A simple question about the new 'agency' model...

[starrigger]

As I read these discussions, I feel frustrated and a little sad. When did Mobileread become such an unfriendly place? I begin to understand why so many writers drop in but then don't visit very often. This used to be a congenial place for writers to visit. That's not so true anymore.

I'm fine with people having differing views on the Amazon/Macmillan fight. But I get really tired of hearing posters who apparently have little knowledge of how book publishing works carry on endlessly about how stupid publishers are, or what morons authors are for dealing with them. I get tired of reading, "Author X said something online that sucked. I'm never reading his/her books again!" Or worse, "Author Y is such an ass for being at Publisher Z, I'm never reading his/her books again!" And worst of all, I hate people putting words in my mouth that I never said.

I've been a working writer for over thirty years. I don't know everything about publishing, but I've picked up a fair amount of knowledge and experience. And guess what! I don't know what effect these new changes will have on my profitability as an author. No one knows. There are too many variables. Every book's experience is different. Every book contract is different. Much of the equation is hard to quantify, such as how the overall profitability of a publisher affects its willingness and ability to publish less lucrative titles (such as your typical SF novel). It's not just about the immediate formula.

Do I have reservations and suspicions about the Agency model? Yes, I do. Am I "siding" with Macmillan? No, I'm not. Do I have loyalty to the people at my publisher who work hard on my behalf? Sure I do. Am I glad that most of my ebooks, even of books that were published by Tor, are published independently? Absolutely. Do I favor low-priced, DRM-free ebooks? Totally.

Do I think Amazon behaved despicably? Damn straight.

Is it time for me to stop reading these discussions? I'm pretty sure it is.

[Seli]

Originally Posted by delphidb96

I love how you manage to change word definitions on the fly! Amazon has been using their model for years, even before MacM's "agency' model was a twinkle in their marketing department's eye.

So how is Amazon the 'new kid'? So to speak...

Derek

Nice, isn't it? The advantage of only having the slightest idea of what you are talking about

When did amazon actually start selling ebooks? I honestly do not know. In physical objects they still run some of the risks as far as I can tell.

The ebookmarket has always been really small, and not much of a problem, and publishers are famously slow to react to changing circumstances. But the increase in competition for Amazon since the last CES and the Apple announcement could have been the impulse to act.

ETA: I do not know if this is actually true, I do not know if a legal case could be made this way. But I getting a bit tired of the "all publishers are evil" and "amazon should have the right to sell as cheap as they want" reactions I so often see. I just wanted to present a different viewpoint and maybe could have done that in a more friendly way.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

This assumes that according to Macmillan those prices should have been lowered

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I just want to address this point. Given that Macmillan has only discussed and or announced the new model, and not implemented it; I think it is incorrect to say that they "should have lowered" the price already, but rather that they should lower the price once the new model is in.

Re-read the bit I bolded for emphasis. I didn't say Macmillan "should have lowered" the price already. I said that prices will only drop if Macmillan decide they should.

I've seen other comments on this Kushiel book, and for whatever reason it is still supposed to be hellishly overpriced in ebook. Nobody seems to understand why, but it is.

It's a single example (there are lots more). I chose to bring it up because it's the one hellishly over-priced e-book for which we do understand why the price is so absurd: because, according to Macmillan employees, Macmillan Digital has set $14 as the "correct" price for the book, even though it's been available as a mmpb for years. From this it seems not unreasonable to assume that the $14 list price on all those other books that have been out in mmpb for years isn't a mistake either.

I think it's horrendously stupid; but I don't think it can be blamed on the agency model.

Quite. It can, however, be blamed on horrendous stupidity on the part of whoever at Macmillan decided that was a reasonable price.

[smerrall]

Originally Posted by starrigger

As I read these discussions, I feel frustrated and a little sad. When did Mobileread become such an unfriendly place?
...
Do I think Amazon behaved despicably? Damn straight.

There has been a lot of heated debate on this issue, with both sides copping the blame. It seems to me, however, that we don't know enough to even say Amazon behaved despicably. What if Amazon had a, say, 5 year contract with Macmillan that expired on Jan 31. Unable to reach an agreement by COB Friday they would have had no choice but to remove titles as they would have not been legally permitted to sell Macmillan books come 00:00 on Sunday night.
All we are able to do is speculate how this situation came about and how it will affect us. The appearance of unfriendliness is merely the result of a lot of people who feel betrayed and confused by the changes.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

The appearance of unfriendliness is merely the result of a lot of people who feel betrayed and confused by the changes.

Agreed. The situation is pretty much a perfect storm for generating more heat than light: we have a significant change to the status quo, a subject most people don't really understand (let's be honest, for most of us - authors and readers both - publishing is a black box: money (or books) go in one side, and books (or money) come out the other), a group of people who feel passionate about the subject, and a near-total lack of solid, reliable information. The situation isn't helped at all by a few loudmouths making inflammatory comments (Authors are greedy bastards! Readers are self-entitled cheap SOBs! Green! Purple! Green! Purple!), of course.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

If I call you a name and you knock over my bookshelf onto someone else I'm not responsible for any injury to the other person. You are. You knocked over the bookshelf and you're responsible for your own actions.

Amazon is responsible for its actions.

It does not matter if those actions were justified (as you obviously believe they were) or not; they are responsible.

As MacMillan is responsible for theirs. They are the bad guys here not Amazon, Amazon is simply negotiating.

MacMillan is responsible for the harm it brings to its authors and customers.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by starrigger

...

Do I have reservations and suspicions about the Agency model? Yes, I do. Am I "siding" with Macmillan? No, I'm not. Do I have loyalty to the people at my publisher who work hard on my behalf? Sure I do. Am I glad that most of my ebooks, even of books that were published by Tor, are published independently? Absolutely. Do I favor low-priced, DRM-free ebooks? Totally.

Do I think Amazon behaved despicably? Damn straight.

.

Thanks for that Jeffery. Let's think about this, if the shoe were on the other foot. Let's say MacMillan had decided not to allow Amazon to sell it's ebooks (as they have with libraries), would that be okay?

Do retailers have the right to stock and sell a product -- say Dial Soap in place of another say Irish Spring.

If a supermarket chain has a falling out with a soap manufacturer because that manufacturer wants to set the retail price for that soap and they pull it from their shelves is that despicable behavior?

[Seli]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Thanks for that Jeffery. Let's think about this, if the shoe were on the other foot. Let's say MacMillan had decided not to allow Amazon to sell it's ebooks (as they have with libraries), would that be okay?

Do retailers have the right to stock and sell a product -- say Dial Soap in place of another say Irish Spring.

If a supermarket chain has a falling out with a soap manufacturer because that manufacturer wants to set the retail price for that soap and they pull it from their shelves is that despicable behavior?

Macmillan has not forbidden Amazon to sell the ebooks, or the paper books for that matter. If they would have, yes they would not look good. As they do not in some other facets of their business, but that is not that important to this case. If we involve every stupid (in our eyes) business decision of any party involved in this conflict neither publishers, authors, retailers or customers (us) come out without blemishes.

These types of retail tactics happen more often, but usually after rounds and rounds of negotiations. These may or may not have happened, but we don't know. And usually the retailer communicates nicely what is happening, something Amazon surely has not done.

The problem partly is, as I have indicated before is that Amazon is not stocking any ebooks, it simply hosts them and has the infrastructure to sell them.

In case of the soap, everyone directly involved has a right to find the behaviour of the store despicable, from the factory workers to the loyal customers. I guess people that lost jobs due to similar practices by for example Walmart or Ahold or any carmanufacturor are not too happy with this kind of action.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by kennyc

You are simply wrong. Amazon reacted. As you would call it "negotiations."

It never would have happened except for MacMillan's actions.

Honest, judge. I never woulda shot him if hadn't called my mother a name.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

Honest, judge. I never woulda shot him if hadn't called my mother a name.

Yep, things happen. Take this thread for instance.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yep, things happen. Take this thread for instance.

Well, I'm glad that's settled. Now who do we blame for global warming and whatever the heck is supposed to happen when Quetzalcoatl comes back in 2012.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Seli

The problem partly is, as I have indicated before is that Amazon is not stocking any ebooks, it simply hosts them and has the infrastructure to sell them.

Amazon are providing the sales platform (Kindle, Kindle for PC), and their website and brand name are significant factors. These are things Macmillian are unwilling for the first and unable for the second to duplicate.

Honestly, if I'd been Amazon I'd of taken a more subtle approach. Macmillian print books would of been excluded from "similar" lists (including by the same author and "people who bought this also bought..."), discounts and free shipping (including prime) rather than pulled directly. These are things directly in Amazon's control to offer or not, after all...