All The Many Ways Amazon So Very Failed the Weekend

[Talldog]

I don't really understand all the "inside baseball" details around pricing, royalties, and such, but I find it fascinating that the person who deliberately detonated this bomb, Steve Jobs, is getting a complete pass. He knew the publishing houses would see the Apple name as gold, and would come running to him as a way to fight Amazon, figuring the iPad as a guaranteed success. He's got to be laughing his whatever off right now.

And for those who think paying more than $10 for an ebook is a bad thing, you have him to thank, and nobody else. I'm not sure how I feel about it myself, because like I said, I really don't understand the inside stuff, but I certainly think authors deserve a fair price for their product. Publishing houses, not so much.

[phenomshel]

Originally Posted by mcl

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.

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.

Yes, some...but not all. About 1/4 of my Amazon wishlist disappeared with this mess, and those are titles that are all Macmillan, and all not available anywhere else. This is at least four authors and a dozen titles. Like I said, I did find Joan Hess's new title at Books on Board this morning and bought it. But - for those authors that Macmillan didn't bother to distribute anywhere but Amazon? Unless there's some sort of exclusivity for that author from Amazon that no one's talking about, (which I agree is more than possible), the lost sales of those authors is all Macmillan's fault.

[Robotech_Master]

In Scalzi's post which was linked at the start of this thread, I think he said a lot of things that were pretty spot-on. He talked about ways that Amazon could have pulled something similar to what it did without coming off looking like a petulant child (which, let's be honest, it has).

I don't agree with his pro-Macmillan stance either, but I do agree with him that Amazon pretty much screwed the pooch when it came to positive PR opportunities (and opportunities not to do as much harm to relationships with authors who get snippy about little things like their books being made unavailable).

Honestly, why hasn't Amazon released any kind of official statement other than one made in some tiny little corner of their forum by a relatively minor part of their management team? That's not the way to look like the white knight.

[mcl]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

In Scalzi's post which was linked at the start of this thread, I think he said a lot of things that were pretty spot-on. He talked about ways that Amazon could have pulled something similar to what it did without coming off looking like a petulant child (which, let's be honest, it has).

I don't agree with his pro-Macmillan stance either, but I do agree with him that Amazon pretty much screwed the pooch when it came to positive PR opportunities (and opportunities not to do as much harm to relationships with authors who get snippy about little things like their books being made unavailable).

Honestly, why hasn't Amazon released any kind of official statement other than one made in some tiny little corner of their forum by a relatively minor part of their management team? That's not the way to look like the white knight.

It's entirely possible that, from a contractual standpoint, Amazon was unable to remove JUST the Macmillan ebooks. Someone in their legal department may have insisted that it was all or nothing. I wouldn't automatically assume it was done in a fit of pique.

Of course, I'm giving Amazon some benefit of the doubt here, but they're a hell of a lot more entitled to it than Macmillan is.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by phenomshel

Yes, some...but not all. About 1/4 of my Amazon wishlist disappeared with this mess, and those are titles that are all Macmillan, and all not available anywhere else. This is at least four authors and a dozen titles. Like I said, I did find Joan Hess's new title at Books on Board this morning and bought it. But - for those authors that Macmillan didn't bother to distribute anywhere but Amazon? Unless there's some sort of exclusivity for that author from Amazon that no one's talking about, (which I agree is more than possible), the lost sales of those authors is all Macmillan's fault.

No. Lost sales due to Amazon's action are not Macmillan's fault. Amazon bears the responsibility for their actions, not Macmillan.

[Guns4Hire]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

I don't agree with his pro-Macmillan stance either, but I do agree with him that Amazon pretty much screwed the pooch when it came to positive PR opportunities (and opportunities not to do as much harm to relationships with authors who get snippy about little things like their books being made unavailable).

I personally don't think they 'screwed the pooch'. It was great PR for Amazon at least regarding their customers. Acting like they are trying to protect the customers and fighting the fight (for them). Amazon let every last one of them know exactly why prices would be rising for those specific books. But of course they need to back track eventually and re-list the books because they are a book seller. So Jeff B fought for his customers, his customers know exactly why the prices went up and he still gets to sell the books and make profit off of them.

So sure the authors might be upset with Amazon but as the authors always says they have no power or control anyway and its all in the publishers hands. Sure they can blog all they want about it though.

And if you look at the Amazon Discussion section there are way more people on there saying they are going to boycott MM than there are people defending MM and that are upset with Amazon.

On top of that Amazon isn't losing any money on not getting MM sales anyway. Since they sell as a loss leader. The only money being lost (at least right now) by anyone is at MM and their authors. And thats no ones fault but ole John S.

So for Amazon's its a win (at least regarding their customers).

[Connallmac]

Originally Posted by 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.

This is extremely tortured logic. Macmillan is free to twist Amazon's arm over pricing, but Amazon has no recourse but to take it? Let's get real here. It's called negotiating and Amazon's leverage comes not so much from it's install base of Kindles, which Macmillan has no regard for anyway, but from being the source for books (p & e-books) on the internet. Should Amazon negotiate a contract with one hand behind it's back? Why should they not use the most powerful lever they have? Macmillan has a legal monopoly on content and they want to flex those muscles by withholding e-books for months from the publishing date so that they can increase their profits on hardcovers; I dislike it, but I understand it. I haven't heard their authors decrying the income lost on those e-book sales. When Amazon turns the tap off for a weekend all of a sudden they are up in arms? Give me a break!

Frankly, I think we in the e-book community should get behind Amazon, even if you don't buy e-books from them, as they have forced other major players like B&N and Sony to lower prices to compete. They made $9.99 the price point to compete at, and now they are going to be straight jacketed in pricing to what the publisher demands. If publishers want to raise prices they need to provide greater value, be it through better edited and produced e-books, more favorable release dates, extra content, etc. Publishers don't have any right to stay in business, and if they continue on such an anti-consumer path they will price themselves right out of business.

[Guns4Hire]

This is no different than when Coca Cola tried to force Costco to raise their prices. Costco pulled it off their shelves and put up signs saying why they were not carrying Coke anymore. And then eventually put Coke back on its shelves.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Connallmac

This is extremely tortured logic. Macmillan is free to twist Amazon's arm over pricing, but Amazon has no recourse but to take it? Let's get real here. It's called negotiating and Amazon's leverage comes not so much from it's install base of Kindles, which Macmillan has no regard for anyway, but from being the source for books (p & e-books) on the internet. Should Amazon negotiate a contract with one hand behind it's back? Why should they not use the most powerful lever they have? Macmillan has a legal monopoly on content and they want to flex those muscles by withholding e-books for months from the publishing date so that they can increase their profits on hardcovers; I dislike it, but I understand it. I haven't heard their authors decrying the income lost on those e-book sales. When Amazon turns the tap off for a weekend all of a sudden they are up in arms? Give me a break!

Frankly, I think we in the e-book community should get behind Amazon, even if you don't buy e-books from them, as they have forced other major players like B&N and Sony to lower prices to compete. They made $9.99 the price point to compete at, and now they are going to be straight jacketed in pricing to what the publisher demands. If publishers want to raise prices they need to provide greater value, be it through better edited and produced e-books, more favorable release dates, extra content, etc. Publishers don't have any right to stay in business, and if they continue on such an anti-consumer path they will price themselves right out of business.

The authors aren't decrying the loss on e-book sales because it's a miniscule portion of their income. It's not really enough money for them to worry about. They are screaming about p-books because a) that's over 90% of their income and b) the p-books aren't part of the dispute.

I'm not getting behind Amazon because their behavior is reprehensible, and that matters more to me than the difference between a 40% and 60% discount off list.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by Guns4Hire

This is no different than when Coca Cola tried to force Costco to raise their prices. Costco pulled it off their shelves and put up signs saying why they were not carrying Coke anymore. And then eventually put Coke back on its shelves.

What was the resolution of that?

[Guns4Hire]

Originally Posted by kjk

What was the resolution of that?

No one knows. The devil is in the details but the details aren't known. I think Coke was gone from Costco for about a month.

[Guns4Hire]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I'm not getting behind Amazon because their behavior is reprehensible, and that matters more to me than the difference between a 40% and 60% discount off list.

I am not even an Amazon fan. Nor am I a detractor. I don't buy eBooks from them and I don't own a Kindle. Can't remember the last product I bought from them. Just trying to point out that I am not part of the Amazon religion.

John S. got in bed with Apple and then decided to give Amazon an ultimatum and then got the banhammer applied. Its no ones fault but John S at MM. And the authors are paying the price for that ultimatum.

[JSWolf]

Thanks for the duplicate link. Just what we needed.

[jmaloney]

Originally Posted by Guns4Hire

This is no different than when Coca Cola tried to force Costco to raise their prices. Costco pulled it off their shelves and put up signs saying why they were not carrying Coke anymore. And then eventually put Coke back on its shelves.

Well, it is different, for a couple of reasons:

1. Costco didn't actually pull anything off their shelves. They simply refused to order any new stock from Coca Cola.
2. Costco actually told their customers up front what they were doing, and why.

[guyanonymous]

Amazon, for the most part, operates with minimal on-hand stock, and orders-on-demand (carefully figuring out the minimal stock required to meet demand most of the time). The may have just stopped ordering, and within a few days, they're out of product.