Amazon vs. Hachette Update - It's About Price

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Sure you do. And it certainly does. You made a silly unverifiable claim: that when examined closely, says nothing, anyway.

Maybe you could be a bit less cryptic, or maybe if you were less cryptic, it would turn out that your basic point is "you disagree with my heartfelt believes, therefore you are an idiot and I'm simply going to put out posts that me and my online buddies consider for wit rather than engage in an honest discussion". Whatever.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ApK

"The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him on the nose. The second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk. But the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle."

-- The Rabbi, "Lucky Number Slevin"

It really depends on who the someones are. I've generally found online that the more often a poster resorts to insults and petty little trolling games, the more likely it is that they simply don't have anything to say that's worth listening to.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Maybe you could be a bit less cryptic, or maybe if you were less cryptic, it would turn out that your basic point is "you disagree with my heartfelt believes, therefore you are an idiot and I'm simply going to put out posts that me and my online buddies consider for wit rather than engage in an honest discussion". Whatever.

Since a general trend on MR seems to be to think that you make many silly unverifiable claims (at least regarding Apple/Amazon/Hachette and anything to do with business) then either MR is just a collection of DiapDealer's online buddies trolling for wit, or you are wrong.

I did not consider it all that cryptic. You made a silly unverifiable claim, which he quoted to you, and if you want to know why it is silly and unverifiable, perhaps you should refer back to the post before*, one of yours, in which you quoted the latest attempt to explain it to you.


* that is, before the one in which you were accused of making silly unverifiable claims

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It really depends on who the someones are. I've generally found online that the more often a poster resorts to insults and petty little trolling games, the more likely it is that they simply don't have anything to say that's worth listening to.

Can you elaborate on what you mean, who you are referring to, which posts you regard as trolling? If not, I shall have to write this off as a petty insult, similar to this one:

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Maybe you could be a bit less cryptic, or maybe if you were less cryptic, it would turn out that your basic point is "you disagree with my heartfelt believes, therefore you are an idiot and I'm simply going to put out posts that me and my online buddies consider for wit rather than engage in an honest discussion". Whatever.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by ApK

All colluding to set the prices was the bad part!

Yes, let us agree on that.

Originally Posted by ApK

It had NOTHING to do with agency pricing, whether individually or as a group, at the same time or staggered over weeks. None of that is any more relevant to what was illegal than is the fact they used email or that they did it on a Tuesday.

It would have been the same if they did it though wholesale pricing or direct pricing. I don't understand why you are arguing about this?

Then I would like to politely ask what you think is the illegal part in the collusion. And especially your take on how they legally could have done it through wholesale pricing, for example. And not just how they all could have done it together, but even how one single publisher independent of the others could have enforced a minimum price under wholesale.

ETA: I propose a compromise, so we can get past this silliness: You stop saying agency pricing is illegal, and I'll stop arguing with you about it.

Sure, not a problem. Agency pricing is not illegal. Collusion to price fix is illegal.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Yes, let us agree on that.
[...]
Sure, not a problem. Agency pricing is not illegal. Collusion to price fix is illegal.

See there, you and I should be the negotiators for Amazon and Hachette. This would all be over by now!

Then I would like to politely ask what you think is the illegal part in the collusion.

The collusion to set prices, as we agree.

And especially your take on how they legally could have done it through wholesale pricing, for example.

My point is that it would still be illegal if it was wholesale pricing, as we agree.

And not just how they all could have done it together, but even how one single publisher independent of the others could have enforced a minimum price under wholesale.

Well, that's easy and not illegal. The one publisher says "Retailers, my wholesale price for my books is $x.xx. I will not go any lower." Done.

If you mean how could they enforce a minimum RETAIL price with a wholesale/retail pricing model, that's a totally different matter, and I'm not sure it's relevant to this thread. In brief, though, I'm pretty sure, as has been discussed in other threads about Apple and Bose products recently, in the U.S. at least, they are legally free to contractually require a minimum retail price. That's a matter of negotiation.

I think I was told here that in the UK, that is not allowed.

Of course, in the US at least, using the ability to discount in certain unfair ways that harms the competitive market may be predatory pricing and could be prosecuted.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Maybe you could be a bit less cryptic

Sorry. Most of my traditional online reader-type contemporaries, aren't so easily tripped up by language.

or maybe if you were less cryptic, it would turn out that your basic point is "you disagree with my heartfelt believes, therefore you are an idiot and I'm simply going to put out posts that me and my online buddies consider for wit rather than engage in an honest discussion".

No. That can't be it. I don't really have any heartfelt believes about Amazon, Hachette, or agency pricing. Just opinions about them. And opinions about others' opinions about them. And slightly better proof-reading skills than some. *shrug*

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by ApK

If you mean how could they enforce a minimum RETAIL price with a wholesale/retail pricing model, that's a totally different matter, and I'm not sure it's relevant to this thread. In brief, though, I'm pretty sure, as has been discussed in other threads about Apple and Bose products recently, in the U.S. at least, they are legally free to contractually require a minimum retail price. That's a matter of negotiation.

I think I was told here that in the UK, that is not allowed.

Of course, in the US at least, using the ability to discount in certain unfair ways that harms the competitive market may be predatory pricing and could be prosecuted.

Yes, of course retail price. Amazon has ignored the wholesale price before 2010. When Amazon started selling bestsellers at $9.99 initially they did not make a loss, they broke even on those discounted books. Publishers were shocked that Amazon was selling them at cost, so they tried to increase the list price, with it the wholesale price went up some $ above 10. Amazon still sold at $9.99 and publishers were horrified seeing that Amazon just ate the difference.

This time around it seems to be about how much percent goes to whom at set retail prices through agency. Amazon might want to make a price below $10 more interesting by increasing their cut (in %) bigger above $10. E.g. 30% to Amazon at a retail price of under 10, and 50% above. So that financially it would make little sense to set the price between $10 and $14. If there is good enough reason to maybe protect a higher price for HC, then Hachette can do so. But they will have to pay for that privilege. The 30 and 50 and 10 are just imaginary numbers, the 14 is just the result of the numbers I pulled out of my hat.

In the case of Bose, there was always very restrictive contracts for those who wished to be a retailer. So restrictive that it makes it impractical for a small town audio equipment store to even bother. The stores that barely meet the qualifications have to work hard to even break even.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Interesting how Amazon offers independent Kindle device resellers a markup of six or nine percent, while insisting on a more than thirty percent discount for itself.

That does not strike me as discriminatory since Amazon is the one offering customer care on the device, not the reseller. Their staff and facilities have to be paid, and the money probably comes from the profit margin on the device. Then there's publicity and marketing, and I've never seen a reseller market the device as vigorously as Amazon themselves do.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

An ebook should be priced lower than the least expensive paperbook available. That price difference should reflect the difference in costs between producing the two products. Once priced, the publisher then sells it to a retailer. After that, it should be up to the retailer to set the final sell price.

I'd argue that the price should be even lower considering that the purchaser loses out on resale value on the e-book. Some people might counter with the argument that that it is offset by the portability and non-degradability of the format, but I say that I've already paid for those conveniences with the purchase of my e-reader, thank you very much. The publishers wouldn't even have an e-book market to exploit were it not for the investment of the readers in their e-readers/smartpones/tablets/Computers.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by ApK

. . . But the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle."

-- The Rabbi, "Lucky Number Slevin"

This will be fine for the rabbi if he lives in a Jewish neighborhood. But what if the block fills up with people who believe God wants Jews to convert? Is he then going to do it? And if the neighborhood changes again, convert back?

The equivalent for this issue is that if you hang around major publisher authors, or you hang around here, you are going to wind up with quite different saddles.

I realize that, in practice, it is impossible to live your life without being influenced by the people who are nearby more than by those who are distant. I trust my doctor without having double-checked everything she says with the latest relevant review article in the New England Journal of Medicine. But just because people often have to saddle up to local majorities and authorities to remain sane doesn't make that an ideal. That's especially true when discussing a public controversy on the Internet. If I was going to kowtow to the majority, it would be pointless to be here.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by ApK

The collusion to set prices, as we agree.

That is BS, and you know it. You are evading my question, and you know it.

We did not agree that the collusion itself was what made the collusion illegal. Saying that the collusion is what made the collusion illegal does not even make any sense. We agreed that:

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Yes, let us agree on that.

What was bad? To set prices together (collusion). Why is setting prices bad? Price fixing is illegal. What did they do to price fix? Blackmail Amazon into signing a contract with bad terms for Amazon. How did they have the power to blackmail? They uniformly confronted Amazon with a deadline (the day the Apple ebook store opened) to either accept no discount agency pricing and be able to stay in ebooks or stay with the wholesale model and defacto lose ebook business. Why did Amazon agree? Self preservation by picking the lesser of two evils. Who had the idea? Steve Jobs said that prices will be the same. How? MFN clause to allow Apple to discount to the lowest competitor price while still keeping the same profit margin. Did the publishers like the MFN clause? No, they fought tooth and nail. Did the publishers admit they were guilty? No, they settled to avoid going to court.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Since a general trend on MR seems to be to think that you make many silly unverifiable claims (at least regarding Apple/Amazon/Hachette and anything to do with business) then either MR is just a collection of DiapDealer's online buddies trolling for wit, or you are wrong.

You must be pleased as punch to be a trendsetter with all your "silly unverifiable claims". Your repeating such claims won't make them any truer, but then you appear to be a supporter of the shout-longer-and-louder-to-win school of debate.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

And slightly better proof-reading skills than some.

Stretching a bit don't you think?

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I don't really have any heartfelt believes about Amazon, Hachette, or agency pricing.

Don't your "slightly better proof-reading skills" tell you that believes should be beliefs? Or is believes intended to be deliberately cryptic?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by rhadin

You must be pleased as punch to be a trendsetter with all your "silly unverifiable claims". Your repeating such claims won't make them any truer, but then you appear to be a supporter of the shout-longer-and-louder-to-win school of debate.

I've come to the conclusion that there are some here who, unless they are actually adding to the discussion rather than engaging in silly rhetorical games, it's better simply to ignore. I don't use the ignore feature since when at least a few, when they aren't caught up in their little games, actually have some interesting things to say. At the very least, one finds out what the talking points are. Either way, I've decided that I've wasted enough time rising to their bait.