U.S. Justice Dept. to Sue Publishers, Apple, for Price Collusion?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Synamon

If the agency model was so gosh-darn necessary to protect the little guy from big bad Amazon, why didn't the Big 6 insist on it for paper books?

Many European countries DO have price fixing for paper books.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That's ludicrous.
The ability to create their own unique discount systems (Fictionwise's Micropay for instance) was one of the only things that small ebook-only retailers had going for them. They could reward their loyal customers with special discounts to keep them coming back. Agency pricing took that ability away from them (and others like them) and it gutted their business. They simply can't compete selling agency published books anymore without those loyalty discount systems. So they don't sell agency books anymore. So no more talk please of how agency pricing was all unicorns and rainbows for everyone except Amazon. Agency pricing threw a lot of babies out with the bathwater.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Look publishers, see that wretched creature crawling on the floor? That is the book buying consumer. Why don't you hit him over the head again to finish the job? He is still moving in agony.

That's some absurd hyperbole there. Since agency pricing the ebook market has doubled. Those consumers are buying those "overpriced" bestsellers like never before. Frankly it would be difficult to argue that consumers have been hurt all that much by agency pricing.

[plib]

Originally Posted by sabredog

It is not only the US DOJ either. The EU is also looking at agency pricing in detail as well.

And resale price maintenance is already treated as a rebuttable presumption of illegality with very serious consequences in the EU, they don't really follow what the US Supreme Court and Robert Bork decide. And now we transfer you to this thread.

As far as digital media are concerned it's all about that global internet thingy.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Frankly the thought of an Amazon that dominates the market gives me pause.

And there may be merit to such concerns.
Especially if you don't think the feds are looking at Amazon, just waiting for an excuse to jump in. (Which, btw, they are: the "most favored nation" clause they demanded after Apple got one brought the feds to their doorstep, too.)

But *this* case, *this* issue, is *not* about Amazon.
The original report in the WSJ made that clear: the feds heard all the anti-Amazon arguments and they are *still* going to sue.
Because the issue is exactly what they said it is: a cartel got together to raise prices on consumers. Whether or not their (alleged) fears about Amazon justify gouging consumers is something for the defendants' attorneys to present (or not) and for the courts to decide if they do. Just as it will be up to the courts to decide if they want to expand a narrow, one-case decision and overturn a century of antitrust consumer protection against carteling.

The criminal's motivation and intent is not for prosecutors to ponder; their concerns are whether a crime has been committed, which specific crime, and by whom. And the answers to those questions will come with the actual lawsuit.

And, BTW, I strongly suspect there *will* be a lawsuit unless the evidence is so damning that all the BPHs cave. That it got this far means the feds think there is enough of a case to file. But the way the game is played, the weaker the case, the more likely it'll end up at trial, with all the attendant publicity, and the stronger the case, the more likelihood it doesn't, because the BPHs and Apple will want to keep the raw details out of the public eye.

So let's just wait and see if and when the filing occurs.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

It's possible, but they tried windowing before and stopped because it didn't work.

It's the main business model that's been used forever. Hard back, trade paperback, mass market paperback.


Lee

[emellaich]

regarding windowing ...

Originally Posted by leebase

It's the main business model that's been used forever. Hard back, trade paperback, mass market paperback.
Lee

And, of course, Baen has added the E-ARC to the list.

[fjtorres]

E-ARCs are a form of "hardcover" premium release.
The sort of thing *all* publishers should be looking at in an e-first business model. As soon as the final proof is sent off to the printers, the E-ARC goes out to those willing to pay 2.5X more for early access. Not likely to be a huge number but it is essentially "found money" and it offends nobody. And it helps build word-of-mouth visibility.

If the big publishers ever get over their nostalgic pining for the "good old days" of their overlordship and start thinking ebook-first workflows they'll find lots of ways to make money without having to rip-off consumers.

Big if, though.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

E-ARCs are a form of "hardcover" premium release.
The sort of thing *all* publishers should be looking at in an e-first business model. As soon as the final proof is sent off to the printers, the E-ARC goes out to those willing to pay 2.5X more for early access. Not likely to be a huge number but it is essentially "found money" and it offends nobody. And it helps build word-of-mouth visibility.

You say "it offends nobody" and yet I've read many complaints about high-priced eBooks released at the same time as hardbacks.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You say "it offends nobody" and yet I've read many complaints about high-priced eBooks released at the same time as hardbacks.

The e-arcs offend nobody. They're marketed as "this is a limited pre-release, includes typos and maybe other issues; for extra money, you can read it before everyone else." They're released before the hardcover.

[Krystl]

That is true, Harry, but there are times where people would be willing to pay more for the first peek.

I hate to bring Harry Potter into this, but there were a LOT of people who would have been more than willing to pay extra to get the "first view" of the books. There IS a market for this type of pricing, if rather a narrow one. And as ftorres said, it is "found money" as the draft is already completed.

I actually would find that kind of selling scheme practical--hard book pricing before the hard back, paperback pricing matching the hard back release, etc. dropping in price incrementally as the other formats come out.

Just as some people always want the hard back book because it is first release and others will wait for the the book in the clearance bin.

[jhempel24]

The only thing I hope that comes of this is allowing people to use the 25% off coupons that they get on eBooks....not being able to do that really kills brand loyalty for me.

If say I buy alot from B&N and they give me 25-30% coupons all the time, I will still shop there...if I can't use them on my eBooks, then I go elsewhere depending on DRM etc.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You say "it offends nobody" and yet I've read many complaints about high-priced eBooks released at the same time as hardbacks.

released at the same time

The eARCs mentioned are released two to three months before the hardbacks. And are 2.5 times the eventually price of the ebook: $15 instead of $6.

There are very few books where I would be happy to pay that to get early access. But I'm certainly not offended by the asking price for a product that has as its selling point early access.

But asking $18 for an ebook released at the same time as a $26 hardback that's discounted down to $16 does offend me.

[HarryT]

I'm not offended; I simply wait 6 months for the paperback to be released, at which time the ebook price falls to a sensible level.

[advocate2]

Without the Agency model Apple would never have been able to gain market share against Amazon. The DOJ attack was predictable given the obvious price-fixing inherent the model. The good news for Apple, they were successful in getting buyers to purchase from the Apple Store rather than Amazon. That's all they cared about. Those buyers will now stay with Apple no matter the outcome of the litigation, which will be viewed by Apple management as the cost of buying market share.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I take your point that agency pricing did not allow for certain types of discounting that may have been favorable for smaller retailers. The problem is that even with that Fictionwise had a sliver of the market and may not have been making any money. Heck, if they had been doing well, why sell out to BN?

Fictionwise sold to B&N AFTER the agency pricing went into effect because there was no way they would have survived. If Fictionwise had not sold to B&N, they'd be out of business. It was sell or die. So they sold. Fictionwise had a working model and a lot of people bought into it because it worked. Agency pricing took that away. Kobo offered a lot more discounts and that helped them. BooksOnBoard offered a lot better reward money to go into your account towards future purchases. What you don't get is all these methods that the smaller shops had to get the customer to buy are not there now because of Agency pricing. Sure Kobo offers discounts and BooksOnBoard offers rewards, but they don;t work like they used to.

Face facts, agency pricing works for the big guys, but the little guys no way.

Frankly the thought of an Amazon that dominates the market gives me pause.

Agency pricing helps Amazon as all the little guys have to give up their unique ways of selling that drew in the customers.