All The Many Ways Amazon So Very Failed the Weekend

[jmaloney]

Originally Posted by mcl

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.

Yes, it's clear that he's against Macmillan's actions. He stated that pretty outright: "Macmillan demanding a $15 pricetag for its ebooks is just plain farcical."

However, he also stated that's he's against Amazon, and perhaps even more so (emphasis mine): "Amazon draping itself in the consumer-rights flag in demanding a fair price is even more farcical."

And I made that clear in my post ("...they'd prefer not to have to deal with either Amazon or Macmillan..."). With his comment about about farces above, coupled with his comments on the Scalzi posts, it seems clear to me that, while he doesn't like either side particularly much, if he had any leanings, he would seem to be slightly on Macmillan's side. Or perhaps that'd be better phrased as "He's against Amazon more than he's against Macmillan."

[jmaloney]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

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.

The link seems to be explicitly about e-books (and I think that's what Scalzi was referring to as well). When you're referring to standard contracts, do you mean for e-books or physical books? I wonder if that may be where the difference is coming in here. I think the standard contracts for physical books are, as you stated, based on the list price.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by jmaloney

The link seems to be explicitly about e-books (and I think that's what Scalzi was referring to as well). When you're referring to standard contracts, do you mean for e-books or physical books? I wonder if that may be where the difference is coming in here. I think the standard contracts for physical books are, as you stated, based on the list price.

I was referring to both. In standard print contracts royalties are based on retail list. Per your link (thanks again for that), some publishers are moving to royalties based on wholesale.

Using invented figures for the sake of easy math:

1) Print contract specifies a royalty of 10% of retail list. Book has a list price of $30. Author receives a royalty of 10% of the $30 list price, or $3.

2) E-book contract specifies a royalty of 20% of wholesale. Book wholesales for $10. Author receives a royalty of 20% of the $10 wholesale price, or $2.

Royalties aren't calculated based on sale price in either case. As a retailer, I can (try to) sell the book for whatever I want. If I manage to sell a paper book for double list price the author doesn't get twice the royalty on that sale. If I want to charge half my wholesale cost on an e-book, the author doesn't receive half the royalty on that sale.

[nick101]

Originally Posted by milaru

of all the blog posts from authors you picked the least informed, and most arrogant, of them. Why for the love of god does this man get credit for anything, let him go back to consulting for the rotting corpse of stargate and writing about elves or whatever he does. There are dozens of more informed writers blogging about this like adults.

I posted it because I thought it was interesting. I still do. Next time I find something interesting, I'll post that too.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by stustaff

And as someone trying to have a successful blog exagerating and having a strong opinion is what creates hits and links.

That's exactly why I tend to avoid bloggers. Most of them are more interested in increasing their hit count than posting useful information.

[curtw]

Originally Posted by mcl

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.

My reading is that Scalzi is simply pointing out the MANY ways in which Amazon screwed up. He's not saying that Macmillan is in the right; he's ridiculing Amazon for a knee-jerk reaction that harmed both readers and writers, and which makes Amazon, not Macmillan, look like the "bad guy."

That's pretty much three strikes against Amazon in failing to understand their electronic publishing market (Kindle text-to-speech, the "1984" fiasco, and now this).

[mcl]

Originally Posted by curtw

My reading is that Scalzi is simply pointing out the MANY ways in which Amazon screwed up. He's not saying that Macmillan is in the right; he's ridiculing Amazon for a knee-jerk reaction that harmed both readers and writers, and which makes Amazon, not Macmillan, look like the "bad guy."

That's pretty much three strikes against Amazon in failing to understand their electronic publishing market (Kindle text-to-speech, the "1984" fiasco, and now this).

Huh?

The TTS issue was a ridiculous legal issue raised by the Writer's Guild, claiming that TTS constitutes a "public performance". And then pressed by the publishers, Amazon caved. They were between a rock and a hard place, with the interest groups for the blind and the ADA, the WG, and the publishers.

The "1984" fiasco, while handled poorly, dealt with an illegal sale of the work.

As far as "this": I don't think Amazon should have yanked the print versions of Macmillan titles. But nobody seems to consider the fact that Amazon may not have had a legal basis to yank the ebook titles and leave the paper titles. They may have been forced to yank everything even if all they wanted to yank were the ebook versions.

Macmillan are in the wrong. Amazon are in the wrong (regardless of need or rationale). Several rather vocal authors are in the wrong (though I'm considering reversing my stance on Stross, since his latest post seems to suggest I misinterpreted his earlier position).

They're all the "bad guys". And the only losers here are the customers, and those authors who wound up being collateral damage. Personally, I believe those authors should sue Macmillan for material breach of contract, but that's just me.

[curtw]

Originally Posted by mcl

Huh?

The TTS issue was a ridiculous legal issue raised by the Writer's Guild, claiming that TTS constitutes a "public performance". And then pressed by the publishers, Amazon caved. They were between a rock and a hard place, with the interest groups for the blind and the ADA, the WG, and the publishers.

The "1984" fiasco, while handled poorly, dealt with an illegal sale of the work.

What I am trying to say is that Amazon executed about the poorest public relations skills possible in each of the three cases. for each one, there would have been several better options. Ergo, failure to understand the market.

[bwaldron]

Originally Posted by curtw

My reading is that Scalzi is simply pointing out the MANY ways in which Amazon screwed up.

And snidely/sneeringly responding to any commenter that disagrees with him. Luckily, in the Whatever hive, most of his followers cheered him on...so there weren't many apostates.

But that's Scalzi's normal online personality. I very much prefer his published fiction to his online thoughts, and have learned to avoid the latter for the most part.

I'm not saying that Amazon didn't screw up, BTW. Were I Bezos, I would have kept Macmillan titles in the store, but at list price -- and with an explanation of why.

[bwaldron]

Originally Posted by curtw

What I am trying to say is that Amazon executed about the poorest public relations skills possible in each of the three cases. for each one, there would have been several better options. Ergo, failure to understand the market.

I agree (with the exception of the TTS case).

But as a mostly happy customer of theirs, they have engendered more goodwill with me than has Macmillan (and shown more understanding of the market). As an author, I'm sure I would be less forgiving.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I don't necessarily agree with everything in Macmillan's proposal, but the idea of paying $15 for the e-books of new release hardcovers and $6 for the e-books of backlist paperbacks doesn't bother me. ...

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.

There's nothing in the Macmillan statement that indicates all, or even the majority, of the backlist will be $6. Nothing that says most books will go below $10. All they say is that they'll start at $15, have a time-plan for lowering the price, and the lowest possible is $6.

They're *not* saying, "our ebooks will be reduced to $6 when the paperback is released." They're not saying, "all of our ebooks will eventually be available for under $10." Maybe they release popular novels at $15; when the trade pb shows up, they drop to $12.50, and when the paperback comes out, the ebook drops to $10. And maybe books they only publish in paperback start at $13, and after a year or two drop to $6.

[phenomshel]

Ok, but a point everyone seems to be missing is this: This wouldn't have had nearly the impact it did if Macmillan had distributed their author's works (in ebook formats) to places BESIDES Amazon. I couldn't get a straight answer out of anyone as to whether this is due to Amazon demanding exclusivity or Macmillan being negligent of their author's interests. But since I just bought Joan Hess's new release in ebook format at Books on Board this morning, I'm assuming it's Macmillan's fault. Therefore: Macmillan screwed their authors.

[mcl]

Originally Posted by phenomshel

Ok, but a point everyone seems to be missing is this: This wouldn't have had nearly the impact it did if Macmillan had distributed their author's works (in ebook formats) to places BESIDES Amazon. I couldn't get a straight answer out of anyone as to whether this is due to Amazon demanding exclusivity or Macmillan being negligent of their author's interests. But since I just bought Joan Hess's new release in ebook format at Books on Board this morning, I'm assuming it's Macmillan's fault. Therefore: Macmillan screwed their authors.

Not that I'm defending Macmillan, but I'm pretty certain other outlets carry Macmillan ebook titles. B&N is one example that comes readily to mind.

[bwaldron]

Originally Posted by mcl

Not that I'm defending Macmillan, but I'm pretty certain other outlets carry Macmillan ebook titles.

They do. There are probably some that are Amazon-specific, but I have purchased Macmillan ebooks (including some of Scalzi's) from other outlets than Amazon.

[mcl]

Originally Posted by bwaldron

They do. There are probably some that are Amazon-specific, but I have purchased Macmillan ebooks (including some of Scalzi's) from other outlets than Amazon.

I'm getting the distinct urge to spit whenever I see or hear his name. I like his writing, but his attitude is beyond atrocious.