Latest Authors United letter to Amazon Board

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

So some people (who buy generic books - whatever that is) are consumers, but the other not? So we do not only have things that are selled but not consumer products but also two kinds of book buyers: One enlightened species and the profane "consumer".

No, that's a complete and utter strawman. What I said is that some people do buy "generic books", but most follow specific authors. All are consumers. Some people who only download free books are not consumers of the publisher's books. If you have never bought a book from a publisher and don't ever plan to, then you are not a consumer of books published by main stream publishers. The words and concepts really aren't that difficult.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

So..... Romances are generic books? Is Science Fiction generic? Is Fantasy generic? Or is just those special snowflakes that signed that special letter to BOD that have **REAL** non-generic books. You are one condescending piece of work.

Because, you know those generic books are making a shitload of money for the publishers. Kameron Hurley reports on her blog that even though she sold out her first run of paper books on her latest novel, she's saying that 70% of her sales are ebooks. But that's just genre generic. Doesn't mean anything. Right?

No, once again that is a complete and utter strawman. What I said is " There are some genres where the author isn't nearly as important as the imprint. The old Harlequin romance novels are prime examples, ..." Heck, you even quoted what I said, before you ignored it and bashed me for something I never said. Try reading what I actually say before hurling yourself at a conclusion at what I must have meant and then insulting me because of your miscomprehensions.

[dickloraine]

Maybe my answer was a straw man, but your point is a "real Scotsman". You just evade the point of other by making a distinction between "real books" and "generic books". Classic.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by darryl

Sharing a characteristic with other consumer goods logically prevents the bestowal of special snowflake status, unless, of course, the other goods sharing that characteristic are also accorded such status.

The special characteristics of books, at Amazon.com, are:

1. They are expressions of speech
2. Amazon has a dominant market share, such as, in the case of eBooks, 65 percent in its home market

While #1 applies to multiple types of consumer goods sold by Amazon, I can only think of one other kind of consumer good Amazon sells, besides books, that possibly meets numbers 1 and 2 above. This is: Newspapers sold for reading on mobile devices. I don't know what market share Amazon has there, but it's big.

So, what happens if Amazon gets into a snit with News Corp./Harper Collins? Would they refuse to sell Kindle-platform News Corp. newspapers as they have done during past pricing disputes concerning Apple computers and Wusthof knives? I am confident Amazon executives have enough sense not to do that. Newspapers are supreme special snowflakes, even more than books. Powerful interests, in a democratic society, should, and generally do, refrain from suppressing their circulation.

Now, as I said, I think Amazon does treat books as special snowflakes and thus, quite properly, tones down its capitalist animal spirits a bit when it comes to pressuring publishers. The question, for me, is whether they have toned it down enough.

As a public company, Amazon has a responsibility not only to stockholders and customers and employees, but also to the broader public. One reflection of this is the existence of a board of directors that has several members with a non-profit background. It's proper for the authors to make a case to them, and for the directors to consider it seriously.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

Maybe my answer was a straw man, but your point is a "real Scotsman". You just evade the point of other by making a distinction between "real books" and "generic books". Classic.

What is classic.

I think you totally misunderstand the point. The point is not a point about quality of books. The point is an observation about different ways to sell books and different requierement on the production of books. There is no true scotsman fallacy here.

[crossi]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

The special characteristics of books, at Amazon.com, are:

1. They are expressions of speech
2. Amazon has a dominant market share, such as, in the case of eBooks, 65 percent in its home market

While #1 applies to multiple types of consumer goods sold by Amazon, I can only think of one other kind of consumer good Amazon sells, besides books, that possibly meets numbers 1 and 2 above. This is: Newspapers sold for reading on mobile devices. I don't know what market share Amazon has there, but it's big.

So, what happens if Amazon gets into a snit with News Corp./Harper Collins? Would they refuse to sell Kindle-platform News Corp. newspapers as they have done during past pricing disputes concerning Apple computers and Wusthof knives? I am confident Amazon executives have enough sense not to do that. Newspapers are supreme special snowflakes, even more than books. Powerful interests, in a democratic society, should, and generally do, refrain from suppressing their circulation.

Now, as I said, I think Amazon does treat books as special snowflakes and thus, quite properly, tones down its capitalist animal spirits a bit when it comes to pressuring publishers. The question, for me, is whether they have toned it down enough.

As a public company, Amazon has a responsibility not only to stockholders and customers and employees, but also to the broader public. One reflection of this is the existence of a board of directors that has several members with a non-profit background. It's proper for the authors to make a case to them, and for the directors to consider it seriously.

Amazon isn't refusing to sell Hachette's books. They are refusing to warehouse their physical books without a signed contract. They still sell them, they just need to be ordered one purchase at a time from Hachette. This is a little slower than direct mailing from a local warehouse but you can still buy them. And why should it matter? People can live without a specific book for a week or even two without expiring.

Amazon isn't REFUSING to sell Hachette ebooks. Without a signed contract they have no right to do so. It's Hachette's fault if they refuse to sign the contract. Yell at them.

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by tompe

What is classic.

I think you totally misunderstand the point. The point is not a point about quality of books. The point is an observation about different ways to sell books and different requierement on the production of books. There is no true scotsman fallacy here.

But it is:

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Disconnect? Not really. It seems obvious to me that what the authors mean is that books are not consumer goods from the stand point that people do not go out and buy generic books.

As you can see the statement above would make no sense if you would replace "generic book" with simply "book". So he does say, that some books are consumer goods, but real books are not. Maybe you can make such distinctions without falling in a fallacy. But in this context, it is evasive. To discuss further with him, we must accept his distinction. We do not use the word "book" in its normal use anymore, but this restricted use.

There are other problems with his statement, for example, that just because something has a brand name it is still a consumer good. But it is not even necessary to talk about that, because of the fallacy.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by crossi

They are refusing to warehouse their physical books without a signed contract. . . .

Is this post a reply to me? It doesn't seem responsive to the post of mine you generously quoted. However, as you may suspect, I don't fully agree with what you posted in #66, so I hope can be forgiven for replying in that spirit.

As for your sentence quoted above: You are likely correct as to what Amazon was doing, months ago, for most (never all) Hachette titles. But, lately, I see Amazon, while not treating Hachette like the other publishers, guaranteeing delivery of most popular Hachette titles, to Prime customers, in two business days. How can Amazon do this without warehousing? They can't, so they must be warehousing

I just checked, at Amazon.com, what Hachette lists as its top six USA Today bestsellers as of September 18:

http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/books/bestsellers/

Only one I notice as having paper copy delays listed at Amazon.com, that being Mean Streak. The delay listed is 1 - 3 weeks, which is a lot less than some of Amazon's listed delays a few months ago, but is still longer than the time it take for a wholesaler to deliver an out-of-stock paper book to an independent bookstore.

So what's different about Mean Streak?

It would just be guessing to answer that interesting question, so I won't harp on that.* But it's no guess that the idea Amazon is "refusing to warehouse their physical books without a signed contract" has never been true for every Hachette title, and now only is the case in special situations.

Originally Posted by crossi

Amazon isn't REFUSING to sell Hachette ebooks. Without a signed contract they have no right to do so.

Amazon has never stopped selling Hachette eBooks. Given this background, your statement seems an inadvertent accusation of Amazon lawbreaking.

As far as I can tell, booksellers no more need a contract with the the hundreds of publishers to buy eBooks than they do to buy hardcovers. Wholesalers are in business to shield independent booksellers, and Amazon if it wishes, from that complexity.

__________________________
* My guess is that it has something to do with a combination of the release date and the non-political nature of the content. The motive would be reduce the chances of Hachette books becoming bestsellers while avoiding the ire of right (or, if they still exist, left) wing radio hosts. Just a guess.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

The special characteristics of books, at Amazon.com, are:

1. They are expressions of speech
2. Amazon has a dominant market share, such as, in the case of eBooks, 65 percent in its home market

Thanks Steve. This is a much more precise formulation than risk of censorship. Perhaps a good example of how discussion and argument assists us to refine our points of view, if not challenge them.

I think there is merit in your formulation if your second numbered paragraph is modified to apply only where the proposed actions of a monopolist or oligopolist or the like constitute a real threat to free speech. This would usually only happen where the "expressions of speech" were not reasonably available from other sources.

And in this situation, any action would be taken because of the real threat to free speech.

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

While #1 applies to multiple types of consumer goods sold by Amazon, I can only think of one other kind of consumer good Amazon sells, besides books, that possibly meets numbers 1 and 2 above. This is: Newspapers sold for reading on mobile devices. I don't know what market share Amazon has there, but it's big.

So, what happens if Amazon gets into a snit with News Corp./Harper Collins? Would they refuse to sell Kindle-platform News Corp. newspapers as they have done during past pricing disputes concerning Apple computers and Wusthof knives? I am confident Amazon executives have enough sense not to do that. Newspapers are supreme special snowflakes, even more than books. Powerful interests, in a democratic society, should, and generally do, refrain from suppressing their circulation.

My own opinion is that not even newspapers are special snowflakes. Not in the sense used by the letter, which is essentially that they must be exempt from normal commercial tactics if such tactics could impede their distribution in any way. As for what Amazon would do in the hypothetical situation you describe? I don't know, of course, but if they did choose not to sell newspapers it would not be a disaster, as newspapers are available in many other places. But of course it would be a bad commercial decision if for no other reason than it would substantially inconvenience its customers and run the risk of losing many of them.

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Now, as I said, I think Amazon does treat books as special snowflakes and thus, quite properly, tones down its capitalist animal spirits a bit when it comes to pressuring publishers. The question, for me, is whether they have toned it down enough.

We disagree here. Amazon's decision not to refuse to sell Hachette books at the moment is a commercial one made for commercial reasons. It is not at all indicative of special snowflake status.

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

As a public company, Amazon has a responsibility not only to stockholders and customers and employees, but also to the broader public. One reflection of this is the existence of a board of directors that has several members with a non-profit background. It's proper for the authors to make a case to them, and for the directors to consider it seriously.

Even accepting this broader duty, Amazon does not owe such a duty to Hachette or the other BWM publishers. I don't begrudge the Authors making a case directly to Amazon or its directors. However, the target "audience" for this letter was not Amazon but the general public. It was an attempt to try to publicly shame Amazon into complying with its demands. And I remain amazed by the inept way in which it was conceived and carried out.

On another note, it is my observation that so many attacks on Amazon are based not on the current situation but on a hypothetical scenario where Amazon not only achieves a monopoly but then ruthlessly exploits that monopoly. This ignores the previous oligopoly of the BWM publishers which did in my view engage in substantial exploitation both of readers and authors. Amazon has, now, according to your Forbes figures, 65% of the ebook market. This is, as you say, a dominant position, but still far from a monopoly. If I want to buy a Hachette book at the moment I can still buy it from Amazon. If there is an unacceptable wait I can purchase it from many other sources with minimal inconvenience. I could even purchase from Barnes and Noble, though given the contempt recently shown by them for their customers I would not wish to do so.

Your argument, at the end of the day, is a freedom of speech one. And freedom of speech is not threatened by Amazon's current commercial actions. If Amazon becomes a monopoly and seriously threatens freedom of speech, then I would like to think that I would man the barricades with you, and that many here would also. But because of the threat to freedom of speech, and not because books are special snowflakes. They are not.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

But it is:


As you can see the statement above would make no sense if you would replace "generic book" with simply "book". So he does say, that some books are consumer goods, but real books are not. Maybe you can make such distinctions without falling in a fallacy. But in this context, it is evasive. To discuss further with him, we must accept his distinction. We do not use the word "book" in its normal use anymore, but this restricted use.

There are other problems with his statement, for example, that just because something has a brand name it is still a consumer good. But it is not even necessary to talk about that, because of the fallacy.

I really do not understand what you are talking about.

Are you saying that some books are not sold as generic books (commodity)? Are you saying that most books are not sold as non-commodity items? What are you arguing?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

But it is:


As you can see the statement above would make no sense if you would replace "generic book" with simply "book". So he does say, that some books are consumer goods, but real books are not. Maybe you can make such distinctions without falling in a fallacy. But in this context, it is evasive. To discuss further with him, we must accept his distinction. We do not use the word "book" in its normal use anymore, but this restricted use.

There are other problems with his statement, for example, that just because something has a brand name it is still a consumer good. But it is not even necessary to talk about that, because of the fallacy.

It is not a fallacy, it is pointing out a simple fact, i.e. that most people buy books based on the author or brand name. This, of course, causes the "authors don't matter" crowd, all sorts of grief, so naturally you try to throw out a strawman so you can ignore that simple fact.

The authors make a simple point, which is that books are not the same as toilet paper, DVD players and the like, where one brand isn't much different than the next and people buy generics (a technical term that has a specific meaning, BTW). When the authors refer to consumer goods, they are talking about this type of good when people are much more interested in price than they are in the specific brand or quality of the item. It's really not hard to understand, but that doesn't fit some people's preferred narrative.

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It is not a fallacy, it is pointing out a simple fact, i.e. that most people buy books based on the author or brand name. This, of course, causes the "authors don't matter" crowd, all sorts of grief, so naturally you try to throw out a strawman so you can ignore that simple fact.

And here you are using a strawman. Who is this "authors don't matter crowd"? Disagreeing with your point does not mean, that authors didn't matter. It means that I don't see why such a distinction would be useful and that I disagree with the connection you make between something being a consumer good and this distinction.
Maybe I would have reacted in an other way, I you hadn't used attacks at people in your post and if there weren't some strange undertones in it. You see, by the way how you present your arguments, they seem to be easy to misunderstood, going by how often you say, someone uses a strawman on you.

[fjtorres]

Well, somebody is doing more than just mocking the eminently mockable gold-plated gang.
http://watershedchronicle.wordpress....-doug-preston/

Fire-proof attire recommended.

It also links to this interview:

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/amazo...~7sjkMk4Q.html

[darryl]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Well, somebody is doing more than just mocking the eminently mockable gold-plated gang.
http://watershedchronicle.wordpress....-doug-preston/

Fire-proof attire recommended.

It also links to this interview:

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/amazo...~7sjkMk4Q.html

Excellent.

And that Author's guild president is indeed a special snowflake. One with the hide of a rhionoceros.

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Well, somebody is doing more than just mocking the eminently mockable gold-plated gang.
http://watershedchronicle.wordpress....-doug-preston/

Fire-proof attire recommended.

It also links to this interview:

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/amazo...~7sjkMk4Q.html

Thanks for these links. I especially liked this

In fact, your sad attempts at garnering sympathy by talking about how far your sales have fallen, especially the point about other retailers failing to make up the difference, may be making a strong case that Amazon isn’t asking enough for their contributions in selling Hachette’s books.