about? The publishers plea bargained and served their "sentence." Apple just got their sentence -- they still have to serve it. If that's inconvenient for their Big 5 cohorts, oh well, so be it. Tough. Maybe they shouldn't have colluded in the first place, eh?

Standard rhetorical device. When the facts don't support you, then appeal to emotion. It's not "whining" when one points out facts. What the big 5 are appealing is that Judge Cote is for all practical purposes violating the settlement that she signed.

BTW, it's not plea bargaining when a company doesn't admit guilt. None of the big 5 ever admitted any guilt and several have said that what they discussed, i.e. the agency model, is not per se illegal and the only reason they agreed to the settlement is the risk was too high. If they had lost the case, several would have been driven into bankruptcy. An out of court settlement and plea bargaining are two very different things.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

BTW, it's not plea bargaining when a company doesn't admit guilt.

Euphemism for "I'm guilty, but not willing to admit it"

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by library addict

I've seen some titles on sale and Google tends to have 25% off some new releases as well.

Probably just looking at different books I guess. During agency almost anything I looked at that was in mass market PB ($7.99) was the same price in ebook. Now all of those same books are $5.99 or less.

EDIT: I take this back. It was that way for books I was looking at a month or so ago, but it appears prices on a lot of them have crept back up some (not as high as they were under agency, but closer to that price).

I was told by ARe that it was up to the publisher if they wanted their books to be eligible for the loyalty program.

But leaving it up to the publisher means while agency pricing may be not in effect in theory, it is still in effect in reality.

Yes, I get your point.

Sales are all well and good, but if the titles I'm interested in buying aren't on sale than it doesn't matter. I miss the days when all books are coupon eligible. Coupons and loyalty programs are where agency pricing never ended.

Well, like I said the only loyalty program left is OmniLit/ARe. I agree it would be nice if they included everything (even though they don't carry everything other stores do). As for coupons I'm only guessing like I said before, but I think Kobo probably stopped those because of the requirement they make a profit on a publishers overall catalog. I suppose they could do coupons for specific publishers, but if they did I'd bet they wouldn't be the high discount codes folks have come to expect from them.


It would be great if someone could do a program run the way the Fictionwise one was, but the market is a lot different now not sure if they could make it long term.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Euphemism for "I'm guilty, but not willing to admit it"

No, it's not. I'm not sure if you are engaged in your standard stirring the pot, or if you truly are ignorant. It is standard procedure for many companies to enter into a settlement to avoid the uncertainly and expense of a trial. Indeed, many defense attorneys will advice clients, guilty or not, to accept a plea bargain as long as it doesn't involve jail time. There is a whole industry based on this particular fact. Sue a company with deep pockets with the expectation that they will give you money just to go away. Some are guilty, some are not, but there is a reason that most such settlements do not include an admission of guilt.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

No, it's not. I'm not sure if you are engaged in your standard stirring the pot, or if you truly are ignorant.

Monkeys are ignorant - go figure.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

It would be interesting to see what stores have to sign to stock the current model WiFi Paperwhite, a product that doesn't seem to be discounted by even 20 percent.

There is very little point in discounting an item which is being sold at cost, with no way of making any content sales on it. Unless you actively want to lose money.

Amazon can discount Kindles and get away with it -- if they get a lot of people to buy ebooks then they can make money and come out ahead.

3rd-party Kindle sellers do not make money off of the Kindle Store. They can only make money on the device itself, so there is very little room for discounting. I am sure Amazon is losing money by offering them discounted to the stores just so they will be carried... and same for all ereaders.

Selling Kindles is not making anyone money. Selling Kindle books using the Kindle as a storefront makes money, and it is something only Amazon can cash in on.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Euphemism for "I'm guilty, but not willing to admit it"

They were all caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Their lame defense was ... "well, we had to do something about Amazon."

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Euphemism for "I'm guilty, but not willing to admit it"

Clearly you have never been sued by a company with unlimited resources (such as the government). When I practiced law, one of the important considerations was weighing how much it would cost to fight versus to settle. If the cost to fight was so much greater than to settle, one settled regardless of whether they were right or wrong.

Settled is NOT an "euphemism for 'I'm guilty, but not willing to admit it'." In the case of a business, it is the application of business sense.

BTW, I don't see you chastising the DOJ for having agreed to settle on those terms. If the DOJ's case was so strong, it could have insisted on an admission of guilt as part of the settlement or gone to trial. It is just as reasonable to believe that the settlement terms demonstrate how weak the DOJ's case was and that the DOJ felt it was better to get something than nothing.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by rhadin

BTW, I don't see you chastising the DOJ for having agreed to settle on those terms. If the DOJ's case was so strong, it could have insisted on an admission of guilt as part of the settlement or gone to trial. It is just as reasonable to believe that the settlement terms demonstrate how weak the DOJ's case was and that the DOJ felt it was better to get something than nothing.

Quite frankly, I really didn't care how this case turned out. I'm quite cynical about our legal system and outcomes are frequently based on who's running the show versus the actual merits of a case.

That said; when a company charges too much for a product, I quit buying that product and seek a less expensive alternative. I don't like agency pricing and refuse to buy those books. I don't care if agency pricing gets re-instated or not; it won't affect me. There's always something else to read.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by rcentros

They were all caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

Exactly!

Originally Posted by rhadin

Settled is NOT an "euphemism for 'I'm guilty, but not willing to admit it'."

It is in this case.