Amazon says 'will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan's terms'

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I don't. IMO the overwhelming majority of piracy is people looking for Free Stuff. For example, there isn't much evidence that affordable DRM-free music downloads have put a dent in music piracy. Even $0.99 iPhone apps may be getting pirated at high rates.

Oh this AGAIN?

For iPhones, per Pinch Media 10% of handsets are unlocked, and of those people 40% use them for unauthorised apps. By the time you're down to 4% of an expensive smartphone's audience? Yes, by then you're into the hardcore and the horders.

To try and extrapolate and say "people are looking for free stuff" is ridiculous, when the evidence is that, for example, people doing unauthorised downloads of music are the industry's best customers. And that's hardly a unique finding, either.

"A dent? That's a hole blown in the wall, dearie."

[phenomshel]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

I'd say you're better off sending your letters and complaints to the authors themselves. Let them know that because of the publisher they choose, you will not be buying their works. The publisher, I don't believe, gives a damn what you and I think, but if their authors start leaving...they might.

Authors don't "choose" publishers. Publishers choose authors. Publishing contracts are notoriously unfair to the author. The publisher has right of first refusal on new books, but the author has very few rights at all if they leave. Publishers don't care about their authors, either, unless they're someone like Patterson or King that makes them money and is high profile.

[rwizard]

the question is, does Macmillan really care if ebooks sell? Publishers have made it clear that they are not really interested in selling ebooks when hardcovers come out because they are worried that it will impact hard cover sales. In addition, they have shown that they are not really interested is selling them if they have a paper back version out either, in many cases, unless you are willing to pay a premium to get the electronic version. Now, I agree that they should be interested in these things since I believe that they would get enough extra sales to compensate for any "loss" of revenue per copy sold; but, unfortunately, they do not see it that way.

And, for anyone that thinks that the availability or price of an electronic version does not significantly change the number of people that are likely to pirate books in electronic format, I can tell you that you are wrong from what I have seen. The common theme for this is "I am not willing to pay what you want for it so but I want it anyway, the publisher/author/etc is not loosing anything since I would just not have it if I could not have gotten it free." And though this decision is not morally right (or legally for that matter) and some may say that this just an excuse and they would have pirated it anyway, I believe that most of them are telling the truth. That being said, while it starts out more difficult to pirate books than buy them, once you have learned your way around I would not be surprised if it becomes easy enough to make it hard to resist the temptation even when things change. This goes for other industries as well (music, movies, etc). The moral of the story being if you do not get your act straight soon enough, then it becomes to late. I believe this is what has happened to the music industry.

[phenomshel]

Originally Posted by rwizard

the question is, does Macmillan really care if ebooks sell? Publishers have made it clear that they are not really interested in selling ebooks when hardcovers come out because they are worried that it will impact hard cover sales. In addition, they have shown that they are not really interested is selling them if they have a paper back version out either, in many cases, unless you are willing to pay a premium to get the electronic version. Now, I agree that they should be interested in these things since I believe that they would get enough extra sales to compensate for any "loss" of revenue per copy sold; but, unfortunately, they do not see it that way.

The short answer to your question is "no, they don't care at all." And I, for one, am tired of being treated as an inferior customer because of my chosen book delivery method (ebooks).

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by whitearrow

If Macmillan winds up charging $12-15 for a new book, fine, whatever, but then drop the price after a reasonable time. My concern is that prices won't drop commensurately with the print titles, and we'll end up in the same situation as Fictionwise is in, where they have books that have been in paperback for years and years still at $18 or $20 a pop.

What, you mean a situation where the prices of books are set by the publisher directly? Nah, that would never happen.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by rwizard

the question is, does Macmillan really care if ebooks sell?

To a great extent, most of the publishers don't care much. E-books are still a tiny portion of book sales. I think most publishers are only now starting to realize that it won't always be that way.

[Rob G.]

Some random thoughts:

I find it very interesting that the music industry ran to Amazon as a way to escape Apple's perceived tyranny and now the publishing industry is running to Apple to escape Amazon's. Something about that just doesn't add up.

Now, maybe someone can explain this to me, because I'm not sure I understand what's happening here. Amazon is paying everyone's wholesale price but then they're choosing to sell at $9.99, which would seem to be a loss. Is this correct? If this is the case than I don't understand how someone can legally say Amazon has to sell at a certain price. Isn't that price fixing and illegal? And it seems to me that this must have less to do with eBooks than it does undercutting the price of hardcovers. I'm pretty sure the industry has been equally unhappy with the near universal $9.99 discount for new HC books, so logically wouldn't they be next on the hit list?

Also, someone above said Amazon pulling Macmillian product was "playing dirty pool." I guess I don't see it that way. Amazon isn't required to sell Macmillian's stuff any more than Macmillian is required to sell to Amazon at a certain price or at all. Seems to me that's a two way street.

And I guess in the end, I could support this if I felt it was going to mean more money in the author's pockets. I'm willing to bet money it won't.

[DawnFalcon]

Of course it won't. Instead of a list price of $24, it means a list price of $15. The author still gets the same percentage.

[askenase13]

Let's be clear about this. MacMillan will NEVER allow its ebooks to be sold at $9.99, even when the paper back is selling for $7.99. That has been their history.

Frankly, this is really an attempt by MacMillan to destroy ebooks. Won't work. But we have to be militant on behalf of lower ebook prices and against these idots

[charleski]

Originally Posted by wallcraft

Amazon is most likely going to make significantly more profit from ebooks than before. Almost all the extra money that Kindle customers will be paying for ebooks will be going to directly to Amazon's bottom line.

Amazon's plan was for publishers to give them bigger discounts on ebook sales so that they made a profit at the $9.99 level. Amazon has been pushing the big publishers for larger and larger discounts on a continuing basis and may well have been pushing for the majors to join in the 70/30 split plan at $9.99, a move that would involved them seeing a steep decline in revenue. Amazon may have started out subsidising Kindlebooks, but I very much doubt they kept up that scheme for very long. They finally ran into a publisher with real balls.

The last time a publisher tried to stand up to them (Hachette in 2008), Amazon ended up winning. The fact that Amazon has folded so soon in this affair makes the whole thing look very much like a stunt, and a rather immature one at that.

[MikeRo]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Actually it appears to be MacMillan that is throwing it's weight around, first with the Apple (pre) announcement of pricing and now with Amazon, trying to up the Amazon Price (which they apparently accomplished).

I get the impression that MacMillan is just jumping on the bandwagon here. Expect to see other publishers jump on board soon. Apple needs to level the playing field with Amazon and come out with strong sales this summer or it'll appear to have lost to the Kindle. Apple does not do the 'loss-leader' thing with either hardware or software whereas Amazon is willing to take a loss on the best-sellers in order to capture market share plus sell Kindles. Apple does not compete that way and therefore needed to even things out.

Remember, MacMillan is not the only publisher which met with Apple prior to the iPad launch. Look for more price hikes.

[rwizard]

The only reason Amazon folded so soon is that there is competition form other major players (B&N to some extent probably, but most notably Apple who has already agreed to these terms likely). Amazon does not want to loose customers due to available content.

[Jack Tingle]

Jeff Bezos is brilliant. He gets credit for standing up to Macmillan, defending his $9.99 price for ebooks. He can shed the $9.99 price he was losing money on, without looking like a welcher. He's "forced" to cave in to the evil publisher and reluctantly raising prices up to a profitable level. He can wash his hands and say, "We can't control them, they set the price now. We're very sorry."

The publisher will probably wind up with slighly less to about the same profit, while Jeff gets several dollars more per ebook. He gets the ebooks on the first date of publication. And Amazon looks like the hero of the masses. Brilliant.

Admiringly,
Jack Tingle

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Rob G.

I find it very interesting that the music industry ran to Amazon as a way to escape Apple's perceived tyranny and now the publishing industry is running to Apple to escape Amazon's. Something about that just doesn't add up.

That would be the case, except that Apple has essentially caved to the demands of the big publishers.

Originally Posted by Rob G

Amazon is paying everyone's wholesale price but then they're choosing to sell at $9.99, which would seem to be a loss. Is this correct? If this is the case than I don't understand how someone can legally say Amazon has to sell at a certain price. Isn't that price fixing and illegal?

In the short run, Amazon will make more money per book. However, a) if they sell fewer books as a result of higher prices, then they lose money overall, and b) the expectation is that if Amazon continues to dominate, they will pressure the publishers to reduce their wholesale prices, and c) publishers hate the idea that ebooks will cut the value of their product by more than half.

I'm not aware of any indication that this behavior is illegal.

Originally Posted by Rob G

And I guess in the end, I could support this if I felt it was going to mean more money in the author's pockets. I'm willing to bet money it won't.

Either way, the authors wouldn't make out particularly well. Publishers are already pushing authors to take lower royalty rates on ebooks; and both the Apple plan, and reductions in wholesale prices, would result in lower royalty amounts. But again, it depends a lot on how the pricing effects sales volume. If a title sells twice as many $15 ebooks as they did $30 hardcovers, it will work out fine. Whether that will be the case is unknown.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by charleski

a publisher with real balls.

Right. Given under the "new" model the actual total money going to the publisher will be the same, except with a lower "list price", so they need to pay out less to their authorsand are increasing their actual take, at the expense of the author (and of course, charging the public more).

Real balls. Say, didn't some publishers just reduce the percentage they paid out for ebooks? Hmm...

But no no, if publishers want to jump onto the "I can get your books second hand" bandwagon, that's their choice.