ABA and Barnes & Noble File Motion in DOJ Case Arguing Settlement Bad for Consumers

[Top100EbooksRank]

http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2012...for-consumers/

In the joint filing, the ABA and Barnes & Noble argue that elimination of the current pricing and distribution method for e-books, known as the agency model, will injure innocent third parties, including ABA member bookstores, Barnes & Noble, authors, and non-defendant publishers; hurt competition in an emerging industry; and ultimately harm consumers. “The end loser of this unnecessary and burdensome regulatory approach will be the American public, who will experience higher overall average e-book and hardback prices and less choice,” the filing said.

“Giving customers the widest choices at the fairest prices is at the heart of the agency model, and we believe this model should remain intact,” said Eugene DeFelice, General Counsel of Barnes & Noble. “We want to help the Court fully understand the significant consequences of any action that would erode such a pro-competition, pro-consumer model, and that is the purpose of our filing.”

Are ABA and B&N right?

Will wholesale or agency pricing with "discounting authority" lead to higher overall average e-book and hardback prices and less choice for consumers?

[kennyc]

What bullsh*t!

[jersysman]

That's funny. For a minute it sounded like health insurance companies said when they were fighting healthcare reform. Back on point, I just think they are worried about shrinking profits - especially B&N who have a thing about offering discounts on anything ebooks.

[tubemonkey]

Translation: settlement is bad for B&N

[JoHunt]

The end loser of this unnecessary and burdensome regulatory approach will be the American public, who will experience higher overall average e-book and hardback prices and less choice

Yes, of course. Just like the current pricing model led to lower prices and less choice during the past two years.

I wonder if they realize just how much they're antagonizing their customers with these inane arguments?

[John F]

Originally Posted by Top100EbooksRank

Are ABA and B&N right?

No.

Will wholesale or agency pricing with "discounting authority" lead to higher overall average e-book and hardback prices and less choice for consumers?

No.

[Hellmark]

Considering I've only seen ebook prices rise after agency pricing, I don't see how giving the retailers the authority to lower prices can make things cost more money.

[RainingLemur]

Originally Posted by joehunt

Yes, of course. Just like the current pricing model led to lower prices and less choice during the past two years.

I wonder if they realize just how much they're antagonizing their customers with these inane arguments?

It's hard to realize this when their heads are packed so far in their own .... uh.... in the sand.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Top100EbooksRank

Are ABA and B&N right?

So basically, you want to have the exact same debate that's been going on in at least two other recent threads on the topic?

There's really nothing new here. We already know that 90% of the public comments opposed the settlement, including all the retailers that don't have the letter "Z" in their name and publishers and lots of authors.

Same case, same players, same intent, slightly different maneuver.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by joehunt

Yes, of course. Just like the current pricing model led to lower prices and less choice during the past two years.

I loved that graph they included in their comments to the DoJ, which they claimed showed a downward trend for ebook prices, as a success for the Agency model.

The DoJ responded (see p30) with the same graph but with a label pointing out that the graph included nearly a year's prior data and that the downward trend ended neatly at the point where the Agency agreements were put in place, and after that the graph stabilises. In the DoJ's words:

However, as the CFA observed, even with these uncertainties, B&N’s own data suggests that the collusive agreement played a role in stabilizing retail e-book prices. As the CFA points out, just as the collusive agency agreements were taking effect in the spring of 2010, a trend of falling e-book pricing was arrested.

Graham

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by jersysman

That's funny. For a minute it sounded like health insurance companies said when they were fighting healthcare reform. Back on point, I just think they are worried about shrinking profits - especially B&N who have a thing about offering discounts on anything ebooks.

[Fbone]

I took the quoted statement to mean that in order to sell the best sellers below cost the prices of their other products will increase.

Whether this is true or will occur remains to be seen.

[rdjack21]

While I'm no fan of Amazon it's moves like this that are making me move my purchases from B&N to Amazon and Google.

[tomsem]

Originally Posted by rdjack21

While I'm no fan of Amazon it's moves like this that are making me move my purchases from B&N to Amazon and Google.

Indeed. It is striking that they didn't include their own customers' interests in their argument: I'm sure most B&N customers would like to see more discounting of ebooks.

It's also curious that they mention Indiecommerce as a provider of ebooks to independent booksellers. Nobody has bought a single ebook that way yet, as it has yet to replace the failed Google Books offering.

They also seem to forget that they chose to enter the market when Amazon had 90% market share and months before Agency pricing was officially announced. Or are they (indirectly) suggesting they had prior knowledge that agency pricing was coming, and that they would not otherwise have entered the market when they did? Maybe DoJ should send some subpoenas their way.

And after acknowledging that DoJ hasn't claimed that Agency pricing is improper, they then try to argue that it should be allowed to continue simply because it is their legal right. But if they illegally entered into the existing contracts, they must suffer the consequences if they are found at fault. It would be no different if they colluded to set prices by other means.

Are they serious that Amazon is going to get 'monopolistic' market share as a result of this settlement? Based on what line of reasoning? I don't really think Agency pricing has changed the trajectory of things very much. Many other factors are involved in Amazon's success (ecosystem, synergies, customer service, savvy investments, luck/timing, etc.). And I don't see any of the major competitors throwing in the towel. (This is not to say that the migration to digital is not disruptive to the print ecosystem.)

There are enough people who dislike Amazon to prevent that from happening, in any case. And with enough competitive pressure, I think publishers will finally drop DRM (it's not entirely without cost), and then all sorts of alternatives will become possible.

They might have a point about the 'non-trade' ebook market, though it might be difficult to make a clear distinction about what that is.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Top100EbooksRank

http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2012...for-consumers/

Note them carefully NOT mentioning "consumers" or "the public" in their list of injured parties.

Anti-trust lawsuits aren't designed to protect companies from competition; they're designed to protect consumers from high prices.

Yes, ABA and B&N, you will get less money. You are not entitled to All The Moneys. If you want more money, you will have to convince the customers--you know, those people who currently own the money you want--that they should spend it on YOU, instead of on your competitors.

Amazon may be a Royal Scumbag Extreme, but if it hasn't broken the law, it gets to have as many customers as it can convince to shop at its store. If you don't like that, feel free to come up with something as useful and comprehensive as Amazon. Or something with better customer service than Amazon. Or something with more bonus features than Amazon.