# Hachette v Amazon -- SUPER MEGA MERGED thread



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Interesting piece:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/amazon-said-to-play-hardball-in-book-contract-talks-with-publishing-house-hachette/2014/05/16/cdd40854-dc62-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Interesting article.  We shall see where it leads.  AND HI CRAIG.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

cinisajoy said:


> Interesting article. We shall see where it leads. AND HI CRAIG.


HI BACK, CIN!


----------



## Frank Zubek (Apr 27, 2010)

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/62418-amazon-ramps-up-war-against-hachette.html

I wonder what this is about?


----------



## Ros_Jackson (Jan 11, 2014)

We don't know what the terms of the agreement are, and the publishers aren't saying. I think it's a reminder that Amazon can make things difficult for any group when it suits them. That includes indies. Really, a diverse market is the only protection against this kind of thing for authors and readers.

There's an interesting question at the end of this article (in French): "If Hachette Book Group alone is hit ... is that because the others have given in?"

http://www.actualitte.com/economie/les-precommandes-de-livres-hachette-partent-aux-oubliettes-50347.htm


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

This has been escalating the last couple months. It's about wrangling over new contract terms and Amazon wants more than Hachette wants to give on some issue or issues. Big Pubs have ad programs etc to negotiate with Amazon which indies don't.


----------



## phildukephd (Jan 6, 2013)

I NEVER say ANYTHING about Amazon, because it could be misunderstood, and then the Zon steamroller might flatten me like a pancake.

As for the others having given up, they have been beaten up, both in and out of court. When your opponent has like Zon 30 billion dollars, and is the major player, you can be sure you will lose. And all of Zon's opponents have lost.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Saw a report today that indicates Amazon winning this is better for authors than if Hachette does. It was on Yahoo News, but I don't have the link right now. 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

LOL the typo in the thread title is most amusing!


----------



## Jack C. Nemo (Jul 5, 2013)

phildukephd said:


> I NEVER say ANYTHING about Amazon, because it could be misunderstood, and then the Zon steamroller might flatten me like a pancake.
> 
> As for the others having given up, they have been beaten up, both in and out of court. When your opponent has like Zon 30 billion dollars, and is the major player, you can be sure you will lose. And all of Zon's opponents have lost.


Actually Amazon lost an anti-trust lawsuit to Booklocker of all people. Amazon had mandated that you had to use their POD service to get a buy button.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Once again, trust Joe Konrath to be a voice of common sense from an indie perspective on all of this. Hachette should lose this battle if you are pro-indie and pro-reader. http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/05/turow-patterson-plateful-of-fail-with.html

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## lucyvarna (Feb 18, 2014)

And then there's David Gaughran's take, which is less in your face than Mr. Konrath's post. Not that I'm ragging on Konrath; he's just...not afraid to express his opinion, loudly. 

http://davidgaughran.wordpress.com/2014/05/26/amazon-v-hachette-dont-believe-the-spin/


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

lucyvarna said:


> And then there's David Gaughran's take, which is less in your face than Mr. Konrath's post. Not that I'm ragging on Konrath; he's just...not afraid to express his opinion, loudly.
> 
> http://davidgaughran.wordpress.com/2014/05/26/amazon-v-hachette-dont-believe-the-spin/


Gaughran's okay.

Thing I like about Joe is his directness, though. No B.S., just "this is self-serving stupidity by James Patterson" or by whoever is spouting corporate spin.

Also, Joe's about as high-profile as it gets in the Indie World over the last five years.


----------



## lucyvarna (Feb 18, 2014)

Direct is perhaps an understatement. 

I love reading Konrath's blog. As you said, he cuts straight to the point, and that's refreshing. 

Also, he NEVER whines. I've quit reading several author blogs for precisely that reason. Which is off the point of this post...


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Doesn't look like this is going to end anytime soon.

http://www.amazon.com/forum/kindle/ref=cm_cd_tfp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1D7SY3BVSESG&cdThread=Tx1UO5T446WM5YY

Bad for readers and Hachette authors. Good for self-published authors, I suppose.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

> We are currently buying less (print) inventory and "safety stock" on titles from the publisher, Hachette, than we ordinarily do, and are no longer taking pre-orders on titles whose publication dates are in the future. Instead, customers can order new titles when their publication date arrives. For titles with no stock on hand, customers can still place an order at which time we order the inventory from Hachette -- availability on those titles is dependent on how long it takes Hachette to fill the orders we place. Once the inventory arrives, we ship it to the customer promptly. These changes are related to the contract and terms between Hachette and Amazon.


It sounds like they are treating Hachette like any of us indie author/publishers.


----------



## AshRonin (May 5, 2013)

I put something up an Gawker subblog and we will see if it gets shared to one of the main sites later. I'm glad one of these two companies finally spoke up regarding the 2-3 week delay in customers receiving titles and I personally believe the brunt of that blame goes to Hachette after reading Michael Sullivan's post where it seemed as though Hachette was stonewalling him about them shipping titles in a prompt manner.


----------



## jimkukral (Oct 31, 2011)

Why even respond? I don't get it.


----------



## nobody_important (Jul 9, 2010)

"If you order 1,000 items from Amazon, 989 will be unaffected by this interruption."

So only 1% of Amazon's retail business is affected by this. Hmm. Guess who's going to have to cave in?


----------



## AshRonin (May 5, 2013)

jimkukral said:


> Why even respond? I don't get it.


Like it says at the bottom of Amazon's post, over the last few days they've kinda gotten skewered in the media. Lots of Hachette authors kicking and screaming and placing the blame on the big bully, Amazon.


----------



## Michael Alan Peck (May 8, 2013)

> We also take seriously the impact it has when, however infrequently, such a business interruption affects authors. We've offered to Hachette to fund 50% of an author pool - to be allocated by Hachette - to mitigate the impact of this dispute on author royalties, if Hachette funds the other 50%. We did this with the publisher Macmillan some years ago. We hope Hachette takes us up on it.


Nice touch, that.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

I noticed they locked the post so no one could comment. Very, very smart.

There are always two sides to every story.

I still think Hachette is acting like a company that is in financial trouble, and their thrashing about is making it worse.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

The latest from Joe : http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/05/fisking-charlie-stross-more-on.html

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## Magda Alexander (Aug 13, 2011)

I'm sure Hachette will weather this storm. Not so sure about its authors. Should drive a few to self publish.


----------



## D.L. Shutter (Jul 9, 2011)

Hugh and DGX's update to the Author Earnings report, specifically on Hatchett sales and rankings, was also en eye opener. Especially the prediction that Hatchette wouldn't hesitate to drop authors who didn't meet their sales expectations through the storm.

http://authorearnings.com/the-effects-of-the-amazon-hachette-negotiations/

I guess we should straighten up around here and spray some Febreeze. Might have some new visitors at KB soon.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Amazon has broken its silence and boy do Hachette defenders look ill-informed: http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/05/amazon-speaks.html?m=1

Sent from my LG G2 Android Phone.


----------



## Marie Long (Jan 11, 2014)

> If you do need one of the affected titles quickly, we regret the inconvenience and encourage you to purchase a new or used version from one of our third-party sellers or from one of our competitors.


Why are they intentionally shooting themselves in the foot?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Hugh Howey said:


> Doesn't look like this is going to end anytime soon.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/forum/kindle/ref=cm_cd_tfp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1D7SY3BVSESG&cdThread=Tx1UO5T446WM5YY
> 
> Bad for readers and Hachette authors. Good for self-published authors, I suppose.


Actually, not bad for readers at all, according to Joe Konrath. Or even for Hachette authors, if Hachette actually cared about Hachette authors:

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/05/amazon-speaks.html


----------



## wilsonharp (Jun 5, 2012)

That is not shooting themselves in the foot. Telling a customer that you are having issues helping them and recommending that if the customer is needing something in a time sensitive way then it would be in the customer's best interest to get a product at a competitor's place of business is just putting the customer's needs before your profit.

Sure, you may lose $2 profit on the sale of a book, but you have earned the loyalty of a customer.

Money is easy to make, but you can't buy time... or a good name. Building a reputation of always looking out for the best for a customer is something that can't be created through marketing, it must come from customer experience.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Marie Long said:


> Why are they intentionally shooting themselves in the foot?


I don't think they are. I bet odds are good that many people will simply choose another book at Amazon vs. going to another platform to buy.


----------



## nobody_important (Jul 9, 2010)

Marie Long said:


> Why are they intentionally shooting themselves in the foot?


They aren't. Unless there's a Hachette author I'm dying to read RIGHT NOW, I'm just going to browse and get some other authors' books from Amazon.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

> We've offered to Hachette to fund 50% of an author pool - to be allocated by Hachette - to mitigate the impact of this dispute on author royalties, if Hachette funds the other 50%. We did this with the publisher Macmillan some years ago. We hope Hachette takes us up on it.


This is pure awesome, both from an offer and PR standpoint. Talk about turning the screws on the other party.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> This is pure awesome, both from an offer and PR standpoint. Talk about turning the screws on the other party.


No kidding. And I bet Hachette waffles on taking up the offer. And even if they did, their bean counters would get hold of the monies and I'm willing to bet the authors see nary a dime.


----------



## Drake (Apr 30, 2014)

Seems to me that Amazon has done a lot more for us as Indie authors than ANY of the big publishers ever did.  I have a hard time feeling sorry for Hachette.  It's always the authors who get caught in the crossfire.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Drake said:


> Seems to me that Amazon has done a lot more for us as Indie authors than ANY of the big publishers ever did. I have a hard time feeling sorry for Hachette. It's always the authors who get caught in the crossfire.


All of us come from different backgrounds, but the fact that some of us even exist (as authors) is directly attributable to Amazon - at least I know it is in my case. No matter how this market eventually shakes out, I will never forget that they're the ones who first made me aware of this opportunity and gave me a chance to pursue a dream that's worked out better than I ever could have...well...dreamed.


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2014)

PamelaKelley said:


> I don't think they are. I bet odds are good that many people will simply choose another book at Amazon vs. going to another platform to buy.


^^^^^THIS^^^^^



Drake said:


> Seems to me that Amazon has done a lot more for us as Indie authors than ANY of the big publishers ever did. I have a hard time feeling sorry for Hachette. It's always the authors who get caught in the crossfire.


^^^^^THIS^^^^^


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Hey, folks--

I've merged Hugh's thread about the Amazon response into the existing Amazon and Hatchette thread; sorry for any confusion.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Hatchette's response to Amazon's post: http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/bookselling/article/62495-amazon-says-hachette-dispute-likely-to-drag-on.html


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Patty Jansen said:


> LOL the typo in the thread title is most amusing!


I think most people following this have assumed the name is Hatchette and not Hachette (I did at first .  )


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Marie Long said:


> Why are they intentionally shooting themselves in the foot?


They're not. As Hugh's and the mystery guy's data shows at the Author Earning Report, Hatchette is losing real sales. It's Hatchette's choice to set their price. Amazon knows their customers' purchasing habits, so they can suggest _other_ authors' books to those who like the Hatchette books. 
Ebooks are dl'd instantly, so there is no reason a true fan can't get an author's work the minute it is available.


----------



## Gator (Sep 28, 2012)

PamelaKelley said:


> I bet odds are good that many people will simply choose another book at Amazon vs. going to another platform to buy.


I guarantee you *no J.K. Rowling fan* is going to pick up another book at Amazon as a substitute for her new book, _The Silkworm_, coming out June 19th. If J.K. Rowling's sales history on Amazon is anything to go by, that's at least 1.25 million disappointed Amazon customers (probably closer to 2 million) who will either shop elsewhere to ensure they have it in their hands on June 19th, or who will reluctantly order it from Amazon on June 19th, the earliest the "Buy" button will appear.

That's a lot of revenue for Amazon to pass by.

_ETA: Doh! Disregard those numbers. I should have looked up actual sales numbers, instead of going from memory, but my google-foo doesn't work when Google is non-operational. (And still isn't working for me 2 hours later. Anyone else having a no-Google day?)_


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Gator said:


> I guarantee you *no J.K. Rowling fan* is going to pick up another book at Amazon as a substitute for her new book, _The Silkworm_, coming out June 19th. If J.K. Rowling's sales history on Amazon is anything to go by, that's at least 1.25 million disappointed Amazon customers (probably closer to 2 million) who will either shop elsewhere to ensure they have it in their hands on June 19th, or who will reluctantly order it from Amazon on June 19th, the earliest the "Buy" button will appear.
> 
> That's a lot of revenue for Amazon to pass by.


They'll just buy it on the 19th. NBD, everyone has to wait for release day, even if they can pre-order. Also your numbers are way off. Casual Vacancy only sold 125,000 copies its opening week (this would include the preorders.) across all outlets, not just Amazon.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/9582380/The-Casual-Vacancy-sales-figures-revealed.html

Also, realize you picked their most famous author. Others come no where near that volume, and frankly, they may have included ebooks, which are available instantly.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

PamelaKelley said:


> I don't think they are. I bet odds are good that many people will simply choose another book at Amazon vs. going to another platform to buy.


Am I the only person who goes to Amazon already knowing which books I'm going to order? For example, if I'm planning to buy _Ancillary Justice_ by Ann Leckie, _Cold Magic_ by Kate Elliott or _Honour's Knight_ by Rachel Bach, just to name three Hachette books I bought lately, I want those specific books and not some other SF or respectively epic fantasy novel.

Books are not interchangable.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

CoraBuhlert said:


> Am I the only person who goes to Amazon already knowing which books I'm going to order? For example, if I'm planning to buy _Ancillary Justice_ by Ann Leckie, _Cold Magic_ by Kate Elliott or _Honour's Knight_ by Rachel Bach, just to name three Hachette books I bought lately, I want those specific books and not some other SF or respectively epic fantasy novel.
> 
> Books are not interchangable.


If you know exactly what book you're going to buy, and you know the release date, you just order it that day. If you want to read it right away you dl the ebook, if not, you have to wait until its delivered to you. So in that case, the author hasn't lost a thingâ€"but the fact isâ€"as the numbers apparently show, the majority of readers are either not that fussy about which book they read when. 
For instance, I'm a Stephen King fan, but rarely do I get his books right away. I know I'll eventually buy it and read it, but it doesn't have to be *now*.


----------



## Gator (Sep 28, 2012)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Also your numbers are way off.


You're right. Thanks for the correction. I remembered the 4,000% increase in sales of _The Cuckoo's Calling_ (the first in the detective series, where _The Silkworm_ is the 2nd book) in the days after J.K. Rowling was revealed as the true author, but I misremembered the base number of the original sales. By a long shot.



LisaGraceBooks said:


> They'll just buy it on the 19th. NBD, everyone has to wait for release day, even if they can pre-order.


If you pre-order Kindle eBooks, you can often begin reading it on your Kindle the night before the release date (if the book isn't embargoed). If we buy the hardcover from Amazon on the 19th, most of our friends will have already finished reading the book by the time it's delivered, because they drove 70+ miles roundtrip to the nearest bookstore. Pre-order from Amazon, and that box can be on your doorstep the day it's released. Convenience + no extra waiting = happy Amazon customers.



LisaGraceBooks said:


> Casual Vacancy only sold 125,000 copies its opening week (this would include the preorders.) across all outlets, not just Amazon.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/9582380/The-Casual-Vacancy-sales-figures-revealed.html


That's UK sales. Worldwide sales were better, but nothing on the scale of Harry Potter (because the majority of Harry Potter fans ignored it). "Little, Brown and Company, the publisher of J.K. Rowling's new novel, _The Casual Vacancy_, announced that the book sold 375,000 copies across all formats, print and digital, in its first six days on the market."

And I don't think I'd compare the sales of _The Casual Vacancy_ with J.K. Rowling's other book sales. It's totally unappealing to fans who love the magic, whimsy, humor, and mystery of the Harry Potter series and a very different genre than her Cormoran Strike detective series.



LisaGraceBooks said:


> Also, realize you picked their most famous author. Others come no where near that volume, and frankly, they may have included ebooks, which are available instantly.


That was my point -- just the sales numbers on that author alone would give Amazon pause. But after reviewing the previous sales numbers in that series, I'll now agree that Amazon will weather that storm without fuss.

Losing even half of Hachette's sales for a year isn't the end of the world for Amazon. Hachette's situation is more painful. But Amazon is offering to make up for this delayed deal to Hachette's authors, so their financial pain will be mitigated as long as the publisher goes along with the deal. Which they totally should (but I'm not holding my breath for).


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

I will almost always be on the side of publishers in an Amazon Vs. Publishers dispute, and reading the blog entries from some of the usual suspects here makes me think I'm probably making the right choice.

My goals and the goals of trade publishers are exactly the same. Almost all trade publisher vs. Amazon disputes boil down to one thing: Trade publishers do not want Amazon to kill competition and become the only game in town. Amazon spent years losing profits in order to erase its competition, and they succeeded. The thought that Amazon is "looking out for customers or indie authors" is ridiculous. They are using lower prices/higher royalties NOW so that they won't have competition later. Of course, once this competition is gone, Amazon will decide it's time to make a profit, and then things will look a lot different for everyone.

I'm aware of this fact, and trade publishers are aware of this fact.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Briteka said:


> I will almost always be on the side of publishers in an Amazon Vs. Publishers dispute, and reading the blog entries from some of the usual suspects here makes me think I'm probably making the right choice.
> 
> My goals and the goals of trade publishers are exactly the same. Almost all trade publisher vs. Amazon disputes boil down to one thing: Trade publishers do not want Amazon to kill competition and become the only game in town. Amazon spent years losing profits in order to erase its competition, and they succeeded. The thought that Amazon is "looking out for customers or indie authors" is ridiculous. They are using lower prices/higher royalties NOW so that they won't have competition later. Of course, once this competition is gone, Amazon will decide it's time to make a profit, and then things will look a lot different for everyone.
> 
> I'm aware of this fact, and trade publishers are aware of this fact.


Trade publishers we're OK with Borders and Barnes and Noble doing their level best to put independents out of business in the 80's and 90's, weren't they? Trade publishers are doing everything they can to keep living in the 1980's, and they'd go back to the 1880's in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with out.

Honestly, saying Amazon is going to have a monopoly on selling books in the future is like predicting Alta Vista is going to have a monopoly on Search in 1994.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Davout73 said:


> Trade publishers we're OK with Borders and Barnes and Noble doing their level best to put independents out of business in the 80's and 90's, weren't they? Trade publishers are doing everything they can to keep living in the 1980's, and they'd go back to the 1880's in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with out.
> 
> Honestly, saying Amazon is going to have a monopoly on selling books in the future is like predicting Alta Vista is going to have a monopoly on Search in 1994.


Monopoly isn't the correct word.

What I'm saying is absolutely true. Once Amazon eliminates most of their competition, indie authors and trade publishers will have to agree with Amazon's terms in order to exist, and those terms will only favor Amazon. It's silly to think otherwise. I mean, why do YOU think Amazon operated at a loss for so many years? Was it because they "wanted to be your friend" or was it because they realized they had more to gain later by eliminating their competition? And if so, what do you think they have to gain by doing so?


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Amazon is a virtual Flea Market. It hooks up vendors with wares, with buyers.  It takes a fee for doing so. 

No one is forcing any publisher to use Amazon. They use Amazon because it makes them money, and Amazon has cultivated a culture of giving customers what they want, and anticipating buyers' needs. 
Publishers can pull their books from Amazon at any time, and just sell them through Google Play, iTunes, and other markets, shoot, through Wal Mart, and B&N.


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2014)

Marie Long said:


> Why are they intentionally shooting themselves in the foot?


Exactly. I buy my books from Amazon only, and there are PLENTY of people who do the same.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Amazon is a virtual Flea Market. It hooks up vendors with wares, with buyers. It takes a fee for doing so.
> 
> No one is forcing any publisher to use Amazon. They use Amazon because it makes them money, and Amazon has cultivated a culture of giving customers what they want, and anticipating buyers' needs.
> Publishers can pull their books from Amazon at any time, and just sell them through Google Play, iTunes, and other markets, shoot, through Wal Mart, and B&N.


Erm, not really. Amazon is both a "flea market" and a store. Amazon is not a vendor portal for trade publishers. It acts as a store. What Amazon wants to do is buy the books full price from Hachette and then deeply discount them, likely to the point that Amazon is taking a loss, so that more people come to them, and other retailers, who can't take a loss selling the books, are put out of business.

Why is Amazon doing this? Well because once Amazon has a large enough share of sales, it's game over. They can make any demand they like, sell for whatever price they like and basically print all the money they could ever want to have.

I'm not sure why anyone thinks this is a good thing. It seems so obvious to me that a single company controlling an entire industry is bad news for all involved except for said company. I'm not sure where this idea is breaking down in people's minds.


----------



## wilsonharp (Jun 5, 2012)

You mean like how Ford drove out all of it's competitors and it's now the only U.S. auto company? Or how Sony destroyed all of it's competitors and is now the only manufacturer of electronics? IBM and the fact that all of us use an IBM computer now?

Okay, maybe you don't agree that this is the same. Maybe Amazon will become a monopoly. Like Bell, the phone company. You don't know Bell? 

That's because in 1984, AT&T, then most commonly known as "Bell" or simply "the phone company", was ordered to be split into various businesses due to it's violation of U.S. anti-trust laws. AT&T had become a monopoly and was sued by the U.S. Government.

So even if Amazon becomes a monopoly, the law in the U.S. will break them up. But I don't think they will become a monopoly. They are simply killing off competition that isn't adapting to the new environment of the business of selling online.

And for the record, I don't feel bad for the publishers. For decades they had a throttle-hold on who could sell books, where those books could be sold, and what books were produced. Amazon is a big reason why independent publishers actually have a shot at selling books without the restrictive and crippling contracts that were forced upon new writers by the major publishers. THEY were the monopoly. Maybe not in form, but in function.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

wilsonharp said:


> You mean like how Ford drove out all of it's competitors and it's now the only U.S. auto company? Or how Sony destroyed all of it's competitors and is now the only manufacturer of electronics? IBM and the fact that all of us use an IBM computer now?
> 
> Okay, maybe you don't agree that this is the same. Maybe Amazon will become a monopoly. Like Bell, the phone company. You don't know Bell?
> 
> ...


I've been very careful not to use the term monopoly because Amazon will never become a monopoly, and they don't need to. Google Play an iTunes will always control some market share.

But Amazon doesn't NEED to become a monopoly. How much of your sales do they already control? How much of your sales will they control once they kill BN and Kobo? Now how much money will you lose when they cut your royalties? You see, when they cut your royalties, you won't have the option to move to another book store because it won't matter. Consumers will not be effected by this. They will not follow you. Trade publishers are in the same exact boat. Once Amazon makes their move, you, me and everyone else will be forced to agree to their terms because the scraps they throw us will be better than not having any scraps at all.



> And for the record, I don't feel bad for the publishers. For decades they had a throttle-hold on who could sell books, where those books could be sold, and what books were produced. Amazon is a big reason why independent publishers actually have a shot at selling books without the restrictive and crippling contracts that were forced upon new writers by the major publishers. THEY were the monopoly. Maybe not in form, but in function.


And I think this is coloring your opinion, the same way it does other prominent self publishing cheerleaders.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

Briteka said:


> I mean, why do YOU think Amazon operated at a loss for so many years? Was it because they "wanted to be your friend" or was it because they realized they had more to gain later by eliminating their competition? And if so, what do you think they have to gain by doing so?


When Amazon first started up, everyone sneered and smirked. At least the people I knew did. So I've always assumed at least part of the reason they sold at such low prices was to gain a foothold in the market. You know, kind of like indie authors giving their books away and pricing box sets at $.99.


----------



## wilsonharp (Jun 5, 2012)

Briteka said:


> How much of your sales do they already control?


You mean how much of my sales do they provide? Because B&N, iTunes, Kobo and the rest aren't selling my books.

Why? Because they are not doing as good of a job as Amazon. My books are all the same price on the other sites, so why aren't I selling more there? Could it be because they don't have the ability to let their shoppers know about my books? Do they not provide a simple and easy shopping experience?

Why the heck would I attack the one company that is doing it correctly? Why would I complain about the one company that provides me money to pay for my bills? Why would I view with suspicion the one company that allows my potential readers and fans to find and buy my books?

My books have the same covers, the same blurbs, the same content and the same prices at B&N. How is it Amazon's fault that people don't buy my books at B&N? It isn't. So how is Amazon hurting me, their customers, or anyone else? They aren't.

I do have suspicion, though. And it's of those who would try to take the fruits of my labor from me.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

> Why is Amazon doing this? Well because once Amazon has a large enough share of sales, it's game over. They can make any demand they like, sell for whatever price they like and basically print all the money they could ever want to have.
> 
> I'm not sure why anyone thinks this is a good thing. It seems so obvious to me that a single company controlling an entire industry is bad news for all involved except for said company. I'm not sure where this idea is breaking down in people's minds.


Because in Amazon's case its impossible?

Amazon isn't your local power company. Or Gas Company. Where you live, right now, you can't switch who provides you power, right? How about mailing a letter? Can you do that for .49 without using the USPS? Thats a having a dominant Market Share. Sure, there's other power companies out there, but can you use them?

Thats what people think Amazons trying to become, and its just not possible, or legal for that matter. They might be able to get a majority if it, but holding onto that majority is going to be tough, and they'll make mistakes, and they'll always be looking over their shoulder for the next thing to come along thats trying to knock them out. Resting on their victories and jacking up their prices isn't going to work. They got the customer base they have by giving them the lowest prices they could and providing excellent customer service. Has any company been successful achieving market dominance, raising up prices and alienating their customer base afterwards? If anything in recent history has been shown, it's that resting on your laurels and refusing to take the competition seriously will lead to irrelevance. Myspace got complacent. AOL tried to become more than just an online service, and fell, badly. Alta Vista was once the most popular search engine out there. Bezos and Co know they have to do what they can to stay ahead of the game, or the next company to come along and do what they do better will make them the next Alta Vista.

Traditional publishing could have learned. They watched what the recording industry did, and instead of learning, stuck to the old way of doing things (like the record industry did), and ceded the very ground they are now fighting over to Amazon, and their one recent attempt to gain it back some of that ground led to a DOJ lawsuit, right?

If Hachette had really wanted to, they could have invested the money and time in putting together a retail site. Lagardere is the second largest publisher in the world, and certainly has the financial ability to do so. This current argument would have come up, Hachette could walk away from Amazon, announce its own retail site and sold its books that way, and people wanting the next Rowling book could have gone there and ordered it (and maybe paid more than they would have on Amazon. Or Not. But Amazon would have linked to them). But they didn't. They haven't. None of the traditional publishers show any interest in doing such a thing. They're busy trying to get back to the glory days on 1995...ish

Frankly, I think this fearmongering, and thats what it is, about what Amazon _might_do _if_ it gets to some ephemeral tipping point is useless. As a consumer, you don't worry about what Company X is going to do to your pocketbook in the future. You worry about what its doing to it now. And right now that's low prices, quick service, and good customer service. *If/When* that changes, your windmill will become real. Until then, tilting at is a good way to waste time.

Dav


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

wilsonharp said:


> And for the record, I don't feel bad for the publishers. For decades they had a throttle-hold on who could sell books, where those books could be sold, and what books were produced. Amazon is a big reason why independent publishers actually have a shot at selling books without the restrictive and crippling contracts that were forced upon new writers by the major publishers. THEY were the monopoly. Maybe not in form, but in function.


I have a thousand times more reason to hate publishers than you do. If I got another call from the Big 5 tomorrow, offering me another juicy contract, you could hear my cackle from a mile away because I know how much risk there is in them messing up my books.

Just because I don't like them doesn't mean I'm going to believe that Amazon is my bestie or that they're some kind of white knight fighting for a noble cause.

Amazon gobbled up and killed most of the promising self-publishing ebook platforms a few years ago. It wasn't to serve you better.


----------



## wilsonharp (Jun 5, 2012)

The history of business in the United States is a tale that includes many companies that dominated their industry falling to the wayside. Amazon is not magic. If they start making mistakes or start running off partners, then someone else will come along and compete.

PanAm and TWA. Do those names mean anything to you? If you were alive in the 60s, 70s, or 80s you would recognize them as the two dominate airlines in the U.S. at the time.

Blockbuster. Who would have guessed that a company called "Netflix" could take down that behemoth. 'Who wants to wait for three days to rent a movie when you can go to your local Blockbuster and get it tonight? And what is Redbox?'

KFC. They aren't gone yet, but a company called Chick-Fil-A just passed KFC in the amount of chicken sold last year. With 1/3 the number of restaurants.

Gateway. Remember the cow inspired boxes these computers were shipped to your house in? They dominated computer sales for about four years and inspired Dell to create the same kind of sales and marketing.

Montgomery Ward. Sears biggest competitor. Oh wait, Sears looks like it is going down, too.

K-Mart. Still around, but now everyone feels sorry for it in the shadow of WalMart.

The point is that Amazon is on the way up. But eventually, like all business in the U.S., it will either make mistakes or someone will come along who can do things just as well as Amazon.

I can only think of three companies that have been around, and been in a strong position, in the U.S. for over 100 years: Coke, Ford, and Procter & Gamble. And all three of those have survived even with strong competition. When someone comes along that can challenge Amazon, they will either become like Coke or Montgomery Ward. They will either stand or fall. But the panic that they will somehow dominate with no one else to challenge them is a hyperbolic notion.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

I like Patterson's thrillers, but he's useless when it comes to this stuff. Here is Joe with some more Patterson fisking.

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/05/james-patterson-bea-fail.html

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Agreed, kward

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

With 60% of the market Amazon is not a monopoly and probably will never be a monopoly. No vertical integration either. Jeff doesn't want Amazon to be a monopoly and risk all the anti-trust headaches that come with it. The guy ain't stupid or greedy. I have little doubt that if the risk of monopoly appeared he would privately birth a group of investors and techies who would compete.

Patterson is full of himself and beating the drum for his publisher aka Hachette.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Am I not entertained?

I am!

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/06/jamespattersonsts.html


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

wilsonharp said:


> Why? Because they are not doing as good of a job as Amazon. My books are all the same price on the other sites, so why aren't I selling more there? Could it be because they don't have the ability to let their shoppers know about my books? Do they not provide a simple and easy shopping experience?


Or we could be honest and recognize that the promotion infrastructure most of us rely on only provide the capacity to link to Amazon.

I recently got a pretty big promo that linked to Kobo and Apple. Guess what? Amazon's 'share' of my sales plummeted as the users of other devices finally got links to get my stuff at other places.

But honest analytics just isn't as fun as cheerleading for the lesser of two evils because they shoved a couple dollars at me.


----------



## Bookslinger (Jan 12, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> Or we could be honest and recognize that the promotion infrastructure most of us rely on only provide the capacity to link to Amazon.
> 
> I recently got a pretty big promo that linked to Kobo and Apple. Guess what? Amazon's 'share' of my sales plummeted as the users of other devices finally got links to get my stuff at other places.
> 
> ...


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

What exactly does Amazon do to sell your books?

As far as I can tell, the only thing they have is the same search engine and also bought thing literally everyone has. Their only real advantage is size of customer base. Yet people talk like they're out there shilling for each and every one of us. Hell, you can't even buy ads from them for less than the price of a really nice used car.


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

Patty Jansen said:


> LOL the typo in the thread title is most amusing!


Hilarious (and apt)! 

Here are my thoughts on this issue: http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2014/05/amazon-vs-hachette-i-side-with-amazon.html


----------



## wilsonharp (Jun 5, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> What exactly does Amazon do to sell your books?
> 
> As far as I can tell, the only thing they have is the same search engine and also bought thing literally everyone has. Their only real advantage is size of customer base. Yet people talk like they're out there shilling for each and every one of us. Hell, you can't even buy ads from them for less than the price of a really nice used car.


Where is anyone talking like Amazon is out there shilling for each and every one of us? That's a strawman you have built up just to knock down.

What is Amazon doing?

1. They have created a website that is easy to use, easy to search, easy to buy from, and easy to track previous orders on.
2. They have created a website that uses a system of algorithms to suggest other purchases based upon your browsing and buying history.
3. They have kept their customers as the number one focus by providing incentives (like Amazon Prime and Credit Cards that award bonuses for Amazon purchases) for regular buyers.
4. They have given an opportunity to allow third-party vendors the chance to have millions of people see their wares. (And why are there millions of people? See #1, #2, and #3 above)
5. They have give self-published authors the same chance to have millions of people discover their books.

They haven't been shilling for us, but they have given an opportunity to be discovered in the biggest online marketplace in the world.

That's what Amazon does.


----------



## D.L. Shutter (Jul 9, 2011)

Stephen Colbert is a lot less cooler to me now.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

wilsonharp said:


> Where is anyone talking like Amazon is out there shilling for each and every one of us? That's a strawman you have built up just to knock down.


Please take a moment to actually read my post. I said everyone is talking like Amazon is shilling for them, as if Amazon is doing... you know, ANYTHING for us besides renting us server space in exchange for 30%



> 1. They have created a website that is easy to use, easy to search, easy to buy from, and easy to track previous orders on.


So... they have an ecommerce website in 2014. Good for them.



> 2. They have created a website that uses a system of algorithms to suggest other purchases based upon your browsing and buying history.


See above. Except the part where they can and do weight those algos to screw with people's sales strategies. See also the Select Free collapse.



> 3. They have kept their customers as the number one focus by providing incentives (like Amazon Prime and Credit Cards that award bonuses for Amazon purchases) for regular buyers.


That's nothing they've done for us. And in fact, their heavy focus solely on customers and not on us at all has led to them destroying at least one company over it and their return policy that encourages theft like whoa.



> 4. They have given an opportunity to allow third-party vendors the chance to have millions of people see their wares. (And why are there millions of people? See #1, #2, and #3 above)


Yes, taking a cut for giving someone a webpage makes them saints. Wait, no, that's literally their business plan; one which nets them money for nothing. You don't get praise for taking money showers.



> 5. They have give self-published authors the same chance to have millions of people discover their books.


Again, that's actually nothing. They just let you in. They give you ZERO help. They aren't doing anything _for_ us, they're just taking a cut in exchange for consignment space. You don't see people fawning all over their consignment shop owner for selling them a shelf.

There are a ton of channels and services that do way WAY more for us and actually work with us and that deserve much more praise and worship then Mighty Zon. But no, just because they're big and do the bare minimum, people set them up as false idols.


----------



## wilsonharp (Jun 5, 2012)

And yet all of those other channels and services still can't come close to doing what Amazon has done for self-published authors. Facts suck sometimes.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Nice strategy if one can afford it, Drew, but I think it's a long way to go to satisfy some paranoia based on fearing successful businesses. 

Amazon is a company I don't fear yet, though I keep my ear to the ground. 

I love the Kobo Aura HD in concept. But I have a bigger fear of Amazon going full tablet and leaving eInk readers in the dust, so when I update my Kindle next, it'll be a current eInk device from Amazon. 

Besides, today's little guy is often tomorrow's behemoth. I plan to get a Chromebook for that reason. I appreciate Google, but suddenly everyone irrationally fears them now, too. 

And yet no one fears Microsoft? 

Or how about irrational trust of Apple, convicted of conspiring to RAISE ebook prices with the Big 5 just a couple years ago? 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

wilsonharp said:


> And yet all of those other channels and services still can't come close to doing what Amazon has done for self-published authors. Facts suck sometimes.


This would be excellent and pithy if you were using actual facts instead of appealing to emotion.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

And people 'fear' 'successful' companies because they do some swack-nasty things.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> And people 'fear' 'successful' companies because they do some swack-nasty things.


Some do, yes.

You lack room for exceptions, though, because it's not always true of successful companies.


----------



## nobody_important (Jul 9, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> Please take a moment to actually read my post. I said everyone is talking like Amazon is shilling for them, as if Amazon is doing... you know, ANYTHING for us besides renting us server space in exchange for 30%
> So... they have an ecommerce website in 2014. Good for them.
> See above. Except the part where they can and do weight those algos to screw with people's sales strategies. See also the Select Free collapse.
> That's nothing they've done for us. And in fact, their heavy focus solely on customers and not on us at all has led to them destroying at least one company over it and their return policy that encourages theft like whoa.
> ...


I'm curious.

Your posts sound like you really really think Amazon sucks. So why do you sell books there when it's such a subpar retailer for you?


----------



## MarilynVix (Jun 19, 2013)

Last night's episode, Wed. 6/4, had Stephen Colbert announcing how upset he is with Amazon. Apparently, his books are not being made available since he is published by Hatchette Group. So, he's put up a new debut author on his website to see if he can sell more books than Amazon. Plus, you can buy stickers that say "I didn't buy it on Amazon".

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/

I have to say he always gives the Colbert Bump to different authors. I think the story he did awhile ago on the dino erotica and bigfoot erotica gave a big boost to those authors. I'm sure the Colbert Bump will work. It will be interesting to see if the book sales go up for the book. It's called "California" by Edan Lepucki, and it's being linked to Powell's books.

I know he's doing it for comedy sake, but I think he is generally upset that his book is stuck in the middle of the Hatchette Vs. Amazon War. Nothing like having a TV show to fight back with.


----------



## 73735 (Dec 2, 2013)

Apparently, Vertical Scope doesn't seem to think they need to comply with the right to be forgotten.


----------



## kwest (Mar 16, 2013)

I love Colbert, but he is seriously off on this one. It's a shame because so many will go along with him without knowing the facts.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

nobody_important said:


> I'm curious.
> 
> Your posts sound like you really really think Amazon sucks. So why do you sell books there when it's such a subpar retailer for you?


I don't think they suck, just that they're nowhere near as worthy of slobbering over and acting like they're self-pub Jesus. I'm sick to my ass of the idolatry and sychophantic fawning.

I don't become a zealot for my webhost because they sell me server space, so why should I do so or encourage doing so for Amazon?

And in this particular case, I think the worship is clouding people's eyes to what's actually happening. If Amazon just dropped these guys books until they played ball, fine, whatever. What they're actually doing is _actively sabotaging someone they're doing business with_ and that is scummy as hell no matter what you think you 'owe' the barman for allowing you to have a beer.


----------



## Bluebonnet (Dec 15, 2013)

Walmart said their book sales are up 70% since the Amazon-Hachette dispute started.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/01/media/walmart-amazon-hachette/
CNN Money, June 2, 2014, "Amazon book feud sparks Walmart fire sale."

"... Amazon suggested that its inconvenienced customers could 'go to one of our competitors.' Walmart didn't need to be asked twice. It began offering nearly 400 Hachette titles for 40% off, with delivery dates as soon as this week. The sale was given prominent placement on the Walmart.com home page. On Friday, Walmart said sales of physical books (excluding e-books) were up 70% since Tuesday."

When you look at the Books section on walmart.com, you see a lot of scrolling ads for Hachette authors.

Does walmart.com even sell e-books? I couldn't find any e-books on the site. This is what they listed under "Formats" available for books in the Romance category:

CD/Spoken Word (1831) 
Cassette/Spoken Word (1) 
Compact Disc (34) 
Hardcover (610) 
Mass Market Paperbound (22) 
Paperback (7580) 
School and Library ( 8 )

Walmart doesn't even sell many e-book readers. I got only 9 results, for Nook reader, Kobo reader and a couple of brands I'd never heard of. Maybe Walmart would only want to sell e-books if they could tie it into sales of e-readers, like Amazon does with the Kindle. I think this is really what is behind Amazon being so welcoming to indie e-book authors. It's not so much that they want to help us get into publishing and help us sell our books, but that they hope the more e-books customers buy, the more Kindles they can sell to new customers and existing customers wishing to upgrade to the latest model Kindles.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

I was one of the early adopters of the eBook industry, downloading from Peanut Press and syncing to my Palm m100. Yet I was late to eReader as for a long time I could not see the point of a gadget that only read books when the eBook industry was invented for Peanuts, not by Amazon as many seem to think. It was only when in Amazon's home town in 2013 writing a novel about the city that I bought my first sort of ereader in that I could have got a better tablet than a Nook Snow but wanted something Nook to test on. Then on my return to London I bought a Kindle e-Ink and a Kobo Mini. I try to spread spending across the platforms to support them all. My tiny purchasing power will not stop Amazon becoming a monopoly, Amazon will. If they ever get in danger of 90% of the book trade expect them to make donations or loans, but not investments in order to prop up their competition. Similar to how their Redmond neighbours gave a small loan that prevented Apple from going to the wall and Windows gaining an unwanted monopoly.

This has nothing to do with Amazon/Hachette confidential negotiations, but nor does anything else in this thread, or across the internet, or in the media, because they are, well, confidential.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

A bit more balanced coverage from USA Today (Spoiler: Everyone sucks!):

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/wolff/2014/06/01/the-battle-between-hachette-and-amazon/9761817/


----------



## Ancient Lawyer (Jul 1, 2013)

Hugh Howey said:


> A bit more balanced coverage from USA Today (Spoiler: Everyone sucks!):
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/wolff/2014/06/01/the-battle-between-hachette-and-amazon/9761817/


Thank you, Hugh. Excellent - though rather jaundiced! - piece. And I quote:



> So, broadly, the fight is between, on the one hand, the incompetents, craven panderers and mid-level corporate bureaucrats in the book business and, on the other, the authoritarian creepos at Amazon.


Ouch.


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

> I don't become a zealot for my webhost because they sell me server space, so why should I do so or encourage doing so for Amazon?


My web host doesn't generate the kind of money that Amazon does for me. When I compare the money Amazon generates for me to all other platforms (including traditional publishing), Amazon beats them all combined by a very, very significant margin.

When my web host, iTunes, B&N, book stores, whatever, start to pay my bills like Amazon does, I'll probably fawn all over them as well.

Then there's the whole "as a customer" thing. I'm a Prime member, and I'd estimate that 3/4 of our non-food goods now come from Amazon, as well as 100% of our books and music, and probably half of our TV watching (go HBO! Binge-watching "The Wire" again). I'm aware of the disruption they've caused across all spectrum. I'm aware that they are a corporate giant that thinks, talks, and acts like a corporate giant. For now, they've earned my fawning and idolatry and all that.

But I'm not a braindead ignorant. I stopped shopping at Wal-Mart when I no longer agreed with their business practices, regardless of the fact that do indeed have the lowest prices in town and the best selections. Haven't shopped at Wal-Mart in a decade. I no longer eat at Red Lobster, one of my most favorite (gross!) places, because I don't agree with the way they handled their employees when it came to health care (not to mention some Darden political donations). I could go on, but the point is, whether anyone thinks my reasons for no longer spending my money with a company/business are good or stupid, I, like everyone else, have my own moral code.

Right now, my moral code says Amazon has not only changed the way I shop, it has allowed me to begin a new career by giving me the tools and the storefront space to achieve my dream of writing for a living. Since I'm a techie, I completely understand the 'digital revolution' and why companies like Amazon have grown to become the powerhouses they are, and why other companies are dead or on their death bed because they didn't see the revolution, or ignored it, or believed, foolishly, that their business model would survive the revolution. My moral code says I should feel bad for businesses and industries that didn't adapt, but it also says "that's what you get for turning a blind eye to change."

When Amazon begins to damage the relationship they've built with me, both as a customer and an author, I'll reevaluate my decision to fawn and idolize them. Until then, I'm pretty much on Amazon's side. Which means when issues like this (Patterson, Hachette, Turow, Shatzkin, etc.) come up, I'm going to probably fawn and idolize a little harder to make sure my voice gets heard.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

AngryGames said:


> My web host doesn't generate the kind of money that Amazon does for me.


Here I thought you were generating that money by writing books people want to read. Silly me. Can you tell me where the 'Money' switch is at Amazon so I can take a break from penning my sequel and do some game design instead?


----------



## Bookslinger (Jan 12, 2014)

I have far less respect for Colbert after this. I think Konrath is right that Colbert usually sees through these kind of things, yet this time he's decided to be just as bad as the people he makes fun of. I don't know if it's because this time the issue affects him directly or what, but I find his behavior irresponsible.


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2014)

Suppose you wanted to buy a new car. Say a Ford.
When you got home, you realized that the vehicle was tied to Ford products only.
If you needed to replace a tire, you could only buy a tire made by Ford. Same deal if your battery went kaput. You had to buy a Ford battery.
Suppose the record industry made products that would only play on a Motorola record player. If you also had record player made by another company, then you would have to buy another player-specific record.
Suppose your home was wired for GE light bulbs. Another brand of bulbs would not fit in the sockets.
This is the type of mess we're in with Amazon, Apple, etc.
Our Congressional representatives, bless their corrupt souls, should mandate that all this wonderful new technology should be compatible.
But I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> Here I thought you were generating that money by writing books people want to read. Silly me.


You're right. I do write the books that readers want to read. It's not 'silly you' at all. But Amazon is my biggest partner:



> When I compare the money Amazon generates for me to all other platforms (including traditional publishing), Amazon beats them all combined by a very, very significant margin.





> Can you tell me where the 'Money' switch is at Amazon so I can take a break from penning my sequel and do some game design instead?


It's called the "Publish" button. Or the "Sell" button. Whatever button at Amazon that allows seamless exchange of money from customers for a product I (or you, or anyone) either creates or sells. They provide the storefront and the audience (or customer base). I supply the book. Or the spatula. Or the used copy of "Scarface" on Blu-Ray. I do my part by writing or listing items, they do their part by providing me a very visible location, with a ton of tools (also boughts, also vieweds, search tools, reviews) to help me get face time with customers.


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

Drew Gideon said:


> 1. Why? Why not simply encourage companies to make compatible devices, or support ones that already do?
> 2. Where in the Constitution is the federal government given this power?


You're 100% right - nowhere in the Constitution.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Drew Gideon said:


> 2. Where in the Constitution is the federal government given this power?


Drew you got a new fan with that question, but outside of Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and maybe Mike Lee, can you name any significant politician who is even literate in that founding document, let alone willing to be restricted in power by it?

On second thought, don't bother. Politics are depressing.

Sent from my LG G2 Android Phone.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Oh, dear..NPR stepped in today. Favorite quote "Some people may find a way to make this new system work"

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2014/06/05/amazon-prices-ebooks-hachette


----------



## kwest (Mar 16, 2013)

C. Gockel said:


> Oh, dear..NPR stepped in today. Favorite quote "Some people may find a way to make this new system work"
> 
> http://onpoint.wbur.org/2014/06/05/amazon-prices-ebooks-hachette


Just listened, and I have to say...pretty unbelievable. Completely biased and so many misconceptions thrown around.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

jackz4000 said:


> This has been escalating the last couple months. It's about wrangling over new contract terms and Amazon wants more than Hachette wants to give on some issue or issues. Big Pubs have ad programs etc to negotiate with Amazon which indies don't.


You can also put it the other way. Hachette wants Amazon to give more than Amazon wants to give.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

What Amazon has done for me:

*As a reader* - I'm someone who was enchanted with the idea of digital books from the moment I heard of them. I bought a Rocket Ebook back in the 90s and loved, loved it. However, I was shocked after getting it to realize how few books were available for it and how expensive those few were. For some reason I had the idea ebooks ought to be a bit less than paperbacks, not more than hard covers. After the demise of the Rocket, I was afraid to go near another ereader because of the content problem. Then Amazon came out with the Kindle.

I was not one of those who jumped in the first wild rush. I still felt cautious, but I watched for months as the number of books available digitally went up and up. I finally decided Amazon was committed to making content available and available affordably and bought an original Kindle in May of 2008. I loved it. It still works. I gave it to a friend when I bought a K3, and she still uses it. Now I have a PW. (I also have a Kobo, which I only use for books I can only get in epub format and to test the epub formatting on my own books.)

As a reader, I have no sympathy with the big publishers that want to force me to pay $14 and up for an ebook. In fact I'm not going to do it. My taxes support the local library, and I get the overpriced from the library.

As far as I'm concerned Amazon made the ebook market, and my life is better for it. I'm a voracious reader, and I no longer live in a house with books piled on every surface, under the bed, and in other strange places. I do less rereading and more reading of new books because so many book are available at a touch and at prices that don't limit me too severely.

*As a writer:* I joined KBoards in late 2008 in order to share with others who loved the Kindle, and through these forums found out about KDP publishing (then DTP) in late 2009. At the time I had 2.5 books on my PC that had been there for some years because my investigations of traditional publishing led me to conclude there wasn't enough money in it to be worth the aggravation. (I admit I aggravate easily, but NY twits at conferences who told me things like "Rottweilers are unsympathetic street dogs" and that I had to rewrite my cozy mystery their way gave me a strong case of to he|| with them. That story about unsympathetic street dogs may never have been a bestseller, but it's sold over 6,000 copies without promotion or a follow-up, and has earned more than it would have traditionally.)

Amazon doesn't just give me space on its servers. It gives me the benefit of all they've put into development and promotion of digital books and reading. It gives me the benefit of the best search engines of any ebook site. I have no illusions that maintaining the Amazon infrastructure is some inexpensive walk in the park. If Amazon wasn't the first to let indie authors put books up on their website, they were the first to make it profitable.

Do I worry that Amazon may pull the rug out from under me at some point? A little. And if it happens, I'll deal with it. My mother used to call that kind of worrying "'borrowing trouble." What ever Amazon does, it's not going to leave me any worse off than I was in early 2010 when I first published, knowing staying retired wasn't an option financially and I needed to do something I didn't want to do earn supplemental income. As of right now, and until the Amazon-induced Apocalypse comes, I'm on Amazon's side.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

CraigInOregon said:


> Drew you got a new fan with that question, but outside of Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and maybe Mike Lee, can you name any significant politician who is even literate in that founding document, let alone willing to be restricted in power by it?
> 
> Sent from my LG G2 Android Phone.


Oh my god, I'm laughing so hard, i can't breathe.Those guys are how you know that basic Civics weren't being taught when they were in high school.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> I don't think they suck, just that they're nowhere near as worthy of slobbering over and acting like they're self-pub Jesus...
> 
> ...What they're actually doing is _actively sabotaging someone they're doing business with_ and that is scummy as hell no matter what you think you 'owe' the barman for allowing you to have a beer.


As Joe has pointed out, what Amazon is doing is simply not taking pre-orders. They'll take orders once a book is released.

Also, they're not stockpiling inventory, but ordering on a more JIT-based schedule. Perfectly legal. As Joe points out.

Furthermore, they've offered to fund 50-percent of a set-aside from which to pay affected Hachette authors for any inconvenience suffered during negotiations, if Hachette will kick in an equal amount. So far, Hachette was not agreed to co-funding the relief fund.

And, beyond all reason and sanity, Amazon spoke out last week and encouraged customers who can't wait to go to Amazon's own direct competitors, if they just can't wait for this to work itself out, in terms of filing a pre-order or buying a book currently delayed.

NO ONE does that. Except Amazon.

All these points and more are detailed on Joe's blog.

But, Vaal, if you REALLY believe Amazon is evil and untrustworthy, you have a right to that opinion, so here's what I think you ought to do:

Pull all YOUR books from Amazon.

If Amazon really is so unprincipled and evil and untrustworthy, stop doing business with them.

There are plenty of other places to sell your books, from Google Play to Apple to Nook/BN to Kobo and the dozen micro-markets that Smashwords offers convenient access to.

If you honestly believe the Amazon-hate you're spewing, then live out your values: stop doing business with them yourself, stop offering your content through them, and pull all your books off Amazon.

And while you're at it, pull any CreateSpace paper books from the market, as well as any Audible audiobook versions... both are Amazon-owned companies.

Otherwise, you're just spewing invective with no conviction to back it up.

P.S. Like Hachette, I doubt you will break all ties to Amazon, either.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

CraigInOregon said:


> But, Vaal, if you REALLY believe Amazon is evil and untrustworthy, you have a right to that opinion, so here's what I think you ought to do:


How in the name of all that is holy do you quote the post, respond to the post and yet not read the post?


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Okay, considering that this is the second time someone has literally LIED about what I was saying, let's put all the cards on the table:

This thread, these many, MANY threads tossing articles and one liners around with no substance have nothing to do with the actual situation going on. It is nothing but just another sockpuppet for 'us vs them' chest thumping and picking sides in a fight that has zero to do with us directly.

And so when I don't choose 'us' while also not choosing 'them', there are a number of people who simply cannot accept the idea that I feel no irrational loyalty to one of many services I pay good money to work with and are doing whatever it takes to *pretend* I'm one of them.

It's wrongheaded and uncalled for and I'm not going to back down just because someone has decided to resort to actual lies to try and shut me up. This behavior is complete bull and you know it. Not only do you know it, but you should be ashamed of yourself for engaging in such childish tribalism when so many of you make such a big deal of professionalism.

I'll simply remind you, as others oft do, that this is a public board... and register my utter delight at the future blog topic I'm sure will pop up: Indies Lose Their Sh*t at Someone Not Professing Loyalty To Amazon.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Vaalingrade said:


> no matter what you think you 'owe' the barman for allowing you to have a beer.


I'd say I owe the person who invented beer for allowing me to have a beer.

Sort of like Amazon inventing the Kindle, making ebooks a viable medium, and inviting indie authors to participate while giving them a great royalty rate.

That's kind of a big deal.

Amazon isn't required to sell indies, or Hachette titles, or anything it doesn't want to sell. Just like Hachette isn't required to sell books to Amazon or B&N or anywhere, or forced to publish every writer who submits a manuscript.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Sort of like Amazon inventing the Kindle, making ebooks a viable medium, and inviting indie authors to participate while giving them a great royalty rate.


Amazon might have welcomed indies at half the rate they now pay (later being forced to match Apple), but they certainly did not make eBooks a viable market. That was Peanut Press nearly a decade earlier, whose decline as "the largest eBook store in the world" was brought on by Amazon's success and the move away from the PDA technology on which Peanut Press had thrived. When I bought by first Peanut Press eBook in 2001 Amazon was a struggling physical bookseller with an uncertain future. For the record the book was Allen Steele's Chronospace which was a free download to launch the service.

For the real history of eBooks see http://arstechnica.com/business/2009/02/the-once-and-future-e-book/


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

You're not wrong that Peanut Press and others preceded Amazon into the eBook business.

But the size of that business was minuscule until Amazon came along.

It's like saying there were people messing around with that whole aviation concept, prior to the Wright Brothers' adventures at Kitty Hawk.

Also, some people are quick to credit Apple for Amazon creating the 70-percent royalty, which has never really been proved beyond the speculation of Apple fans. A reasonable assumption? Maybe... but there are indications Amazon was going that way to incentivize a preferred pay structure, anyway. 

Yet the same people just hate to admit that Apple was convicted of price-fixing and conspiring to price-fix retail eBook prices, along with the Big 5, just a couple years ago, and had to pay millions in damages.

Something Amazon has NOT done, because they want to keep prices lower for the sake of customers.

Yet Amazon = evil in some people's eyes, and Apple's the hero? Please.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

I seriously doubt any reasonable person thinks the company with the suicide factory under contract is heroic in any shape or form.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

BTW, here's what Hachette calls "Amazon greed."

Amazon's basic starting point for negotiations is to pay all publishers the same. That means:

$0.99 - $2.98 = 35%
$2.99 - $9.99 = 70%
$10.00 - up = 35%

Sound familiar? It's the exact same price structure they offer indies. That's not "Amazon wanting to charge more" as Colbert and company allege. That's Amazon wanting to keep the playing field level between Big Publishing, small press, and indies. It's to incentivize lower book prices, without limiting one's ability to set their own price.

But that's what agency pricing is all about working to undermine. Hachette and the rest of the "Big 5" want the pricing structure to go like this:

$0.99 to infinity = 70%

That's it. It's that simple.

So, Hachette tells their authors, "Hey! Amazon wants a bigger cut of our books!"

What they don't tell their authors is, "Hey! We want to charge MORE for your books and still get 70%, even though small press and indies don't get that deal."

Who's the greedy party in the negotiations, again?

Amazon, who wants to keep prices low and give all publishers the exact same terms, incentivizing consumer-friendly prices between $2.99 to $9.99? Amazon, who's ready to fund an half of an author relief fund for Hachette authors while negotiations drag on? Amazon, who's willing to urge customers to buy from their competitors in the interim, if that's what's best for them? (Yeah, sorry, Stephen Colbert, but you didn't score any points by telling your fans to buy your book at Powell's... a GREAT Portland-based book chain, BTW... because that's EXACTLY what Amazon told their customers to do last week, too!)

Or Hachette, who so far has been unwilling to fund the other half of the author relief fund for Hachette authors? Hachette, who get Amazon orders direct from Amazon for fulfillment at the moment but can't handle the load, create delays, and then blame Amazon for their troubles? Hachette, who wants to "break" Amazon through its outspoken authors into granting them a price structure no other Amazon vendor enjoys, and who wants to price their books higher than $9.99 without being penalized for it?

Here's the truth: Hachette authors who are already under contract likely won't get a penny more, even if Hachette gets a bigger cut of overpriced eBooks.

So in the end, only Hachette benefits if they make Amazon blink.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

P.S.

Hachette and the rest of the Big 5 also want "preferred algorithms."

Meaning no equal footing in also-boughts and product placement for indies.

Yeah... Hachette and the Big 5 are real author's heroes... you betcha.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Well said, kward 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ros_Jackson (Jan 11, 2014)

Hugh Howey said:


> A bit more balanced coverage from USA Today (Spoiler: Everyone sucks!):
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/wolff/2014/06/01/the-battle-between-hachette-and-amazon/9761817/


Well, he gets it wrong about the publishers not having their own e-commerce platforms, but right about them being very obscure. What's odd about Hachette's is that their books often don't appear to have any discount at all. Usually when you go direct to a supplier there's the opportunity of some money off.


----------



## Daniel Knight (Jul 2, 2013)

CraigInOregon said:


> BTW, here's what Hachette calls "Amazon greed."
> 
> Amazon's basic starting point for negotiations is to pay all publishers the same. That means:
> 
> ...


Hey Craig, this is the first time I've heard this - really interesting. Is this just speculation or do you have some insider knowledge? Most other speculations I've read suggest Amazon might be trying to get rid of the agency model in their dealings with publishers - so they can discount how they like.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

CraigInOregon said:


> You're not wrong that Peanut Press and others preceded Amazon into the eBook business.
> But the size of that business was minuscule until Amazon came along.


I was responding to the claim that Amazon made the eBook business *viable*, which they did not. Amazon might have dwarfed everyone by the time they established the Kindle and KDP, but that does not make the previous market miniscule, although it would seem that way to anyone who did not embrace the PDA revolution. Palm and its Windows rivals were huge prior to smartphones taking off. What Peanut Press (aka Palm Digital Media, aka eReader.com) achieved was to convince publishers that eBooks were a *viable* market worth licensing to, what Amazon achieved was to leverage their by then huge physical book reach and influence with publishers to twist the arms that were still resisting. The market, however, was created by Peanut Press and its subsequent owners. I have a library of Jonathan Kellerman books to prove it. The innovators were in collapse by the time of the Kindle, because they were too tied to a struggling Palm and Windows lost interest in the handheld market despite then having the superior handheld OS allowing Apple to (briefly) reign supreme.

Apple did not pay booksellers 70% to challenge Amazon, but because they already paid iTunes providers (previously just musicians) that rate. Amazon responded because they could afford to, but they could also afford not to as iBooks is basically a way of selling more Apple hardware and anyone not in the iOS (and now OSX) empire cannot download their books.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I don't don't know as I'd agree with you completely, Mercia. You have a point: there were ebooks and ebook reading devices before Amazon came along with the kindle. Believe me: I'd checked 'em all out. But they were way too expensive and not enough content available to be mainstream. I had an ereader in my Palm device -- but the tiny screen wasn't worth it. I had one on a previous laptop -- but you can't read comfortably for long with a 5 lb heat machine in your lap.  In the sense that I saw it as the future and was waiting for something _I_ could afford, yeah, I guess they showed it was viable. But it definitely took Amazon to make it practically workable to more than just gadget geeks who, let's face it, aren't always _reading_ geeks. (Though there does seem to be a significant amount of overlap here on kboards!  )

SONY had a chance -- their eInk reader came out before Amazon but, again, the cost was just so high! And the titles available were limited and generally cost as much as a paper book. PLUS, to get them on the device you had to plug it into the computer. They also weren't willing to sell there device at cost or less to get folks hooked into their store. All together, for me, it still felt kind of gimicky -- designed for the Hammacher Schlemmer customers of the world. 

The Original Kindle's price of $399 is part of where Amazon won the day but I also think their introduction of wireless delivery nailed it. Suddenly people who weren't particularly comfortable with computers or maybe didn't even HAVE one, could have a reading device that was highly customizable. I personally think the 'whispernet' wireless delivery is what really made the Kindle. If you still had to plug it into a computer, it might still have done well as it was priced well lower than Sony -- which was the only other eInk reader really on the market -- but a lower price PLUS magical instant delivery to the device:  Consumer Gold.  Add a huge amount of content and, in retrospect, it's not very surprising they won the day.


----------



## Amy Corwin (Jan 3, 2011)

I included this long quote because I *largely* agree with it. Except I see no reason to take either side. It's the battle of the Titans and frankly, I don't care which side "wins."

Both have good and bad points.
And the strange thing about predictions like "Amazon can decide to lower payment rates" is that even if they come to pass, they never come to pass in exactly the way predicted. And it's that unexpected twist that generally makes the difference.

I read Joe Konrath because he's entertaining and makes good points. I learn something. But I don't think he has the *only* answer. People do well, very well, via traditional publishing. And people do well, very well, via Indie publishing. Both paths have their negatives and positives. I actually think that a hybrid of the two may be the best way to go, simply because it allows you to have multiple eggs in multiple baskets.

Traditional publishers may go the way of the dinosaurs, so this battle may mean nothing in the end. 
And Amazon may be gone in twenty years, too, replaced by direct chip implants to the brain (or whatever). 

The bottom line: don't get riled up. Relax. Drink a cup of coffee, tea or whatever your poison is. (Or don't drink coffee if it gets you wound up.)

Your best bet is to keep your blood pressure low and continue to seek as many outlets for your creative work as possible. Keep abreast of new opportunities and make the best of the ones available to you. But don't worry about what the Titans are up to because chances are good, their fancy footwork may end up crushing you. 



ellenoc said:


> What Amazon has done for me:
> 
> *As a reader* - I'm someone who was enchanted with the idea of digital books from the moment I heard of them. I bought a Rocket Ebook back in the 90s and loved, loved it. However, I was shocked after getting it to realize how few books were available for it and how expensive those few were. For some reason I had the idea ebooks ought to be a bit less than paperbacks, not more than hard covers. After the demise of the Rocket, I was afraid to go near another ereader because of the content problem. Then Amazon came out with the Kindle.
> 
> ...


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Ann in Arlington said:


> I don't don't know as I'd agree with you completely, Mercia. You have a point: there were ebooks and ebook reading devices before Amazon came along with the kindle. Believe me: I'd checked 'em all out. But they were way too expensive and not enough content available to be mainstream.


I'll repeat for a second time this is about making the eBook market *viable*. Peanut Press did what iTunes did for music - they broke the back of the supply side opposition to digital. Palm saw straight away that this was a winner for them so they promoted Peanut Press' launch to their huge customer base, made it a success, and then bought it. The mainstream publishers were reluctant about believing that anyone would ever buy eBooks and Palm users (and later also Windows Handheld users) proved them wrong. At the time of Peanut Press' launch a Palm or most other handhelds was substantially cheaper than the Kindle at launch. The screen was small, but it was us handheld users with decent eyesight who created this market. They were so successful that UK rights holders eventually stopped us Brits using Peanut Press because it was hurting the book stores too much.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

It's so nice to see comments from Ellen and Mercia and Ann about the olden days of ereaders.

I fell in love with the Rocket when I held one at the L.A. Festival of Books, but it was too expensive for me at the time. Rocket had a great free library, but still it was a chicken-and-egg thing: Not enough books available plus an expensive device meant too few buyers, which in turn kept the price of the device up and discouraged publishers from digitizing their books.

Then Rocket was purchased by Goldstar (the VCR+ people) and I thought there was hope. Goldstar owned this easy way to program your VCR to record a show: Each show was assigned a code number and all you had to do was enter the code number to record the show. But no one listed the code numbers in their TV listings, and because no one listed the numbers, VCR manufacturers didn't buy into VCR+. So Goldstar purchased _TV Guide_ and started listing the numbers and pretty soon every VCR maker was adding VCR+.

I hoped that Goldstar would do something similar with the Rocket. Lower the price of the device to lure in more buyers, which would encourage publishers to digitize their books. Or work it from the other end and subsidize the ebooks to encourage sales of the Rocket.

Instead, they raised the price of the device, killed the free library, and stopped distribution of Rocket ebooks from everywhere but their own site (and maybe Powell's, I can't remember). The Rocket quickly died.

I, too, remember when ebooks were largely read on 2" Palm Pilot screens. I remember when there were fifteen different, incompatible ebook formats (I do not exaggerate here).

It took Amazon to integrate a great reading device with an outstanding shopping experience.

It took B&N's introduction of the Nook to bring the price of the Kindle down.

It took Kobo to bring the price down to $150, which B&N and Amazon had to match. And that was the tipping point where suddenly lots and lots of people were buying Kindles and Nooks and Kobo readers. As an author with an ebook for sale in that market, when product was still relatively scarce, it was like printing money for a few months.

Anyway, we do owe a lot to Amazon, though not our souls. 

As for the fear that Amazon will cut the "royalty" when they achieve market dominance, well, they'd have to cut it a *lot *before they reached the 15-25% traditional publishers are *already *paying, or the 8-12% they pay on print books.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

I think what _will_ happen is what happened _before_ (history is a great indicator of future behavior).

Amazon will sue Hachette in court for defamation of character. We all know Amazon is sending the orders in real time to Hatchette. Hatchette is the hold up in fulfilling those orders, because they are not set up for real time order and delivery. They expected Amazon to cave and order their books in advance of release. This did not happen.

For Hachette to try this in the court of public opinion while blaming the problem on Amazon, is...
Well, the courts will decide.

In the end, the truth wins out... and _Hachette_ will have made _Hachette_ a much weaker company in the long term as they will have to spend on lawyers, and then most likely pay a huge fine for the damage they caused to Amazon's reputation.


----------



## Bookslinger (Jan 12, 2014)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> I think what _will_ happen is what happened _before_ (history is a great indicator of future behavior).
> 
> Amazon will sue Hatchette in court for defamation of character. We all know Amazon is sending the orders in real time to Hatchette. Hatchette is the hold up in fulfilling those orders, because they are not set up for real time order and delivery. They expected Amazon to cave and order their books in advance of release. This did not happen.
> 
> ...


Here's hoping what you say will come to pass, LisaGrace. I don't know how much damage Hachette will have done to Amazon in actual numbers (probably little to none, actually), but Hachette has been pretty underhanded in trying to damage Amazon's reputation and I would LOVE to see Hachette slapped with a defamation lawsuit over that.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Daniel Knight said:


> Hey Craig, this is the first time I've heard this - really interesting. Is this just speculation or do you have some insider knowledge? Most other speculations I've read suggest Amazon might be trying to get rid of the agency model in their dealings with publishers - so they can discount how they like.


No insider knowledge. I'm nowhere near the negotiating table.

It is an educated guess, based on what I know of the Big 5 wanting the "agency pricing model" and Amazon wanting identical terms for all publishers and a level playing field.

Also, please note, I suggested these were their "opening positions." In all business negotiations, both sides end up having to give a bit from their original positions to reach a mutually acceptable compromise. No one but Amazon and Hachette knows what movement, if any, either side had given up yet.

But given that Hachette is telling its authors Amazon is greedy and "wants more," it seems a reasonable speculation based on their likely opening-stances.

If one's royalty drops from 70 percent to 35 percent when a price creeps over $9.99, that is the sort of thing that Hachette could "spin" to claim Amazon greed.

Of course, they're not saying that the only reason it would affect Hachette is that Hachette wants to price most of their eBooks above $9.99.

Which they do.

And see, if your royalty reduced to half after your price rises above $9.99, you have to charge at least $20.00 to make as much as you were making at $9.99 with the 70 percent royalty.

The 70-percent royalty is there to encourage lower eBook prices.

The agency model is all about eliminating that, so the Big 5 can publish their eBooks as they currently do, between $11.99 and $17.99, with $14.99 being the average Big-5 price.

The agency model, yes, also seeks to reduce competition from indies by "paying for placement," -- in other words, favorable algorithims so that Hachette and other Big 5 books are preferred to appear in "also boughts" over small press and indie books... they WANT a playing field tilted in their favor, just as publishers bought up floor space from big book chains for decades so that only Big 5 books get prominently displayed. That's bad for us.

And yeah, part of the agency model is to stop Amazon from discounting; oh, so terrible! Sale prices NEVER spark increased sales.... No one EVER hesitates at a $12.99 new Stephen King eBook, they love that price and get insulted if it's part of a "Summer Reading Special" that marks it down for a few days to $8.99.

I mean, what book buyer in their right mind would want to PAY LESS for a book they want, hmm?

Oh wait...


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Jan Strnad said:


> I, too, remember when ebooks were largely read on 2" Palm Pilot screens. I remember when there were fifteen different, incompatible ebook formats (I do not exaggerate here).
> 
> It took Amazon to integrate a great reading device with an outstanding shopping experience.
> 
> ...


And thanks Jan for the history of dedicated ereaders, which I avoided until 2013 and only bought once I began writing an eBook. Although I should point out that the numerous incompatible formats on the Palm were primarily for reading free texts until Peanut Press opened negotiations with publishers and Palm. Those days are still with us as mobi is the default format on Kindle and Nook is the latest aka of Peanut Press (although all they retained was the DRM system and transferring customers' libraries to Nook accounts). As one of the pioneers I like to warn late comers those are my shoulders they are standing on. It was our expenditure, not Johnny Come Lately Amazon, that proved to mainstream publishers that eBooks were a viable market. Too viable for the book-stores liking.

All of which is apropos of nothing about Amazon v Hachette but as even the European Commission Competition Authority has not got a clue what is going on in the corporate battle between Seattle and France no discussion is apropos of those confidential negotiations.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

Mercia - here's the problem. I, and a million other people, have never heard of Peanut Press. And I did have a PP. While they may have made selling and buying ebooks viable, they did not make it commercially so or as many people who know the word "Kindle" would know "Peanut Press." Sony was probably the first to make a commercial go at things, but they didn't get it right, either. 

Bashing Amazon for creating a commercially viable space for readers and writers is like bashing ebay or etsy. They are all providing a great service for both ends of the deal.

And since no one but Hachette and Amazon know the terms they're arguing over, anyone pointing fingers is doing so on faith and/or ignorance. Because we don't know. And that's the bottom line.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Jana DeLeon said:


> Bashing Amazon for creating a commercially viable space for readers and writers is like bashing ebay or etsy. They are all providing a great service for both ends of the deal.
> 
> And since no one but Hachette and Amazon know the terms they're arguing over, anyone pointing fingers is doing so on faith and/or ignorance. Because we don't know. And that's the bottom line.


While we do not know what exactly they are fighting over, we do know that Hachette is misleading on several points.


Not every author or small press gets pre-order buttons, they're being treated the same as most authors on this point.

Amazon is just choosing not to stock their books and giving up their valuable space in their warehouses.

Amazon is delivering real time orders to Hachette for authors whose books are released; it's not their problem that Hachette isn't set up to deal with real time orders.

Amazon is selling books at *Hachette's listed prices*. Hachette can lower those prices anytime they want.

Yes, they lost "the perks" of those who have signed contracts, but that's capitalism.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> While we do not know what exactly they are fighting over, we do know that Hachette is misleading on several points.


Well, yes, but publishers have been attempting to mislead people ever since indie publishing boomed.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Jana DeLeon said:


> Well, yes, but publishers have been attempting to mislead people ever since indie publishing boomed.


Can't argue with that.


----------



## Bookslinger (Jan 12, 2014)

Jana DeLeon said:


> Well, yes, but publishers have been attempting to mislead people ever since indie publishing boomed.


And they still don't get anywhere near enough criticism for doing that. They're definitely trying to ensure that authors who might not be happy in the "marriage" feel too insecure about their chances at indie success to ever leave. I find that despicable.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

I posted on this topic on my Facebook page. My fans were very interested in the indie perspective and I got a lot of likes and comments. It's a good thing to bring up with readers who may feel like buying your books from amazon is cheating you. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fredster (Apr 11, 2011)

From CNN



> *New front in Amazon kerfuffle: Warner movies*
> 
> Hachette books aren't the only products that are now harder to order on Amazon -- the online retailer is going after movies, too.
> 
> ...


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

New installment from Joe... http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-hachette-job.html

Sent from my LG G2 Android Phone.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Jana DeLeon said:


> Mercia - here's the problem. I, and a million other people, have never heard of Peanut Press. And I did have a PP. While they may have made selling and buying ebooks viable, they did not make it commercially so or as many people who know the word "Kindle" would know "Peanut Press." Sony was probably the first to make a commercial go at things, but they didn't get it right, either.


You mustn't have been on the email list then as I was getting as much book promos sent by Palm as I now get from Kobo. Mind you you say you owned a PP (Palm Pilot) which were no longer sold by the time Peanut Press/Palm Digital Media was launched. The reader software does not work on a Palm Pilot.

My point is that Kindle did not create the market, because others had put in the hard work persuading major publishers that eBooks were an option. The reluctance at the time was huge and authors were going to press to complain that their publishers would neither publish in digital or release the digital rights to them, because those with early adopting publishers were tapping a market those authors could not. Publishers were over time being won over because the market was proved to be there by people like me who responded to the Palm emails. That gave Amazon an easier way in 8 years later to build the Kindle market and the open it up to self-publishers via KDP.

For must of its pre-Kindle history the name Peanut Press would have been unknown to most as it quickly got bought out and became Palm Digital Media (despite the store's name you could read the books on desktops, Psions, Windows handhelds, smartphones and a host of other devices). As it expanded well beyond the Palm world it was re-branded as eReader.com and after the Palm collapse it was sold to Fictionwise, which in turn was sold to Nook 2 years ago. It was only when Nook bought it out that it had anything to do with what we call eReaders as eReader.com was a major player in the early days of eBooks, but never for a dedicated ereader. You can still see what I am talking about as the site has been kept open by Nook so that the old software can be downloaded, but you cannot actually buy anything there. They have changed this site since I last checked and now the sidebar links apart from Software take you to Nook, after all they would be fools to give up the market opportunity of the domain name ereader.com.

http://www.ereader.com/ereader/home.htm


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Mercia McMahon said:


> My point is that Kindle did not create the market, because others had put in the hard work persuading major publishers that eBooks were an option. The reluctance at the time was huge and authors were going to press to complain that their publishers would neither publish in digital or release the digital rights to them, because those with early adopting publishers were tapping a market those authors could not. Publishers were over time being won over because the market was proved to be there by people like me who responded to the Palm emails. That gave Amazon an easier way in 8 years later to build the Kindle market and the open it up to self-publishers via KDP.


I don't think anyone has tried to argue that there was NO market before Kindle. But I also think it's true that, until the advent kindle and personal tablets (only the last 5 years, really), it was very much a 'niche' market.

In my experience, the early hand held devices -- I had several -- were great for contact management and calendar keeping, but were not great for reading on. The ereader part was just a cool 'add-on' and new releases weren't available -- though even then Gutenberg was busy digitizing public domain titles. There was no real impetus for big name publishers to get on board, because there just wasn't much in the way of customers yet. I'd guess not many actually saw the future in those early devices; even now there is resistance in many circles to the ebook market.

Back then, of course, it was easy to 'pooh pooh' the idea. Paper books were available to anyone; they were relatively cheap. These new-fangled digital devices were 'cool' for executives and gadget geeks, but for those of us run-of-the-mill readers who thought the idea of millions of books at our fingertips digitally would be fantastic, well, most of us couldn't begin to afford the things or found they weren't really optimized for use as a reading device. Publishers may have started thinking about ebook rights, but not in the sense of envisioning distribution digitally on a large scale. They stayed focused on paper.

I'd argue Apple made hand held media devices ubiquitous -- but they were focused mostly on music. Jobs is famous for dismissing the Kindle when it first came out on the theory that 'nobody reads anymore.' Yeah, I'd say he got that one wrong.  Amazon is the one that made digital books available afford-ably to 'the masses' by offering a dedicated eReader that was affordable, along with the BOOKS they wanted to read. That, along with the wireless delivery thing, was hugely attractive to those readers who are 'high volume' consumers. Even now, they mostly sell the devices at cost and figure to make money on people buying _content_.

Sony was really the first on the general consumers' radar with a dedicated eReader, but their device was more expensive, and content was limited -- though at least they did have a fair number of 'big name' writers and new releases -- but they really only marketed it, still to 'gadget geeks' or specific types of readers -- commuters, for example. Amazon, though, designed and marketed their device to AVID BOOK READERS. And, judging by the fact that the thing was sold out 4 hours after they first released it, they struck a chord with someone! 

Of course, my point of view is that of a US consumer/reader.  It's perfectly possible that things moved differently in other parts of the world.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/06/more-konrants.html?m=1

More words of analytical brilliance from Joe.

Sent from my LG G2 Android Phone.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/slowing-ebook-sales-could-hurt-amazon-in-battle-with-publishers-174752232.html

Could they read this information more wrong? Lol, I do not think so. First, they do not include all ebook sales.

_Hey, Lisa, I've merged this with the general discussion thread about the Hachette/Amazon dispute. Thanks for understanding. --Betsy_


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Flagrant attempt to get clicks to their article. Yahoo writers are paid per page-view. I know, because I _am_ a Yahoo! writer.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

First off they are not slowing, they are steadying.  
Now how does one become a yahoo writer?


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

I just have to shake my head. Like Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies and statistics."


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Another great truth-telling entry from Joe: http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/07/authors-behaving-badly-and-authors-who.html

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

This is mind-boggling.

https://gigaom.com/2014/07/08/amazon-makes-a-direct-offer-to-hachette-authors-heres-the-full-letter/

Hachette refused the 50/50 split. Will they refuse this?

And read the history of these negotiations! Will anyone still side with Hachette after hearing that they haven't even been negotiating?


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> Hachette refused the 50/50 split. Will they refuse this?


Of course they'll refuse it. Accepting it would not be in the best interests of them nurturing their authors.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Here's the screw that they're gonna twist:  

"Both Amazon and Hachette would forego all revenue and profit from the sale of every ebook until an agreement is reached.”

Basically Hachette can either eat it or have no choice but to look like the bad guy here.

Nicely played by Amazon.


----------



## dmac (Jun 23, 2014)

I must be the only author in self-publishing land who does not care what happens here. I cannot see myself bothering to waste free time rooting for either side, much less arguing with strangers on the net about who is the bad guy. 

When two elephants battle, it is best to just get out of the way and wait until the dust clears. In this case, Amazon vs. Big Publishing. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking this is Amazon vs. Hachette. Hachette is the tip of the spear. 

Change is coming. I shall sit back and see what those changes are, and adapt accordingly.


----------



## Chrissy (Mar 31, 2014)

removed


----------



## Geoff North (Apr 2, 2011)

Amazon would lose 30%, Hachette 70%. And Amazon still has all of us to keep things going forward for them. Hachette authors should be pleased until things are worked out. I wonder if Stephen Colbert will weigh in on things again...


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Merged the new thread with the existing one . . . . sorry for any confusion.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Geoff North said:


> Amazon would lose 30%, Hachette 70%. And Amazon still has all of us to keep things going forward for them. Hachette authors should be pleased until things are worked out. I wonder if Stephen Colbert will weigh in on things again...


Well, he's off for the next two weeks . . . .


----------



## Alexandra Lynwood (Dec 4, 2013)

Well played, Amazon. Well played.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Drew Smith said:


> Wow. Smooth move, Amazon. Hard to blame Amazon for the fact that Hachette authors are hurting after this move.
> 
> Wonder what Patterson et al. will say next?


Presumably Patterson will not say anything as he prefers to use ghost writers.


----------



## Alexandra Lynwood (Dec 4, 2013)

Drew Smith said:


> Wow. Smooth move, Amazon. Hard to blame Amazon for the fact that Hachette authors are hurting after this move.
> 
> Wonder what Patterson et al. will say next?


In no particular order:

1. Amazon's using its vast resources to shield itself from valid criticisms, and that it's a cynical propaganda move on their part.
2. That Amazon's royalty shares payments will eventually decrease to nothing, leaving the poor authors homeless and bereft.
3. Paying the authors 100% of money owed on e-books does nothing to resolve the situation which is an argument between Hachette and Amazon. If any money is paid out it must be done solely to Hachette who will then oversee its disbursal to authors.

This will all be said by a Hachette PR spokesperson with no irony whatsoever.


----------



## Chrissy (Mar 31, 2014)

removed


----------



## meh (Apr 18, 2013)

How very noble of him.

And what about the starving midlist writers?


----------



## Chrissy (Mar 31, 2014)

removed


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Chrissy said:


> I don't know about Patterson but here's what Douglas Preston had to say
> 
> Source: http://online.wsj.com/articles/amazon-offers-e-book-authors-100-of-sales-amid-publisher-dispute-1404840227


Stockholm Syndrome?


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Chrissy said:


> Let them eat cake?


Gah! beat me to it.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Hugh,

Of course Hachette will refuse this; and their media elite allies will even cover for them so they don't look like the bad guys. The "Amazon is evil" spin is already on full display in the GigaOm article you linked to, after all.

The journalist interjects a lot of "facts" into any sentence that might make Amazon look good, some of them apparently not even fact-checked.

The biggest example?



> Since Amazon takes a 30 percent commission on each ebook sale (it is reportedly looking to increase that commission as a result of these negotiations) and Hachette gets 70 percent, Hachette gets a worse deal from such an arrangement than Amazon does. *(In many cases, Kindle editions of Hachette books have been hard to find on Amazon's website as a result of the dispute; it's unclear how that would change if this proposal were actually implemented.)*


There is NO evidence, other than Hachette Spin, that Amazon is seeking more than 30 percent per eBook sale. But Hachette's misleading public statements make it seem like that because no one has bothered to study the KDP structure that is their model for incentivizing lower eBook prices.

Now, it's entirely possible that, during negotiations, Amazon might say something like, "If you want the $2.99-$9.99 incentive removed, it's not going to be 35/70/35... if you want one consistent royalty for any price, it's going to be less than 70 percent."

Maybe.

But does anyone really think one journalist working for GigaOm has been privy to negotiations and KNOWS this? Doubtful. So it's complete journalistic spin.

The fallout of this, I suspect:

1. Hachette will refuse Amazon's intermediate "author relief" offer, just as they refused the last one, trusting the Colberts and Pattersons and Kings of the world to spin it for them as "not a serious offer, just a PR ploy, Amazon needs to 'get serious' at the negotiating table and stop playing a PR game.'" It's template and predictable.

2. Hachette authors and allies will continue to blame Amazon for no relief and no progress.

3. Joe Konrath will have PLENTY of new stupidity from folks like Patterson and King to fisk, on his blog.

4. Hachette will use the fallout of this to continue "not negotiating" over most of the summer.

I mean, the author of that article even inserted the wild claim that Hachette books have been "hard to find" on Amazon since negotiations began, even though I can find any Hachette title I'm looking for, just as easily as ever. Clearly the author of the article was repeating a Hachette talking-point that she never bothered to verify.

There's a WORLD of difference between taking away "Preorder" buttons temporarily, (NOT Order buttons, BTW) and shifting paper-book fulfillment back to Hachette instead of warehousing their titles ... and "making their books hard to find." Totally irresponsible reporting.

And remember, I spent about five years in journalism myself in the early 2000s, as well as most of my college years, and have won 4-5 awards in journalism during that time, including two first-place awards. So I know a bit about the journalism field, including what's responsible reporting and what's evidence of bias.

Final note:

Hachette will NEVER allow any deal that permits one of their authors to experience what "100 percent" of their eBook revenue feels like. Because it would destroy the feeling that trad-pub's one-sided contracts are even remotely fair.

I mean, under the current deal, even the best trad-pub contracts offer, what, 25 percent of what Hachette brings in?

So, on a $9.99 eBook, Amazon basically takes about $3.00 and gives Hachette $6.99.

So Hachette authors, months later, get ~$1.75 or so of that $6.99

No way will Hachette want their authors to feel what $9.99 out of $9.99 feels like. Their authors would never sign another Hachette contract again.

Final final note:

I love this line from Hachette's response:



> ...and whose terms allow Hachette to continue to invest in writers, marketing, and innovation. We look forward to resolving this dispute soon and *to the benefit of the writers who have trusted their books to us*."


While even that line is suspect, since Hachette has turned down deals from Amazon that would have offered mid-negotiation relief before this one, what I love is that they basically shoot themselves in the foot here.

Does any indie still believe "Hachette needs to win because they're fighting for US indies, too!" after that?


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

For the record, I don't think there's any way that Amazon intended for Hachette to make this offer.

It's not an offer, for one, and Hachette couldn't accept it without first looking through thousands of contracts to make sure they weren't violating clauses put in by agents, because if you're on a percentage of net, someone's going to put something in there about not accepting 0% royalties or something like that. There's a huge legal liability for Hachette in accepting this, and they couldn't just do it on 72 hours notice. It would take a team of lawyers several months, and the answer might be, "Er, we can do it for these guys but not these guys."

I think Amazon sent the letter to get the negotiation timeline out there in front of agents. Because that does NOT look good for Hachette.


----------



## Chrissy (Mar 31, 2014)

removed


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

I love it. Amazon can outlast them... can bleed a lot longer than Hachette, and both sides know it.

As stated by others above, this wasn't an offer - it was a message, and a rather strong one at that.

I don't see how Hachette can win this. Their PR spin and campaign isn't working, their authors and readers are being hurt. Amazon, from a business perspective, could care less, and that's not a negative.

I can't wait for the quarterly reports. Then the games will seriously begin.


----------



## Lucian (Jun 8, 2014)

Does anyone know the next big publisher who is supposed to work out a deal with Amazon and when they're supposed to start?

Because if it were me, I might work out a deal right away and show all the Hachette authors that *someone* could work out a deal with Amazon for their authors.

Am I mean?


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Courtney Milan said:


> I think Amazon sent the letter to get the negotiation timeline out there in front of agents. Because that does NOT look good for Hachette.


Bingo. My agent knew something was up in January. She inquired. Hachette lied.

Incidentally, S&S did the same thing to us during the B&N negotiations.

Some agents are helping authors self-publish, and they are taking 15% or a little more of much more revenue. They are the curators for publishers, anyway. Why not marry authors with editors and cover artists and make a whole lot more money?

You wouldn't happen to know an agent like this, would you?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Joe_Nobody said:


> ...Their PR spin and campaign isn't working, their authors *and readers* are being hurt...


Joe, love most of your take, but this gives me a chance to bring up a relevant point:

Since when do publishers have "readers" who are loyal to them and can therefore be hurt? Outside of writers' circles, most folks don't know or care who published a book.

Readers are loyal to writers they enjoy, not the publishers who put them in print.

For example:

I, like many people, LOVE Stephen King's work.

During his career, King broke into the biz courtesy Bill Thompson at Doubleday.

He spent most of the 1980s at Viking (hardcover) and New American Library (paperback), owned by Random House.

And I think lately, he largely works with Simon and Schuster.

I never stopped reading King based on "Oh no! King no longer works with Doubleday! Now his books are gonna suck!" Never even entered my mind.

Who publishes King, to me, is trivia. I'm a fan of King. Not Viking, not Doubleday, not Simon and Schuster.

If tomorrow, Stephen Edwin King signed a new book contract and suddenly he was a Hachette author, I'd still read King's work.

Or, if tomorrow, he declared, "I'm going indie! From now on, I'm hiring flat-fee editors and cover artists and all that happy [email protected], and I'm gonna take 70% of my income directly from Amazon and BN.com and Google and iBooks and Kobo, and my agent can make a nice living just worrying about my movie deals and foreign rights! I'm full-in indie!" then it still wouldn't change much for me as a reader! I'd still be a fan of his work.

(Well, actually, a move like that would make him a huge personal hero of mine, even more than he is now, but only as a writer. As a reader, I'd still be buying nearly all his titles no matter HOW they get to market.)

So this whole idea that readers are hurt has WAY more to do with readers being loyal to writers, not their publishers.

I mean... hate to say it, but when King was at Doubleday, I never "tried another Doubleday author because they publish Stephen King." Ditto Viking-Penguin. Ditto Simon and Schuster. The fact someone publishes King says nothing to me about their other writers.

Now... there are small-press exceptions. Hard Case Crime, for example, is a tiny publisher, but they have an intriguing stable of writers.

However, to be fair, I'd already read the people they publish, whose HCC books I buy, long before HCC put out titles by them. (Max Allan Collins, Stephen King, Lawrence Block, Donald Westlake, etc...)


----------



## abishop (May 22, 2014)

CraigInOregon said:


> Hachette will NEVER allow any deal that permits one of their authors to experience what "100 percent" of their eBook revenue feels like. Because it would destroy the feeling that trad-pub's one-sided contracts are even remotely fair.
> 
> I mean, under the current deal, even the best trad-pub contracts offer, what, 25 percent of what Hachette brings in?
> 
> ...


I think this is a key element of Amazon's strategy. They know Hachette will not accept the deal because they don't want authors to get cheques with massively increased per-book revenue, which would make leaving their publisher and joining KDP look like a much more enticing proposition than it might to authors who've never had a larger cut of revenue.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Lucian said:


> Does anyone know the next big publisher who is supposed to work out a deal with Amazon and when they're supposed to start?
> 
> Because if it were me, I might work out a deal right away and show all the Hachette authors that *someone* could work out a deal with Amazon for their authors.
> 
> Am I mean?


Not mean, but what you're suggesting is highly unlikely to happen, Lucian.

The Big 5 are obligated by the legal judgment against them to negotiate with Amazon separately, staggered six months apart.

Because they were convicted of price-fixing and conspiring toward that goal with Apple.

However:

They STILL all are seeking the same end goal: to "break" Amazon.

My best guess is this: Hachette doesn't WANT to settle in their own unique six-month window.

Because, if they wait it out, then whoever's up next will join the fray. And six months after that, so will the next one.

The longer the Big 5 drag this out, the more they can put group pressure on Amazon, even if they ostensibly are holding separate negotiations.

Because their strategy, I think, is: C'mon, Amazon. Take pre-order buttons away from ALL of us... then writers and the public will REALLY rise up against you, because we, the Big 5, publish all the good authors. All of them.

Which is a gamble on their part.

But this could be a really LONG game. Like, another two years or more long. Because it'll take 30 months to get all of the Big 5 into position to "join the fray."

What they're not factoring in is whether readers will care as much as these publishers seem to think.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

CraigInOregon said:


> Not mean, but what you're suggesting is highly unlikely to happen, Lucian.
> 
> The Big 5 are obligated by the legal judgment against them to negotiate with Amazon separately, staggered six months apart.
> 
> Because they were convicted of price-fixing and conspiring toward that goal with Apple.


I have seen multiple people say this and am not sure on the source for this. I have read all the settlement documents, and there does not seem to be anything about this in the court's order with the settling publishers.

I think this is a misunderstanding--the publishers are forced to negotiate with APPLE on a six-month staggered timeline, starting in 2015. But there does not appear to be any requirement regarding Amazon. Can you tell me your source for this?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Courtney Milan said:


> But there does not appear to be any requirement regarding Amazon. Can you tell me your source for this?


One of Joe Konrath's many posts on the issue, as I recall.

You may be right; to some extent, I'm relying on the writings of others on this issue, as many of us are.

Either way, the Big 5 still share common goals of breaking Amazon, though.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

CraigInOregon said:


> One of Joe Konrath's many posts on the issue, as I recall.
> 
> You may be right; to some extent, I'm relying on the writings of others on this issue, as many of us are.


I'm happy to be wrong. I just haven't seen a source for this and would love to see one.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

So who decides what price those authors would be getting 100% of?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Courtney Milan said:


> I'm happy to be wrong. I just haven't seen a source for this and would love to see one.


Konrath's been my main source on this for months, plus any pro- or anti-Amazon sites he points to.

Can't point you to a specific post... didn't anticipate I'd have to track it like that.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

The court could hardly impose a two-year moratorium on agency then insist that publishers only negotiate with Amazon 6 months apart as who would want to be negotiating two years after the first publisher, especially when that is Hachette and they are making such a mess of the negotiations.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Mercia,

It's our perspective that Hachette's mishandling the negotiations, perhaps.

Unless they're playing a longer game and the "conspiring" hasn't really ceased.

I mean, King's a Simon and Schuster author and he signed that "letter of support" for Hachette against Amazon. And it was only a few years ago he wrote UR as an Amazon-exclusive novella...

What seems clear at this point is even if there's no direct conspiring, all of the Dead Tree/Big 5 old-guard are expressing support for Hachette and hatred of Amazon.

And readers seem to be an afterthought for that old guard... this is about protecting their status quo. It's the folks who want to still sell buggy-whips in an automobile-driven transportation market.


----------



## J. Tanner (Aug 22, 2011)

Courtney Milan said:


> I'm happy to be wrong. I just haven't seen a source for this and would love to see one.


I think you're right. I'm pretty sure the misconceptions and supporting links were in this article at Publisher's Lunch back when it was first posted and free for viewing:

http://lunch.publishersmarketplace.com/2014/06/getting-things-straight-two-wonky-important-hachettesettlement-things-people-get-wrong/

As I recall, it came shortly after Konrath and/or Hugh made these assertions but now it's members only and I can only find these minimal excerpts:



> We've been doing a lot of talking to other members of the press the last couple of weeks (mostly on background) helping to explain some of the details of the legal issues around ebook pricing -- and we've been reading a lot of articles, as usual. There are two important errors/misunderstandings, both in press accounts and even among some well-informed industry people, that keep getting repeated as if fact, so we wanted to clear that up for you.





> One is the idea that "Hachette is up first" according to the court's schedule for staggered renegotiations of e-book contracts with retailers, and that is why they are in the current standoff with Amazon. This is completely wrong.





> The second misunderstanding is the idea that Hachette (and possibly others) are no longer governed by their DOJ settlements that limit how the agency model can be deployed (leading to what we dubbed Agency Lite). This is also wrong.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Read this and couldn't help but draw a parallel to Hachette's negotiation strategy with Amazon:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-magic-mountain-roller-coaster-accident-probe-focuses-on-tree-20140708-story.html


----------



## Christa Wick (Nov 1, 2012)

I'm having an extremely difficult time understanding Amazon's reason for making this offer. 

Bear with me -- the offer is outrageous. So much so that Hachette can reasonably claim it was not made in good faith and was extended only for the purpose of making Hachette look bad when it does not accept. Hachette will claim that, in turning down the offer, it was only working to make conditions better for its writers IN THE LONG RUN. It will then hide behind the NDA as to what those conditions actually are. In my opinion, the suggestion by Amazon to provide 100% to the authors only improves the perception of Hachette, not Amazon.


----------



## jamielakenovels (Jan 14, 2014)

Have you read this yet? http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/amazon-tries-to-woo-authors-in-hachette-dispute/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

This is so BRILLIANT by Amazon to offer all Hachette authors 100% royalties of eBooks. Now, they can't whine that Amazon is hurting them. (Truth be told, Amazon offered to help compensate authors beforehand by putting money in escrow if Hachette would do the same but Hachette balked).

But here's why it's brilliant:

1) The PR stand point of making it look like Amazon is not against authors (they never were in the first place)
2) It forces publishers to come up with terms for eBooks that are fair to their authors (and once Hachette does it all the other houses will have to also)
3) Once those big authors get a taste of how much money they can get from Amazon, they'll slide over to the other side. They may try to be "loyal" to their publisher for awhile but once houses refuse to come anywhere close to what Amazon is offering, their loyalty will side with Amazon.

I see Amazon extending this "temporary fix" to be more semi-permanent so big authors will have long term reasons why to indie publish directly with Amazon. I predict we'll see major shifts once the dust is settled.

What do you think?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Hi, Jamie, merged your thread with an existing thread on the subject.

Betsy


----------



## Sonya Bateman (Feb 3, 2013)

Modified comment: I had a misinformative link posted here, now removed.


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2014)

S.W. Vaughn said:


> RE the Hachette-Amazon war...
> 
> It would seem (note that doesn't mean it's true -- this is the Internet after all) that Jeff Bezos has left a comment on a Digital Book World blog post, claiming that Hachette has been boycotting Amazon and refusing to allow pre-orders, rather than Amazon enforcing the no pre-orders thing. Among other things (Hachette is keeping the prices high, Hachette is delaying shipments...):
> 
> ...


And this is why so much misinformation is spread on the internet. Because we share information that "might" be true instead of thinking about what is most likely true.

Has Bezos EVER commented in a comments section of a blog on contract negotiations? Ever?

Has Bezos ever commented in the comments section of a blog on anything?

Has Bezos ever even given a straight answer to an actual news outlet regarding anything about his company?

Is it actually logical to believe that one of the most cloak-and-dagger CEOs in the modern era, a man who won't give a straight answer to his own Board of Directors about his long term plans for the company, would go on a blog and make such a statement which, if true, would be a direct violation of any NDAs he has with the publisher and if not true be a straight-up case of libel?


----------



## Sonya Bateman (Feb 3, 2013)

You're right, Julie. Mea culpa -- I shouldn't have posted that. Didn't think it through enough.

I've modified the post. Maybe you could remove the links from where you quoted me, to keep from spreading the misinformation.


----------



## elalond (May 11, 2011)

S.W. Vaughn said:


> RE the Hachette-Amazon war...
> 
> It would seem (note that doesn't mean it's true -- this is the Internet after all) that Jeff Bezos has left a comment on a Digital Book World blog post, claiming that Hachette has been boycotting Amazon and refusing to allow pre-orders, rather than Amazon enforcing the no pre-orders thing. Among other things (Hachette is keeping the prices high, Hachette is delaying shipments...):
> 
> ...


The same comment was posted on TPV blog: http://www.thepassivevoice.com/07/2014/an-open-letter-from-jeff-bezos-not/
It's a parody on Preston letter.


----------



## B&amp;H (Apr 6, 2014)

If Mr B had anything to say he'd do it in a front page letter on amazon.com where half the worlds population would probably see it. I dont think he needs to troll blogs when he has front page access to one of the most trafficked inter sites on the planet and owns a newspaper.

I doubt Jeff even cares about any of this, he's probably busy in the labs cooking up a kindle chip to implant in readers brains.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

He likely barely cares about the books sales at all and just doesn't want to give up any ground if they can use a deadlock to grind down a competitor. Remember, Amazon sells pretty much everything, not just books.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

jamielakenovels said:


> Have you read this yet? http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/amazon-tries-to-woo-authors-in-hachette-dispute/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
> 
> This is so BRILLIANT by Amazon to offer all Hachette authors 100% royalties of eBooks. Now, they can't whine that Amazon is hurting them. (Truth be told, Amazon offered to help compensate authors beforehand by putting money in escrow if Hachette would do the same but Hachette balked).
> 
> ...


The comment on that article by aarmom containing this sentence really irks me:

"How in the world would a self-published book ever make it to their or anyone else's bestseller list? The author would have to send copies to critics to be reviewed, organize their own book tours, pay for their ads and publicity. Without these efforts, which the publishers provide..."


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2014)

> The offer came in a letter to a few writers and agents from David Naggar, an Amazon executive who works with publishers and independent authors. It proposes "a big windfall for authors" by taking them "out of the middle" of the conflict. On Tuesday, Amazon sent the proposal to Hachette itself.


Am I the only one who thinks it is beyond shady to even make such an offer to the authors directly, behind the backs of their publisher with whom they have a contract? What business have they going behind the publisher's back, making offers with other people's money?

Think this through. Amazon isn't offering to eat that 100% themselves. They are being generous with someone else's money. Amazon gets 30% of the sale and the publisher gets 70%. So right now, Amazon is making no profit on Hachette titles at all, while Hachette's profits have declined but not vanished because many readers are simply making their purchases elsewhere. But currently, Hachette is still making some sales on these titles, because customers are redirecting their purchases to other channels.

So what happens if Hachette takes the deal? Amazon still makes no profit, but they weren't making one anyway. Meanwhile, Hachette LOSES money, because customers that were previously buying elsewhere will return to Amazon to purchase the books, resulting in Hachette getting nothing.

Let's do a math experiment.

Amazon accounts for 60% of Hachette's ebook sales.

Let's pretend those sales total 10,000,000 units just so we have a number to work with. So 60% of 10,000,000 is 6,000,000

And for the sake of simplicity, let's assume the average ebook is priced at $9.99 with a profit of $6.99.

Currently, Amazon is making zero by not selling the titles. Hachette is still selling its original 40% elsewhere and some customers have moved their business to other retailers. We'll use a low number and say 10%, or 1,000,000 books.

So Amazon is making zero, and Hachette is still making $6,990,000 because a small number of customers simply shopped elsewhere. Not nearly what they would be making under normal circumstances. But still better than nothing.

Under Amazon's terms, Amazon still makes zero. But the customers who were taking their business elsewhere now come back to Amazon to buy the books. Hachette now loses all of the revenue from those sales that would have previously been made on other sites.

In fact, because Amazon has set the terms at 100% of the RETAIL price, they have a reason to actually place those books on deep discounts in order to attract customers from other sites. Amazon could effectively decide on a whim to sell the books at 50% or even 75% off and the authors are still getting paid 100% of the retail price. Thus siphoning off portions of the 40% that bought their ebooks elsewhere and further deflating Hachette's revenue.

And yes, if Amazon was willing to go behind Hachette's back and make the offer, I can completely believe Amazon would hyper-discount to force Hachette's hand.


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

"Currently, Amazon is making zero by not selling the titles. Hachette is still selling its original 40% elsewhere and some customers have moved their business to other retailers. We'll use a low number and say 10%, or 1,000,000 books."

Have they stopped selling Hachette titles? I didn't think so, but I truly don't know. I wouldn't know a Hachette author from a Penguin author.


----------



## Daniel Knight (Jul 2, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Think this through. Amazon isn't offering to eat that 100% themselves. They are being generous with someone else's money. Amazon gets 30% of the sale and the publisher gets 70%. So right now, Amazon is making no profit on Hachette titles at all, while Hachette's profits have declined but not vanished because many readers are simply making their purchases elsewhere. But currently, Hachette is still making some sales on these titles, because customers are redirecting their purchases to other channels.


How is Amazon making no profit on Hachette titles right now? They are still selling Hachette books.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Am I the only one who thinks it is beyond shady to even make such an offer to the authors directly, behind the backs of their publisher with whom they have a contract? What business have they going behind the publisher's back, making offers with other people's money?


You should know this by now. If you are having an anti-Amazon thought, you are probably (almost) alone.


----------



## chris56 (Jun 8, 2013)

Amazon hasn't made an offer to anyone yet, authors or otherwise, behind anyone's back. Last I heard, they were talking about the _possibility_ of making an offer and nothing has been agreed to or signed at this point.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

So bypassing negotiations and attacking a rival in those negotiations at their supplier level... is less shady than a PR campaign?

Are we really at that level of cognitive dissonance?


----------



## Catchy (Mar 3, 2012)

I hope this hasn't already been posted.

http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2014/harpercollins-pivots-to-sell-print-and-ebooks-directly-to-readers-through-main-website/

Harper Collins is going to sell directly to public off their site.

Amazon then offers Hatchette authors 100% royalties:

http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2014/amazon-offers-hachette-authors-100-royalty/


----------



## deanna c (May 31, 2014)

I saw that news and thought it was interesting, too... Wonder if others will follow.


----------



## Catchy (Mar 3, 2012)

Let's hope so.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Catchy said:


> Let's hope so.


I hope all publishers play around with selling direct. Maybe they'll learn something about pricing.


----------



## SB James (May 21, 2014)

Hugh Howey said:


> I hope all publishers play around with selling direct. Maybe they'll learn something about pricing.


I personally would love to be able to sell direct one of these days as well, rather than be beholden to Amazon's algorithms or Nook's lack of keyword accuracy. I don't have experience with any other outlets yet, but I have a feeling I'm going to have to provide the links directly like I did with Nook.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

I wonder if they'll open this up to non-HC authors and publishers. One part of the article led me to believe that would be the case, another made it sound like it would be closed to "outsiders."

As far as I'm concerned, the more outlets the better. I wonder if they'll offer agency pricing.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Changes in 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

Is it all that hard to sell direct? I'd think that the hard part would be attracting people to your site. Would people go there to "see what's new from Harper Collins?" Amazon's huge strength seems to be in matching readers with books. How is HC going to compete with the Amazon shopping experience?


----------



## deanna c (May 31, 2014)

Jan Strnad said:


> Is it all that hard to sell direct? I'd think that the hard part would be attracting people to your site. Would people go there to "see what's new from Harper Collins?" Amazon's huge strength seems to be in matching readers with books. How is HC going to compete with the Amazon shopping experience?


It's not hard. Penguin USA has all its books listed for sale with buy links that refer to retailers. They could easily turn that system into their own e-store, but they don't. I'm speculating, but I think it's because the publisher does not want to openly compete with retailers so they can protect that business relationship. Maybe it's even in their contracts... But again, I'm guessing.


----------



## Marilyn Peake (Aug 8, 2011)

AnnChristy said:


> Whoa...I had to pop right over to the HC site and see it. It's very pretty. But did anyone take a gander at the prices? Yikes...15.99 for an ebook?


Good Lord. $15.99 for an ebook?!? It's amazing watching the very loooooooong, drawn-out learning curve for the big publishing companies trying to get up to speed on the modern, electronic world. It's like watching someone 100+ years old learn how to use social media on a cell phone. By the time the big publishing houses learn how to effectively price and sell ebooks from a website, people will be downloading ebooks and reading them on Google Glass after purchasing them directly from Amazon or Google or some other place.


----------



## SB James (May 21, 2014)

When I see pricing like $14.99 or $15.99   for an e-book, it blows my mind too!


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

FWIW, I've had no problem buying Hachette books on Amazon since the kerfuffle started. (Which I only know because I checked -- normally 'publisher' is not something I pay attention to at all.) 

True, upcoming releases do not have pre-order buttons.  But once release day comes, the books are there and available for kindle.  

Paper books have notations about possible delays, but anecdotal evidence is that books ordered are still being delivered pretty quickly.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

It's not knee-jerk hatred, it's lack of knee-jerk adulation.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

I don't think selling direct is going to help change their minds about pricing. They don't want to sell ebooks. They want things to go back to the way they were in 1990. They are set up to sell print, and ebooks threaten their system. That's why they are pricing at $14.99.

Cutting off their nose to spite their face. Sad, really. They could make a killing if they lowered their prices to compete with all the indies.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Am I the only one who thinks it is beyond shady to even make such an offer to the authors directly, behind the backs of their publisher with whom they have a contract? What business have they going behind the publisher's back, making offers with other people's money?


Well, Hachette refused Amazons offer to set up a fund, and apparently rejected this last offer, without consulting any current Hachette contracted authors.

Is that somehow above board behavior?

Dav


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

SB James said:


> When I see pricing like $14.99 or $15.99  for an e-book, it blows my mind too!


Here in Australia, new release paperbacks sell for $30 dollars or so in the bookshops. Back in the day, I would have been stoked to have had the option to buy an ebook at half the price. Of course, much has changed since then and I can't ever imagine paying over $10 for an ebook.

edit: I know it's wrapt  rapt and not wrapped, so why did I use the later? It sounded silly either way.
edit of edit: I need caffine cafienne coffee


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Rapt in the US, not wrapt. In case you haven't been exposed down under... 

Sent from my LG G2 Android Phone.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

SB James said:


> When I see pricing like $14.99 or $15.99  for an e-book, it blows my mind too!


Ah but you are missing their cleverness. They were the first big publisher to sign to Scribd and they get paid that $15.99 if someone reads the book there. Also higher prices mean the ability to offer big discounts, which is the way of the book trade - customers are far more likely to buy a book for $7.50 if they are told that is it a $10 with 25% off.


----------



## nobody_important (Jul 9, 2010)

Jan Strnad said:


> Is it all that hard to sell direct? I'd think that the hard part would be attracting people to your site. Would people go there to "see what's new from Harper Collins?" Amazon's huge strength seems to be in matching readers with books. How is HC going to compete with the Amazon shopping experience?


It can be hard if they're not used to customer service to individual readers. If I bought a book from HC and couldn't download, side load, etc. then HC would have to provide assistance. I don't think that most publishers want to make that kind of investment.

Another thing is most readers don't really know who's with which publisher. I don't think, "I want to buy a new HC book." I think, "I want to buy a new book by <<my favorite author>>."

I suspect most readers are the same way.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

So the Authors Guild stuck their nose into it, and then Amazon replied. It's been a fun week! Lots of popcorn eaten.

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/bookselling/article/63265-authors-guild-weighs-in-on-amazon-hachette.html?utm_source=Publishers+Weekly&utm_campaign=051bf423e4-UA-15906914-1&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0bb2959cbb-051bf423e4-304491265


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

JimJohnson said:


> http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/bookselling/article/63265-authors-guild-weighs-in-on-amazon-hachette.html?utm_source=Publishers+Weekly&utm_campaign=051bf423e4-UA-15906914-1&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0bb2959cbb-051bf423e4-304491265


Whoa. Quite the slap-down from Amazon.

and this: "the writing life itself we seek to defend, we're not interested in a short-term windfall to some of the writers we represent." 
I wonder how many authors were consulted about not wanting a windfall, short-term or otherwise.


----------



## Mark E. Cooper (May 29, 2011)

AnnChristy said:


> Whoa...I had to pop right over to the HC site and see it. It's very pretty. But did anyone take a gander at the prices? Yikes...15.99 for an ebook?


You mean they're not discounting... you mean after DEMANDING that Amazon discount their books, they're NOT doing it on their own website?


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Drew Smith said:


> Also this: "To our knowledge, Amazon has never clearly and unequivocally stated (as traditional publishers have) that books are different and special, that they can't be treated like the other commodities they sell."
> 
> Seriously? Books are so special and sparkly that normal rules of business (like the retailer sets the price of products they sell) shouldn't apply? Also, when you order your tenth trad pub book you should get a baby unicorn. And glitter. Lots of glitter.


Yeah . . . I found that concept a bit off. I mean, I read lots of books . . . . but I'm under no illusion that they're any different than any other commodity from a business/seller standpoint. You want to price them so they sell. You want them to have the quality that will get people to buy them.

_Authors_ do mostly also want people to read them . . . but I don't think the publishers or sellers really care about that -- they got their money!

***PERSONAL OPINION AHEAD***

I'm reasonably sure that most of the books that hit 'bestseller' status are not read, or at least not finished, by a _lot_ of the purchasers who helped get them there. With fiction it's more likely they're read, but I think a lot of non-fiction is purchased by people who think they should have the book. But I bet most of the time people don't finish them.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> With fiction it's more likely they're read, but I think a lot of non-fiction is purchased by people who think they should have the book. But I bet most of the time people don't finish them.


Who among us hasn't purchased the occasional book more because it would look good on a bookshelf than because we wanted to actually read it?


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2014)

Hugh Howey said:


> You should know this by now. If you are having an anti-Amazon thought, you are probably (almost) alone.


I don't have "anti-Amazon" thoughts. If I was anti-Amazon, I wouldn't use KDP, I wouldn't use ACX, I wouldn't use Createspace, I wouldn't have an affiliate account, I wouldn't be a Vine reviewer. (and I sure as heck wouldn't own three Kindles and have a Prime account). I guess I just have a stronger ethical compass that a lot of people. I'm pointing out that when a company directly contacts another company's employees or contractors and attempts to bribe those employees or contractors with a "windfall", particularly a windfall involving the other company's money, that is unethical behavior.

See, in my world, the poor behavior of one entity does not justify the poor behavior of another. Too many people consider this "fair play" due to an assortment of real and imagined slights perpetuated by the "traditional publishing cabal" or whatever. In this specific case, the publisher isn't going behind Amazon's back trying to bribe Amazon's employees. Hachette hasn't offered contracts to indie authors in exchange for siding with them against Amazon. Hachette isn't the entity that stopped supplying inventory information to Amazon during the contract dispute. Regardless of whatever people want to assume about who is lying, the facts on the ground don't show evidence of actual wrongdoing from Hachette. If someone has evidence of actual wrongdoing from a source other than an Amazon press release, I haven't seen it yet.

In contrast, Amazon admits that it went directly to authors and agents before talking to Hachette about their 100% deal. And as others have said, it was a disingenuous offer to start simply from a logistical standpoint insofar as having to go through thousands of contracts and make sure it wasn't causing a breach of contract. In fact, in many cases Hachette has already "paid" the authors because the authors got advances. A "PR" campaign generally needs to involve a genuine offer. It isn't good PR to make faux offers. It's a con. It would be like a company saying they were going to donate 100% of the proceeds of a sale to charity, and then saying they meant "profits" but there weren't any profits because they spent so much money advertising the charity sale.

To be blunt, if the authors were employees and not contractors, Amazon would be answering for violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. It's against the law to offer bribes to a publicly traded company's employees. Ye gods, I can't even accept a free gift basket from a client in thanks for help with a project without it being cleared through corporate.

If Amazon was genuinely thinking about what is best for the AUTHORS they would not have removed the pre-order buttons from books and they wouldn't have started using author's print sales as hostages by limiting availability or putting print books on "available in two to four weeks" status. The only reason they stopped doing that was because of public backlash (or did we all forget that Amazon was using print as a negotiation weapon despite the fact that the contract negotiations were specifically about ebooks?). Amazon didn't make this offer out of concern for authors. They made it because they are losing the PR battle. Everyone is forgetting they made a similar offer with Macmillian during that contract negotiation and that didn't work either.

It boggles my mind that expecting Amazon to act ethically is somehow "anti-Amazon." That's a little like the old "If you are really my friend, you won't tattle on me" nonsense. I think if you are really "pro" something, you want them to do what is right. Not just what is expedient.


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

> If Amazon was genuinely thinking about what is best for the AUTHORS they would not have removed the pre-order buttons from books and they wouldn't have started using author's print sales as hostages by limiting availability or putting print books on "available in two to four weeks" status. The only reason they stopped doing that was because of public backlash (or did we all forget that Amazon was using print as a negotiation weapon despite the fact that the contract negotiations were specifically about ebooks?). Amazon didn't make this offer out of concern for authors. They made it because they are losing the PR battle. Everyone is forgetting they made a similar offer with Macmillian during that contract negotiation and that didn't work either.


Love you, Julie, but this is some of the thinnest argument (opinion?) I've ever seen you make.

Amazon is at whatever the opposite of losing a PR battle is. Had more written but realized this is all that needs to be said.



> You should know this by now. If you are having an anti-Amazon thought, you are probably (almost) alone.


I'd agree with this statement. If anyone wishes, I can go poll 50-100 of my friends/neighbors, and we'll see if I can get even one of them to hate on Amazon (doubtful though). Sure, 50-100 isn't enough to draw any real conclusive arguments from in a scientific study, but if 50 out of 50 agree that Amazon is the bee's knees, then it's probably a good sign they aren't losing the PR battle.

Doesn't make them ethical or good or right. It just means that they aren't losing the PR battle.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

AngryGames said:


> [quote author=Hugh Howey]
> You should know this by now. If you are having an anti-Amazon thought, you are probably (almost) alone.


I'd agree with this statement. If anyone wishes, I can go poll 50-100 of my friends/neighbors, and we'll see if I can get even one of them to hate on Amazon (doubtful though). Sure, 50-100 isn't enough to draw any real conclusive arguments from in a scientific study, but if 50 out of 50 agree that Amazon is the bee's knees, then it's probably a good sign they aren't losing the PR battle. [/quote]

Hugh Howey went down seriously in my estimation when I read that statement and this in the context where I think that he has been generally over the top in his All Hail Seattle approach (especially his snarky response to Mark Coker). It appears that anyone who thinks that Amazon may be trying to pull Wool over our eyes is worth no more than Dust, but Hugh needs to realise that he is engaging in Silo mentality. The above statement from Hugh is not about Amazon vs Hachette, but a general one in which he declared that if you dare criticise Amazon you will find yourself almost alone. This does not augur well for Hugh's argument if he has to sink to such Silo-like depths of super-fandom. If Amazon is so clearly winning the PR war I am baffled at the angry arrogance with which Hugh throws Sand in the face of anyone who offers any balance to the discussion.

Amazon would have an even further lead in the PR war vis-a-vis Hachette if it had maintained a dignified silence, but the 100% offer opened it up to a lot of criticism and the flak it not just coming from anti-Amazon directions.


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

Did anyone see the big smiley face behind Hugh's comment? He certainly didn't mean that anyone with an anti-Amazon thought stands alone...quite the opposite.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2014)

kward said:


> Amazon's proposal only goes into effect if Hachette allows it, which means Hachette retains control of their own money - how exactly is Amazon being unethical in that scenario?
> 
> You say you're not "anti-Amazon" but you categorize their proposal as bribery even though none of what they propose can happen without Hachette's consent -


Oh please. This is like a divorced parent saying to a child "If your father is willing to pay 70% of the cost, I'll take you and your friends to Disneyland for a week because you shouldn't suffer because of the divorce!" and then acting like it is all the father's fault when he says "no." It is 100% bribery, the very kind of mentality you see in divorcing parents fighting over the affections of children.


----------



## chris56 (Jun 8, 2013)

Catchy said:


> I hope this hasn't already been posted.
> 
> http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2014/harpercollins-pivots-to-sell-print-and-ebooks-directly-to-readers-through-main-website/
> 
> Harper Collins is going to sell directly to public off their site.


I wonder how many Kindle owners would go for this after being spoiled by Amazon. Think about it - when you purchase an eBook on Amazon, it syncs right to your Kindle with no muss or fuss. If you purchase an eBook from a publisher's site does the same thing happen or will you have to jump through hoops to be able to read it?


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Oh please. This is like a divorced parent saying to a child "If your father is willing to pay 70% of the cost, I'll take you and your friends to Disneyland for a week because you shouldn't suffer because of the divorce!" and then acting like it is all the father's fault when he says "no." It is 100% bribery, the very kind of mentality you see in divorcing parents fighting over the affections of children.


Smart children can get a lot of stuff that way.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Oh please. This is like a divorced parent saying to a child "If your father is willing to pay 70% of the cost, I'll take you and your friends to Disneyland for a week because you shouldn't suffer because of the divorce!" and then acting like it is all the father's fault when he says "no." It is 100% bribery, the very kind of mentality you see in divorcing parents fighting over the affections of children.


But if the father mentioned this idea, and the mother said no, would she be the bad party then? Because you can be damned sure if Hachette made this offer to Amazon, Amazon would have jumped all over it. And if they didn't, Hachette would be PR'ing at the top of its lungs that "Evil Amazon is EVIL! See, they don't care about authors, just money..."

But then, the odds of Hachette making such an offer are what? Slim, None?

Dav


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

This is from John Connolly, who says this:


> Dancing on the perceived grave of the printed word doesn't sound much like respect to me. Not sure he's your ideal spokesman.


I pressed him as to exactly how authors like me are dancing on the grave of books (whether print or not), and the answer I received was the image and him saying he's going to bed.



> I wonder how many Kindle owners would go for this after being spoiled by Amazon. Think about it - when you purchase an eBook on Amazon, it syncs right to your Kindle with no muss or fuss. If you purchase an eBook from a publisher's site does the same thing happen or will you have to jump through hoops to be able to read it?


If you've sideloaded mobi or pdf files before, it's really easy. Still a 'hassle' compared to Amazon doing everything for you. But it really depends on each individual and how familiar they are with putting files on their Kindle manually.

More importantly, unless the pub's webs store is going to sell the books for less than Amazon, which will of course trigger Amazon to price match, then that's two strikes again pub web stores.

I'm in awe of their belief that readers know and give a damn about who they are. I've yet to meet a reader who has ever once considered who the publisher is (other than some total scifi geeks like me who know Tor and Baen, though I can't really say I know which imprint published which book, I just know those are two of the biggest scifi imprints).


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

chris56 said:


> I wonder how many Kindle owners would go for this after being spoiled by Amazon. Think about it - when you purchase an eBook on Amazon, it syncs right to your Kindle with no muss or fuss. If you purchase an eBook from a publisher's site does the same thing happen or will you have to jump through hoops to be able to read it?


After downloading, you use the send to kindle app and the file attaches to an email sent to Amazon and then the book is archived on Amazon the same way one purchased there is. Only difference is notes and such don't show up on kindle.amazon.com.

Note, however, this only works if the file you download is a compatible type, or can be cleanly converted to a compatible type AND does not have any DRM.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

with some websites (for example, baen before they started selling on amazon), you could send your book directly to your kindle, you did not have to download it to a computer first.

i think there is a thin line amazon is straddling if they directly connected authors to switch from Hachette to KDP.  it can be against S-OX, as Julie mentioned, or it may be read as similar to a head hunter for a company calling me at work to try and recruit me for another company.  

personally, i don't really pay attention to who the publisher of a book is.  i know some big name authors and the houses they publish with, but for first time buys, i assume most of my reading is from indie writers.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

The only true way to be 'pro-' something is falling into perfect lockstep with whatever it does, never considering how it can be improved or its flaws corrected.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

kward said:


> Amazon isn't offering Hachette authors some frivolous shiny bauble, they're offering them the opportunity to earn more from their own sweat equity while their publisher dithers.
> 
> This proposal helps out a lot of lesser-known authors - the only way I could see anyone (who doesn't work for the trad pubs) saying this is a bad thing is if they have some amount of anti-Amazon bias - and based on what I have no idea.


Yup. Barry Eisler nailed this on his blog. Imagine if publishers had offered the same plan and Amazon had turned it down. People would have gone bonkers.

I went back and read the 2010 collusion decision from Cote, and if you want to see what publishers think, it's all laid out right here. Start at page 7 or page 9 and enjoy:

http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f299200/299275.pdf

Amazon is not your friend, but the Big 5 are most assuredly your enemy, whether you are a reader or a writer.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> The only true way to be 'pro-' something is falling into perfect lockstep with whatever it does, never considering how it can be improved or its flaws corrected.


Not so. Joe Konrath is an Amazon advocate, yet frequently critiques their missteps, for example.

Don't confuse considering a company to be a reliable business ally or partner, with being a completely uncritical sycophant. There is a difference.

Sent from my LG G2 Android Phone.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Hugh Howey said:


> <snip>
> Amazon is not your friend, but the Big 5 are most assuredly your enemy, whether you are a reader or a writer.


actually, neither amazon nor any other company is my friend or my enemy. or even the friend or enemy of most people.

they are corporations. corporations that exist to make money. their interests may help an author make money or their practices may make it difficult for someone to make money. but authors have choices. just as consumers have choices.

i support indie authors, but i see no reason that i have to be pro- or anti- a certain corporation because of that.

and i respect everyone who supports amazon. i also respect people who support trad publishers and authors.

the indie movement is out of the bottle. no matter what the trad publishers, amazon, barnes and noble or any other corportation do, people will find a way to publish and sell their books. as they have done for centuries.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

They're less friends or enemies and more like the Elder Gods of Lovecraft. They can barely perceive us as we tap power from or suffer from their actions.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Unusually balanced treatment, I thought. Hugh's petition isn't mentioned, which is too bad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/technology/amazon-a-friendly-giant-as-long-as-its-fed.html


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Victorine said:


> I don't think selling direct is going to help change their minds about pricing. They don't want to sell ebooks. They want things to go back to the way they were in 1990. They are set up to sell print, and ebooks threaten their system. That's why they are pricing at $14.99.
> 
> Cutting off their nose to spite their face. Sad, really. They could make a killing if they lowered their prices to compete with all the indies.


This. They'll say ebooks really don't sell. They have no desire to spend the money to get a great search engine going, and what if someone wants all of author' xx's books? That author might have books with the other big 4. So are they going to offer their rivals' books? If they don't, the customer will get frustrated and just go back to Amazon where they can find everything.

I've had feedback from the Big 6 publishing houses, who think _pricing is not the issue_, but that there are "different kinds of buyers" for self published ebooks vs. trade paperbacks. They really have no clue that half of America no longer has access to physical bookstores (when you grow up in a big city, or spend your life in a college town they can't believe it's true)...
and that the other half is growing up used to being able to get everything on demand through their phones, tablets, and ereaders.

They don't get that most readers could not tell you who the publisher is of any given book, they just know when they want the book, they want it for a decent price.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> This. They'll say ebooks really don't sell. They have no desire to spend the money to get a great search engine going, and what if someone wants all of author' xx's books? That author might have books with the other big 4. So are they going to offer their rivals' books? If they don't, the customer will get frustrated and just go back to Amazon where they can find everything.
> 
> I've had feedback from the Big 6 publishing houses, who think _pricing is not the issue_, but that there are "different kinds of buyers" for self published ebooks vs. trade paperbacks. They really have no clue that half of America no longer has access to physical bookstores (when you grow up in a big city, or spend your life in a college town they can't believe it's true)...
> and that the other half is growing up used to being able to get everything on demand through their phones, tablets, and ereaders.
> ...


Exactly.
What they also don't understand is that a lot of people are on a budget. (How could they?)
If your budget is say $25/month, you immediately see that you can buy either 1 hardcover or five to six ebooks. (Without spending an additional fortune on gas to get at the nearest brick and mortar store.)


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Hugh Howey said:


> Yup. Barry Eisler nailed this on his blog. Imagine if publishers had offered the same plan and Amazon had turned it down. People would have gone bonkers.
> 
> I went back and read the 2010 collusion decision from Cote, and if you want to see what publishers think, it's all laid out right here. Start at page 7 or page 9 and enjoy:
> 
> ...


What got me most was this quote from the decision:



> As the Publisher Defendants' CEOs testified, the Publishers did not compete with each other on price; while they were serious competitors, their preferred fields of competition were over authors and agents. Thus, they felt no hesitation in freely discussing Amazon's prices with each other and their joint strategies for raising those prices.


Sure, authors and agents will choose one house over another. But were they really competing over authors, either? Or did they all just get together and decide the best ways to screw their authors out of their own rights? To me, real competition over authors means adjusting your contracts to say, "Look, you'll get better terms with us than you will with Publisher XYZ!" But by all accounts, few things varied from contract to contract for the average author, except maybe the advance.

As an (aspiring) author, all I see is that they've driven down the terms in author's contracts in the same way that they claim Amazon has driven down book prices (with its supposed bullying). So they've been holding hands and screwing their business partners for years -- it's no wonder they thought they could get away with it with Amazon, too.


----------



## Amy Corwin (Jan 3, 2011)

CraigInOregon said:


> Not so. Joe Konrath is an Amazon advocate, yet frequently critiques their missteps, for example.
> 
> Don't confuse considering a company to be a reliable business ally or partner, with being a completely uncritical sycophant. There is a difference.
> 
> Sent from my LG G2 Android Phone.


I have to completely agree with this. Folks forget that both Amazon and other publishers are businesses. Authors are in business with them as an avenue, i.e. middleman, needed to reach customers. Authors, with the help of agents in some cases, are responsible for negotiating and accepting terms they can live with. It's a choice. One of many you make when you go into business with partners. Each party negotiates what it believes will be the most favorable terms for *them*. It's not that they don't care about their partners, it's that their own interests must come first (enlightened self-interest, if you will). It's the way of the world.

It's nothing personal.


----------



## Guest (Jul 14, 2014)

kward said:


> Amazon isn't offering Hachette authors some frivolous shiny bauble, they're offering them the opportunity to earn more from their own sweat equity while their publisher dithers.


What Amazon is offering is something they know Hachette cannot contractually do on short notice, and probably can't contractually do at all (as Courtney pointed out several pages ago). Further, what they are offering requires Hachette to eat the majority of the cost, because in most cases Hachette HAS already paid the authors (in the form of an advance).

In short, all Amazon has to do while negotiating with Hachette is allow the previous contract to remain in place until a new one is hammered out. The Amazon still makes their money, the authors stil get paid, and everyone can act like grown-ups. That is what corporations usually do. Heck, we had one of our customers at my day job dither on for SIX MONTHS before renewing the contract (and they were actively taking bids from our competition at the time!) but both sides simply continued on with the existing contract until the new one was resolved. Because stuff still needs to get done and companies still want to sell products and it doesn't do anyone any good to make customers suffer. And if Amazon felt Hachette can't be negotiated with, then just drop the contract entirely and move on.

Amazon is the entity that drove this entire thing public when they stopped accepting pre-orders of new books and artificially delayed delivery of print books to customers. Whatever the details are that the two sides can't agree on, Amazon is the one that chose to make it a public issue when they decided to inconvenience their own customers for leverage. THINK about that for a minute. Amazon willfully and with full intent inconvenienced their own customers simply to extract leverage over Hachette. As an AUTHOR, that should bother you. For all the talk about how Amazon allegedly is looking out for authors, we should be concerned about the customers. If your books are in Select, and Amazon takes actions that drives customers to other retailers, that negatively impacts your ability to do business.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Been traveling, not current on this thread, so I apologize if this has been posted:
http://gigaom.com/2014/07/14/elites-or-freedom-fighters-how-the-amazon-hachette-battle-took-on-the-rhetoric-of-class-warfare/

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

More fun data:

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/07/amazon-hachette-sounds-of-silence-guest.html


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Been traveling, not current on this thread, so I apologize if this has been posted:
> http://gigaom.com/2014/07/14/elites-or-freedom-fighters-how-the-amazon-hachette-battle-took-on-the-rhetoric-of-class-warfare/


"The book publisher, ironically, is not winning the war on words."

This pretty much says it all with regards to the public war of words. Amazon is releasing sound bytes that a layperson can understand, while Hachette is relying on PR releases and corporate speak.


----------



## Bluebonnet (Dec 15, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> Unusually balanced treatment, I thought. Hugh's petition isn't mentioned, which is too bad.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/technology/amazon-a-friendly-giant-as-long-as-its-fed.html


I just read that article. It's very interesting, but still seems to be another anti-Amazon article. Not surprised to see this kind of slant from The New York Times.

One big problem with the article: the Amazon author the article features, Vincent Zandri, doesn't seem to me to be typical of indie authors because he publishes under an Amazon imprint, Thomas & Mercer. He has book contracts with Amazon. They pay him advances -- he said he just got a $30,000 advance for his new book -- and they help him promote his books. The vast majority of writers who publish on Amazon are doing it independently, and they never get advances or marketing assistance.

It is encouraging, though, to learn that Zandri makes a "six-figure income" from his writing.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Bluebonnet said:


> The vast majority of writers who publish on Amazon are doing it independently, and they never get advances.


That is a good point. Would be nice to see one of these articles mentioning a successful self-published / unsigned author as way of comparison.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

There's sticking you neck out and thne there's 'making a literal negative amount on the deal'.

If ebooks are going to totally destroy paper books such that whenever the next big format shift comes 90% of all books published after 2011 are going to be lost like a lot of people are praying for, then this deal means Hechette gets to pay for these author's formatting, editing, covers, etc and get absolutely nothing in return.

And then when Hechette has to drop them because again 'making a literal negative amount', I doubt Daddy 'Zon is going to pay for that stuff for them. So all those poor authors people say are being helped by this debacle are screwed anyway while the rich guys we all want to hurt as long as they're not Jeff Bezos like Patterson and Preston will just throw money at the problem and keep on trucking.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Bluebonnet said:


> I just read that article. It's very interesting, but still seems to be another anti-Amazon article. Not surprised to see this kind of slant from The New York Times.


That set me thinking about what you would expect from the Seattle Times and found this

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/jontalton/2014/06/06/vote-amazon-vs-hachette/


----------



## Guest (Jul 14, 2014)

kward said:


> Where there's a will there's a way - not sure Hachette is willing to stick their necks out on behalf of their authors though.


A pretty cliche that doesn't apply in the real world of corporate contracts involving publicly traded companies.



> And who cares about what costs Hachette may have to pay?


Anyone who cares about the rule of law and fair play.



> It's not our money


Wait, what? So as long as Amazon screws with other people's money, you don't care? So long as Amazon doesn't screw with you, everything is good?

Ye gods...I'm done this thread...


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Amazon proposing a change to cut trad pubs out of 100% of their ebooks profits is trad pub's fault?

Do you honestly expect someone--ANYONE--to take a deal in which they pay money to get nothing in return? Well let me rephrase that: would you expect anyone who you didn't hate to take that deal from someone you're a trip through the desert away from forging golden calves to?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

That wasn't the terms of a long-term agreement, Vaal. It was a temporary accommodation to help Hachette WRITERS while two big companies fight over money. It was never part of any proposed final terms for a lengthy agreement, just a stop-gap help to writers, since Hachette likes making it sound like their writers are being victimized by Amazon.

Surely you understood that.


----------



## TuckerAuthor (Jan 31, 2014)

I wrote a blog post yesterday regarding putting authors in the middle. Here's a snippet:

My question is this: _*What can Amazon do to pressure Hachette that won't harm Hachette's authors?*_

*Seriously. Think about it for just a minute.* Hachette supplies products to Amazon for sale. The two companies can't agree on terms for the sale of those products. Should Amazon continue to sell those products without a contract in the hope that Hachette will eventually offer terms Amazon considers reasonable? Is that a smart way to conduct business?

*Consider this:* Say I have a super nifty widget I'm designing and you have a store that sells widgets. I contact you to sell my super nifty widget once I have it produced and ask you to promote it to your customers and get them to place orders for them ahead of time so I have a better idea how many to manufacture. You think my super nifty widget is, well, super nifty, so you agree and really hype it up to your customers, collecting a bunch of preorders. Now, delivery day has arrived, but since we never signed a contract, I decide to charge more for the super nifty widgets than we'd originally talked about. You have tons of customers anxious for my super nifty widget and they surely won't be happy with a higher price, regardless of whether you tell them it's my fault or not. What do you do? Buy the widgets at the higher price and take the loss, or tell me to forget it and refund all those preorders? Neither scenario is especially fun for you. You operated in good faith, but I felt no compunction to do the same.

Would Hachette do that to Amazon if it kept preorder buttons for Hachette's upcoming titles? I have no idea, but neither does Amazon and it would be bad business for them to take that risk.

I'll ask again, from a purely business perspective, what can Amazon do that won't harm Hachette's authors?

You can read the full post here if you're interested: http://motherearthseries.wordpress.com/2014/07/14/what-is-amazon-supposed-to-do/


----------



## pauldude000 (May 22, 2013)

Bluebonnet said:


> I just read that article. It's very interesting, but still seems to be another anti-Amazon article. Not surprised to see this kind of slant from The New York Times.
> 
> One big problem with the article: the Amazon author the article features, Vincent Zandri, doesn't seem to me to be typical of indie authors because he publishes under an Amazon imprint, Thomas & Mercer. He has book contracts with Amazon. They pay him advances -- he said he just got a $30,000 advance for his new book -- and they help him promote his books. The vast majority of writers who publish on Amazon are doing it independently, and they never get advances or marketing assistance.
> 
> It is encouraging, though, to learn that Zandri makes a "six-figure income" from his writing.


Let's see. Amazon brings indies easily into the market and then leverages the massive new list of titles to book customers and grabs a huge new portion of the sales market. These indy books rose and new writing stars were born. Amazon then forces the book retailers temporarily in line and starts its own publishing venture, at the same time as it kills the value of the indie marketing tools by slowly changing its search algorithms to promote its own published (imprint) books and uses the algorithms to punish trad pubs who get out of line.

See a pattern here, a logical progression of events?

In other words, what happens to pawns in a chess game? (Some strategic pawns remain, but most are wiped off the board.)

Anyone here can arguably follow out the end game to its natural conclusion, unless the courts step in and change the layout of the board.


----------



## Stuffeshead (Jan 19, 2011)

I'm late to the discussion here, but I have been listening to comments from podcasters and reading interviews and op-ed pieces for a few weeks.  And something about this whole dispute strikes me as being completely overlooked.

In all the ballyhoo directed at Amazon, lambasting it for its alleged unfair conduct, the critics seem to think that Amazon has some sort of a public duty to sell products for all comers and treat them equally.  In my view, Amazon is simply a store chain, just like Books-A-Million, Barnes & Noble, Borders, or any other retailer/distributor.  Those chains have bulk buyers who negotiate contracts with suppliers for certain products, based largely on their market focus and expansion objectives.  Those chains listen to their customers, stock their shelves with products the retailers CHOOSE to offer, and then wait for customers to confirm or rebut those decisions with their purchases.  There's no obligation or moral duty on the retailers to stock ANY manufacturer's products, and anyone who claimed that Wal-Mart was being "unfair" because it declined to purchase a particular brand (Manolo Blahnik shoes, for instance) would be rejected as being absolutely ridiculous.  Why, then, do anti-Amazon critics believe that Amazon has some overriding obligation to carry a particular publisher's books?  It just doesn't make sense to me.

Major publishing companies are struggling desperately to find their footing to survive in this post-Kindle world.  Hachette, it seems to me, seems more focused on ad hominem attacks directed at an innovator, rather than focusing on their own business model to find their way through the future.  The analogy that comes to mind for me is the buggy-whip manufacturer blaming Henry Ford for falling sales, rather than focusing on revamping its business to produce leather upholstery for cars.

It's just my two cents.  What do I know?.....

Stuffeshead


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Over on the Amazon communities, Amazon just released a statement about what the main issue is in their disagreement with Hachette. It's pretty much what we would all assume -- ebook prices -- but I thought it was interesting that they released a bit of their closely held data:

Books priced at 9.99 sell 1.74 times as many books as those priced at 14.99.

(It would be nice if they would release little bits more data...)

Amazon Statement

Camille


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Thanks for sharing. I hope the news media picks up on this.


----------



## Randall Wood (Mar 31, 2014)

Honey, we're going to need more popcorn.

Did you give PG a heads-up, Camille?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Absolutely what I expected Amazon was attempting. Absolutely what Joe Konrath has been saying.

Tragic that Stephen King, James Patterson, Mark Coker, and so very many others don't see it that way. They'd rather name-call and suggest Amazon wants to rape all the adults in your family and eat your children. (Because that's such a mature way to debate...)


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Thanks for sharing. I hope the news media picks up on this.


Unlikely. It does not fit the "Amazon is a big, bad schoolyard bully who wants your lunch money" dialogue Hachette is promoting.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

OMG. I could have written this announcement. It's everything I've been saying Amazon is after. And it's why we started that petition to combat the 1% authors who are pulling for higher ebook prices.

So glad Amazon is speaking up instead of staying quiet about these things. This is brilliant.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Typically Amazon merely talks about books with no distinction between fiction pricing and non-fiction pricing. $19.99 for well researched non-fiction is not outrageous and the customer will pay that for it, I know I do. A year of someone's writing life is certainly worth the same as a mid-market restaurant meal for one.


----------



## EC (Aug 20, 2013)

Clever, sizzling, announcement - and it kept the best to last. 

Excellent.


----------



## EC (Aug 20, 2013)

Mercia McMahon said:


> Typically Amazon merely talks about books with no distinction between fiction pricing and non-fiction pricing. $19.99 for well researched non-fiction is not outrageous and the customer will pay that for it, I know I do. A year of someone's writing life is certainly worth the same as a mid-market restaurant meal for one.


They said in the announcement that a small amount of titles would still deserve to be above $9.99.


----------



## Lucian (Jun 8, 2014)

I'm not saying Amazon isn't brilliant.

But if they surrendered, gave Hachette $14.99 ebooks, put a note on there for the readers so they knew who was responsible, and made some suggestions about similarly themed books at lower prices... I would promote them from brilliant to geniuses.

Everyone would see, both with their eyes and with their wallets, what happens when the Big 5 get their way.

But what do I know; I've got one sale and no borrows in 53 days. So, I'm open to the possibility that there might be other people out there who might know a little more about selling books than I do. Maybe. For now.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Randall Wood said:


> Honey, we're going to need more popcorn.
> 
> Did you give PG a heads-up, Camille?


Yeah, I sent him a note just before I posted here.


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

My favorite part was the little dig at the end suggesting Hachette should pay its authors more.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

EC said:


> They said in the announcement that a small amount of titles would still deserve to be above $9.99.


Non-fiction is not a small amount of titles. They are talking about premier fiction titles. Non-fiction is just ignored in the discussion as it always is with Amazon.


----------



## Error404 (Sep 6, 2012)

My take from the article is Amazon is trying to force Hatchette to price how they (Amazon) wants. Regardless of the supposed benefits (these are numbers coming from a biased source), I wouldn't want someone to force me to price my book how _they_ wanted.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Changes in 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## EC (Aug 20, 2013)

Mercia McMahon said:


> Non-fiction is not a small amount of titles. They are talking about premier fiction titles. Non-fiction is just ignored in the discussion as it always is with Amazon.


I'm a non-fiction writer. I didn't pick up from the announcement that NF would not qualify.

I think you're jumping the gun.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

Error404 said:


> My take from the article is Amazon is trying to force Hatchette to price how they (Amazon) wants. Regardless of the supposed benefits (these are numbers coming from a biased source), I wouldn't want someone to force me to price my book how _they_ wanted.


I was going to ask if this kind of thing is done in any other industry. Do we tell Sony how much they should retail their TVs or General Motors how much they should price the retail of their cars?

Did the DOJ settlement tell Amazon they could price the ebooks whatever they wanted as long as they didn't price them below cost?

What they're saying may make sense, but that's not the way businesses are run in a capitalist society.


----------



## Navigator (Jul 9, 2014)

Ty Johnston said:


> My favorite part was the little dig at the end suggesting Hachette should pay its authors more.


I liked that bit as well.


----------



## abishop (May 22, 2014)

Mercia McMahon said:


> Typically Amazon merely talks about books with no distinction between fiction pricing and non-fiction pricing. $19.99 for well researched non-fiction is not outrageous and the customer will pay that for it, I know I do. A year of someone's writing life is certainly worth the same as a mid-market restaurant meal for one.


Why does non-fiction need to be sold at a higher cost than fiction? Does it result in better sales at higher prices? Regardless of whether you write fiction or non-fiction, presumably your primary interest is in total revenue, not per-book revenue.


----------



## abishop (May 22, 2014)

romanceauthor said:


> I was going to ask if this kind of thing is done in any other industry. Do we tell Sony how much they should retail their TVs or General Motors how much they should price the retail of their cars?


Wal-Mart can sell Sony's TVs for whatever price it wants as long as it pays Sony the agreed upon value. Retailers discount their stock all the time for a wide variety of reasons.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

Error404 said:


> My take from the article is Amazon is trying to force Hatchette to price how they (Amazon) wants. Regardless of the supposed benefits (these are numbers coming from a biased source), I wouldn't want someone to force me to price my book how _they_ wanted.


This.

But sadly, price-forcing is standard practice in most industries. (Does anyone here run a dairy farm? Do you know what the big supermarkets do with milk prices? ZOMG!!!!)

But, while I can see a rationale in price-forcing with food supply chains (it'd be mayhem if every farmer was allowed to set the price for their own milk), I cannot see the need for it in the book industry, especially not for ebooks.

OK, a book priced $14.99 will sell less than one at $9.99. Regardless of the trustworthiness of the data, I have no trouble believing that. But why not let the publishers learn their own lessons. If they want to price at $14.99, so-freaking-what? What business is it of a retailer to force a change? People will vote with their mouses and wallets.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

abishop said:


> Wal-Mart can sell Sony's TVs for whatever price it wants as long as it pays Sony the agreed upon value. Retailers discount their stock all the time for a wide variety of reasons.


That's the selling price. I'm talking about the retail price. Companies set that price, not retailers.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

Patty Jansen said:


> OK, a book priced $14.99 will sell less than one at $9.99. Regardless of the trustworthiness of the data, I have no trouble believing that. But why not let the publishers learn their own lessons. If they want to price at $14.99, so-freaking-what? What business is it of a retailer to force a change? People will vote with their mouses and wallets.


The issue here for Amazon, is they are bound by the DOJ settlement not to price ebooks below what they pay for it. A higher retail price means a higher whole sale price. And Amazon will not be able to price it below that cost. Less books sold and less money for Amazon.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

romanceauthor said:


> The issue here for Amazon, is they are bound by the DOJ settlement not to price ebooks below what they pay for it. A higher retail price means a higher whole sale price. And Amazon will not be able to price it below that cost. Less books sold and less money for Amazon.


Still, so what? They're a retailer, and besides incentives, have no business forcing prices for digital goods.


----------



## KL_Phelps (Nov 7, 2013)

Hugh Howey said:


> OMG. I could have written this announcement. It's everything I've been saying Amazon is after. And it's why we started that petition to combat the 1% authors who are pulling for higher ebook prices.
> 
> So glad Amazon is speaking up instead of staying quiet about these things. This is brilliant.


how do you we know you DIDNT write this?!?! Eh, Mr. Howey??


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

abishop said:


> Why does non-fiction need to be sold at a higher cost than fiction? Does it result in better sales at higher prices? Regardless of whether you write fiction or non-fiction, presumably your primary interest is in total revenue, not per-book revenue.


You answered your own question by referring to total revenue. That non-fiction book, if at the well-researched academic end of the market, might represent 12 or 24 months of an author's work, they cannot produce books like that at the rate of one a month. Amazon is concerned about pricing fiction above $9.99 and imposes that limit on North American sales (fiction or non-fiction) earning at 70%, but is quite happy for British and European customers to pay $12.99 (pre sales tax) for fiction or non-fiction and earn at 70%. Do a search on a non-fiction topic at Nook or Kobo and you will find a high percentage of the offering priced above $9.99.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

DTW said:


> If I were Amazon, I would have already delisted their books. The publishers need Amazon more than Amazon needs the publishers. No one else in the ebook market has built a platform that can come even remotely close to Amazon's. Someone can, but they'll have to fund it and pursue the right strategy of data driven analytics to power it. The childish tantrums over "why won't Amazon just capitulate and do it our way" are because they don't want to stop selling on Amazon.
> 
> Takes two to negotiate. I hope Amazon delists them. I really do. At this point is should be obvious the Trad position is entrenched with their fingers in their ears screaming "la la la" at the top of their lungs. Okay, call their bluff. They hate Amazon so much? Delist. Now they don't have to have anything to do with a company they so clearly, so obviously, despise.


This is absolutely 100% true.

So the bigger question becomes why hasn't Amazon simply delisted their books? They are the Walmart of ebooks. What would the loss of Hachette books really mean to their bottom line?


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

'Amazon Price Match recommends you sell this book for $1.99. Take it or leave it, chump.'


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

Patty Jansen said:


> Still, so what? They're a retailer, and besides incentives, have no business forcing prices for digital goods.


I'm explaining Amazon's position. I absolutely don't agree with any retailer forcing a company to set the retail price they want.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Error404 said:


> My take from the article is Amazon is trying to force Hatchette to price how they (Amazon) wants. Regardless of the supposed benefits (these are numbers coming from a biased source), I wouldn't want someone to force me to price my book how _they_ wanted.


Actually, given what Hachette has been whining about, my take is that Amazon wants to keep the right to discount, and may also be treating them like Indies, and offering better terms for books list-priced in the sweet spot than those that aren't.

If so, that's pretty standard for retail.

My take on nonfiction is.... that Amazon knows a whole lot more about consumer behavior toward nonfiction than I do. And that nonfiction is suffering from a collapse that has nothing to do with Amazon, just as newspapers and magazines are, because of an out of date business model that depends on inflated prices to cover logistical matters.

Camille


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

daringnovelist said:


> My take on nonfiction is.... that Amazon knows a whole lot more about consumer behavior toward nonfiction than I do.


If you were a non-fiction writer though, would you still just -assume- they know better instead of doing your own due diligence?


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

A nice little sting at the end there.



> One more note on our proposal for how the total revenue should be shared. While we believe 35% should go to the author and 35% to Hachette, the way this would actually work is that we would send 70% of the total revenue to Hachette, and they would decide how much to share with the author. We believe Hachette is sharing too small a portion with the author today, but ultimately that is not our call.


Ouch!


----------



## John Ellsworth (Jun 1, 2014)

"One more note on our proposal for how the total revenue should be shared. While we believe 35% should go to the author and 35% to Hachette, the way this would actually work is that we would send 70% of the total revenue to Hachette, and they would decide how much to share with the author. We believe Hachette is sharing too small a portion with the author today, but ultimately that is not our call."

SP's: you (we) have been smart enough to eliminate the Hachette's of the world. Now we keep their 35% instead of passing it along to a "publisher" for the privilege of having that publisher do this: [this is where you fill in the blank, adding what publishers do to earn 35% in the ebook publishing process].

Congrats.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

Whenever predatory companies (both Hachette and Amazon fit that description) try to appear altruistic, the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. I've read all the posts here and it appears that Amazon has, in my opinion, convinced some of you to drink the Kool-aid. From the tone of the posts at the time I write this I know I will get lambasted, but I'm going to have my say anyway. So get out your whips because here is MY breakdown of the Amazon announcement.

That is unjustifiably high for an e-book.

I believe this, but I also believe it isn't Amazon's place to correct the problem.

(Any author who's trying to get on one of the national bestseller lists should insist to their publisher that their e-book be priced at $9.99 or lower.)

Yeah, lots of luck with that one. Besides, the books won't be priced that high unless the author's potential audience is likely to pay it.

a big part of that is working hard to make books less expensive.

Amazon just created a routine on their Bookshelf pricing page that's designed to encourage authors to sell their books at higher prices. Who the heck is writing this stuff for Amazon?

what Hachette forced us to take in 2010

Ah, the first honest statement I've read, and the most telling.

we accept that there will be legitimate reasons for a small number of specialized titles to be above $9.99.

That's generous of you, Amazon. So why are you sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

We believe Hachette is sharing too small a portion with the author today, but ultimately that is not our call.

That's right, it's not your call. If the authors are not happy with the peanuts Hachette throws to them, they can become hybrids.

We're supposed to have a free market system that allows consumers to control the price of goods by using their money to vote. And if Amazon really feels this way, why do they keep 65% of the money in the India, Japan, Mexico, and Brazil store. And then increase the rate if, and only if, the author gives them an exclusive on that book. Aren't they using that rate to get their way and the heck with the consumer and the author?

In summary, my sympathies do not lie with Hachette, nor is Amazon altruistic. EVERYTHING Amazon does is for their own ends. If you want to believe the BS, that's fine. I don't. It's just like the situation with Hachette and the famous authors. They're trying to elicit sympathy for their cause. I signed the petition to lend my support for 'not' boycotting Amazon in this dispute between Amazon and Hachette, but I'm not buying this BS any more than I believe it when a large hamburger firm says they doing it all for me.

So go ahead and throw your darts. This is my opinion and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## Saul Tanpepper (Feb 16, 2012)

Suddenly the pricing tool (beta) on our KDP dashboard makes sense. The timing of it, anyway.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

AnnChristy said:


> I agree with this all up and down the block. Just capitulate (which in this case will be a win) and post that lovely notice so that every Hachette buyer gets to see who's doing the pillaging of wallets and who is not getting the profit.


I wonder how many average readers even know or care what a Hachette is.



scribblr said:


> EVERYTHING Amazon does is for their own ends.


Quite possibly; in the meantime, as a reader, I love paying less than $9.99 for an ebook.


----------



## Error404 (Sep 6, 2012)

daringnovelist said:


> Actually, given what Hachette has been whining about, my take is that Amazon wants to keep the right to discount, and may also be treating them like Indies, and offering better terms for books list-priced in the sweet spot than those that aren't.
> 
> If so, that's pretty standard for retail.
> 
> ...


Again, control over discounting is like the problem at Google books. They discount books to free, and people rightfully complain about a loss in earnings. Why give that control over to Amazon? Based on what? Their numbers?



scribblr said:


> Whenever predatory companies (both Hachette and Amazon fit that description) try to appear altruistic, the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. I've read all the posts here and it appears that Amazon has, in my opinion, convinced some of you to drink the Kool-aid. From the tone of the posts at the time I write this I know I will get lambasted, but I'm going to have my say anyway. So get out your whips because here is MY breakdown of the Amazon announcement.
> 
> That is unjustifiably high for an e-book.
> 
> ...


This. There's a lot of defenders for Amazon who hold them up as a shining beacon for indies, but in the end they're just as greedy as Hatchette. My concern is once they're done with price-controlling, discount-controlling the big guys, they'll go for the little ones.


----------



## Lucian (Jun 8, 2014)

Jim Johnson said:


> I wonder how many average readers even know or care what a Hachette is.
> 
> Quite possibly; in the meantime, as a reader, I love paying less than $9.99 for an ebook.


How many know? Less than 1%*

How many care? If Hachette makes their ebooks more than $9.99, more than 99%*

* Just because I made up these percentages, in no way does that make them wrong.*


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

Error404 said:


> Again, control over discounting is like the problem at Google books. They discount books to free, and people rightfully complain about a loss in earnings.


I complained about Google discounting my book to free. But the reason I complained was because I knew if Amazon found it they would price-match and give my book away for free. Google was still paying me for every single downloaded copy based on my retail price. I did very well with Google Plus that month.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Error404 said:


> Again, control over discounting is like the problem at Google books. They discount books to free, and people rightfully complain about a loss in earnings. Why give that control over to Amazon? Based on what? Their numbers?


Mark Coker was heralded as an indie hero when he negotiated to stop other platforms from doing that. Now he's a pariah for speaking out against exclusivity and the same people who shouted his heroism now cry out in joy that the biggest player in the industry is doing the thing he held back.

Welcome to the Isle of Ithaca.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

DTW said:


> The publishers need Amazon more than Amazon needs the publishers.


If that were unequivocally true, Hachette could NOT have previously forced Amazon to do anything (as Amazon admits in their announcement). The truth is that Amazon's book business would fall apart without the BIG 5 publishers. However, they CAN take them on one at a time. It was only the collusion, that allowed the publishers to get the upper hand before. Now that the Justice Department has removed that bargaining chip, Amazon is free to squash the small fries. I love it when two predatory companies duke it out! 

_Edited to remove political reference. PM me if you have any questions --Betsy_


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

scribblr said:


> If that were unequivocally true, Hachette could NOT have previously forced Amazon to do anything (as Amazon admits in their announcement). The truth is that Amazon's book business would fall apart without the BIG 5 publishers. However, they CAN take them on one at a time. It was only the collusion, that allowed the publishers to get the upper hand before. Now that the Eric Holder Department has removed that bargaining chip, Amazon is free to squash the small fries. I love it when two predatory companies duke it out!


Every single one of the Big NY publishers are closely watching these negotiations. They can all take the same stance one by one.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> If you were a non-fiction writer though, would you still just -assume- they know better instead of doing your own due diligence?


Yes, actually, I would -- because I know the level of data they collect. And I know how long they've been gathering it.

And I know for sure that nobody in the nonfiction publishing area gathers anywhere near that level of data.

I should also point out that I'm not really so ignorant of nonfiction publishing/distribution. It's a dirty, exploitative business on the corporate end, and it really is crashing because of that exploitative business model. Writers will suffer because of it. Nothing Amazon does will improve that situation.

But the thing I think most of us miss here is this: In nonfiction there are several different areas. Most nonfiction in trade publishing is not so very different on the cost/business end from fiction. Those books that take years to write? They aren't really different from the novels that take years of development and writing.

The issue with slowly written "important books" is not how long it takes to write, but whether they are popular enough to get that increase in sales with a lower price. Odds are those most valuable, unique books are not going to sell well enough to make a lot of money. Nonfiction is not a precious snowflake that suffers from this any differently than fiction or poetry or anything else of cultural value.

Most trade nonfiction doesn't fall in that category: It's not slower to write. But because nonfiction is easier to market than fiction, the authors may be used to higher advances and different treatment (especially their own unique brand of mistreatment by publishers). Most of the time, the only excuse for a higher price for this financial advice book or that weight loss book is because it's a part of the established sales model for such books -- which is largely based on hype and audience manipulation.

Academic and other non-trade books -- books with special audiences, which are expensive to research and update -- are a whole different kettle of fish. They need to be negotiated separately (and usually are) and may well not be listed on Amazon at all. (If they are, that's not where they sell most of their copies.)

But even with those books, the high price is often due more to the fact that publishers can demand an exploitative price than because the books really need that kind of price to pay for cost. Look at what's going on in legal study guide publishing: some authors have started self-publishing these, and guess what? Those authors have the same experience as the rest of us at indie publishing -- much lower prices and much higher income for the authors, and at least the same level or higher of usefulness to the customer.

The difference is in the publishers. Academic and science publishing is really bloated and dependent on exploiting all sides against the middle. (High prices for use, free labor from the editors and peer review boards, and often from the writers too, etc.) That too is beginning to change. Change the peer review to open source models, and self-publish the studies. And here again, Amazon's model only helps.

The high price of nonfiction is still coming mostly from the middleman. Yes, I agree that the pricing model can and should be different, but the existing model HAS to change. And I have seen no evidence that non-trade, nonfiction is the sticking point in the Amazon/Hachette negotiations.

Camille


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> Mark Coker was heralded as an indie hero when he negotiated to stop other platforms from doing that. Now he's a pariah for speaking out against exclusivity and the same people who shouted his heroism now cry out in joy that the biggest player in the industry is doing the thing he held back.
> 
> Welcome to the Isle of Ithaca.


Yes, here we agree: while as a Smashword's author, I am glad that Mark Coker negotiated a deal that is to my benefit... that is not the same as pretending his deal is The Right Way. I have no moral right to insist that retailers not discount. (And they have no moral right to insist that I list my books with them.) That's a negotiation between us.

Camille


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

...and that is how everyone was convinced teenaged girls were dipping cotton in orange juice and eating it to lose weight. "Hey, some source told me this without revealing their sources or showing their work. Luckily, they did trigger my confirmaiton bias, so I can safely ignore that fact. OFF TO TELL EVERYONE!'.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

daringnovelist said:


> Yes, here we agree: while as a Smashword's author, I am glad that Mark Coker negotiated a deal that is to my benefit... that is not the same as pretending his deal is The Right Way. I have no moral right to insist that retailers not discount. (And they have no moral right to insist that I list my books with them.) That's a negotiation between us.
> 
> Camille


No it's not. If you're pubbing the way most people here, including myself are, you are subject to a chumptastic TOS and there will be no negotiation.


----------



## abishop (May 22, 2014)

Mercia McMahon said:


> You answered your own question by referring to total revenue. That non-fiction book, if at the well-researched academic end of the market, might represent 12 or 24 months of an author's work, they cannot produce books like that at the rate of one a month. Amazon is concerned about pricing fiction above $9.99 and imposes that limit on North American sales (fiction or non-fiction) earning at 70%, but is quite happy for British and European customers to pay $12.99 (pre sales tax) for fiction or non-fiction and earn at 70%. Do a search on a non-fiction topic at Nook or Kobo and you will find a high percentage of the offering priced above $9.99.


That doesn't answer my question at all. What is the evidence (or logic) that pricing non-fiction books higher leads to greater revenue? Do you believe that, unlike fiction, the number of non-fiction books that will sell is essentially static at any price? If I can sell 1000 copies of my non-fiction book at $25 but I could sell 3000 copies of it at $10, I'm better off going with the lower price.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

abishop said:


> That doesn't answer my question at all. What is the evidence (or logic) that pricing non-fiction books higher leads to greater revenue? Do you believe that, unlike fiction, the number of non-fiction books that will sell is essentially static at any price? If I can sell 1000 copies of my non-fiction book at $25 but I could sell 3000 copies of it at $10, I'm better off going with the lower price.


With research-focused non-fiction, you are generally aware you aren't going to sell a ton in the first place, so you price higher to make up for the firmer cap on the possible number you're going to sell.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

romanceauthor said:


> They can all take the same stance one by one.


Yes. In war they call that divide and conquer.


----------



## kpaul (Jun 18, 2013)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Thanks for sharing. I hope the news media picks up on this.


Shameless plug...

http://www.munciefreepress.com/node/30463

I don't have comments turned on for the site at this time, though.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

Someone tell me if I'm wrong here, but...

Amazon isn't telling anyone how to price their book. Any of us, including the big 5, can price our titles at $999.99 if we want. What Amazon is saying is that they won't pay the 70% at higher than $9.99. Given their overhead and the statistics they quoted citing lower revenues at higher prices, that would make business sense on their part.

Secondly, Amazon isn't buying our ebooks, so the example of Walmart and televisions isn't exactly apples to apples. Amazon is listing our books for us, at some cost to themselves, and only taking a cut if they sell.

Am I missing something here? You guys have probably been watching this more closely than I have.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Joe_Nobody said:


> Amazon is listing our books for us, at *some cost to themselves*,


-snerk-


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

scribblr said:


> In summary, my sympathies do not lie with Hachette, nor is Amazon altruistic. EVERYTHING Amazon does is for their own ends. If you want to believe the BS, that's fine. I don't. It's just like the situation with Hachette and the famous authors. They're trying to elicit sympathy for their cause. I signed the petition to lend my support for 'not' boycotting Amazon in this dispute between Amazon and Hachette, but I'm not buying this BS any more than I believe it when a large hamburger firm says they doing it all for me.
> 
> So go ahead and throw your darts. This is my opinion and I'm sticking to it.


I have no doubt that everything Amazon does is in their best interests, but at the moment, my best interests as an indie coincide with Amazon's best interests.

Trad publishing was a highly exclusive club that kept the door firmly shut against many aspiring authors. Their systems are archaic and their motivations venal. Amazon may still be as greedy, if not greedier if that is at all possible, but at least their system are cutting edge.

I want Amazon to completely dismantle the old system because it simply does not work, and if that means that they have to individually force each of the Big 5 to play in the new sandpit, then so be it.

There is no doubt in my mind that we are exchanging one corporate overlord for another, it's just that the new overlord profits when I profit, while the old one slammed the door in my face when I wanted to publish, told me what I could and could not read, and insisted that they knew what was best for the reading public.

So take your pick. Amazon and the new way, or Hatchette and the old.

Sure, we may be agitating for change again in a few years time, but here and now, indies should be barracking for Amazon because only Amazon can change the publishing industry.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

scribblr said:


> Yes. In war they call that divide and conquer.


In Detroit they call that negotiating with the UAW. First car company that negotiates sets the bar for the others.

Dav


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> There is no doubt in my mind that we are exchanging one corporate overlord for another, it's just that the new overlord profits when I profit, while the old one slammed the door in my face when I wanted to publish, told me what I could and could not read, and insisted that they knew what was best for the reading public.


And for those authors who want to stick with traditional publishers, I say give them to right and freedom to do so. I'm self-publishing because I chose the other way. Traditional publishers are not my overlord.

And traditional publisher pricing their books high is better for self-published authors and their books. Isn't that how so many of us became successful? Pricing is one of the advantages we have.


----------



## Error404 (Sep 6, 2012)

Joe_Nobody said:


> Amazon is listing our books for us, at some cost to themselves, and only taking a cut if they sell.


I will believe this is true when Amazon rescinds the delivery cost.



Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> I have no doubt that everything Amazon does is in their best interests, but at the moment, my best interests as an indie coincide with Amazon's best interests.
> 
> Trad publishing was a highly exclusive club that kept the door firmly shut against many aspiring authors. Their systems are archaic and their motivations venal. Amazon may still be as greedy, if not greedier if that is at all possible, but at least their system are cutting edge.
> 
> ...


Don't wish ill on someone because they rejected you. It might come back to haunt you (in the form of Amazon forcing authors to price according to book length. I mean really, what's to stop them once they get the ball rolling? Slippery slope and all.).


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

Error404 said:


> Don't wish ill on someone because they rejected you. It might come back to haunt you (in the form of Amazon forcing authors to price according to book length. I mean really, what's to stop them once they get the ball rolling? Slippery slope and all.).


I don't wish them ill. I want them to survive and thrive, but to do that they must change. They should embrace the new technologies. They should abandon their heinous contracts. Digital publishing is a boon to the publishing industry and the sooner the publishing industry embraces it, the better for all.

Ebooks have already provided them with a handy profit, so they're not dead against them anymore. But they are still running a rearguard action to save their antiquated methods and procedures. They need to stop protecting their patch and think about how they can change their systems to better fit in the new technologies.

The sooner they do that, the sooner we can dispense with all this silly and artificial us v's them business.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

abishop said:


> That doesn't answer my question at all. What is the evidence (or logic) that pricing non-fiction books higher leads to greater revenue? Do you believe that, unlike fiction, the number of non-fiction books that will sell is essentially static at any price? If I can sell 1000 copies of my non-fiction book at $25 but I could sell 3000 copies of it at $10, I'm better off going with the lower price.


You are making Amazon's mistake of thinking that books are widgets and price is all that the customer is interested in. If I sell a book on postmodern hermeneutics in the continental philosophical tradition (my PhD topic) at $25 I will not sell many copies because of the topic, not the price. If you sell a book on postmodern hermeneutics in the continental philosophical tradition at $10 you will sell even less because at that price most people will assume that you are an undergraduate trying to earn a quick buck off poorly understood lecture notes. You might sell more at $1 because first year undergraduates are looking for a cheap source to plagarise for their essay.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

daringnovelist said:


> The high price of nonfiction is still coming mostly from the middleman. Yes, I agree that the pricing model can and should be different, but the existing model HAS to change. And I have seen no evidence that non-trade, nonfiction is the sticking point in the Amazon/Hachette negotiations.


No-one suggested that non-fiction pricing was a sticking point in those negotiations, but I complained that Amazon had introduced a defence of their blanket 70% ceiling of $9.99 for widgets (sorry, books) into PR on the negotiations. As I also noted such a low ceiling does not apply in UK/EU where it is 25% higher at $12.99. This is Amazon defending an unpopular policy by trying to harness popular support for their seemingly victimhood at the hands of the nasty European publishing giant.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Joe_Nobody said:


> Someone tell me if I'm wrong here, but...
> 
> Amazon isn't telling anyone how to price their book. Any of us, including the big 5, can price our titles at $999.99 if we want. What Amazon is saying is that they won't pay the 70% at higher than $9.99. Given their overhead and the statistics they quoted citing lower revenues at higher prices, that would make business sense on their part.


You are wrong. The biggest expense for Amazon is delivering free the millions of freebies that self-published authors try so hard to get onto Amazon and from which Amazon make absolutely no money. Amazon are doing what Apple do not need to (although that is comparing a non-profit to the most stock-piled company in corporate history) by having a ceiling, Nook have a ceiling, but do not insist that if you breach the ceiling for USD that you are penalised for your below ceiling pricing in sterling. The only good business sense is the "we can do this because we are practically a monopoly." Which Amazon's neighours on the other side of Washington Lake can tell them is not good business sense if the European Competition Authority starts to get interested, especially when Amazon has never had the stockpiles of cash that Microsoft had when they got their big fine. The Authority is already watching the Amazon/Hachette negotiations and mentioning the $9.99 ceiling was not very clever and there is probably going to be some inter-department warfare over it at Amazon.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

Region specific pricing is a problem for everyone, and it's not just Amazon that does it.

Here in the land of Oz, we pay 70% more for digital products from iTunes for the simple reason that we _will_ pay 70% more. Trade paperbacks go for $20, new release hardcovers can be as high as $50. And yes, those prices are for high selling genre fiction. Research/non-fiction stuff goes for as high as $200 and it's usually a laser printed made-to-order book that fades within 5 years (I have a shelf full of the stuff).

Whichever way you spin it, the facts are that Amazon wants ebooks to cost $10 in the USA (and then adjusted for region gouging) and the trad publishers want ebooks to cost $15 in the USA (and then adjusted for region gouging).

In the short term, what the trad publishers want will give indies a price advantage, which is kinda good for indies although things like KU and Scribd are eroding price differentials. In the long term, if trad publishers get what they want they will collapse into a heap of stupid because new authors will go the self-publishing route for the $$$$ and deprive them of content. This is not so good for indies because it will leave Amazon in a very powerful position.


----------



## Bluebonnet (Dec 15, 2013)

Amazon doesn't want any comments on their press release, at least not on the same webpage. At the bottom it says "Discussion closed."


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

> If you sell a book on postmodern hermeneutics in the continental philosophical tradition at $10 you will sell even less because at that price most people will assume that you are an undergraduate trying to earn a quick buck off poorly understood lecture notes.


Depends on the blurb, cover, and sample chapter. Not much you can do with such a title though.



> This is Amazon defending an unpopular policy by trying to harness popular support for their seemingly victimhood at the hands of the nasty European publishing giant.


 This is the same nasty publishing giant whose home country says Amazon cannot discount at more than 5% and cannot ship items for free, because widgets over there are what, more special...more sacred...more worthy?



> You are making Amazon's mistake of thinking that books are widgets and price is all that the customer is interested in.


 It's not the only thing, but you'd be crazy to say it wasn't a major factor in a prospective customers decision making process on a purchase. The Kraken Project is $12.99 on BN. com, $10.99 on Kindle, and £3.59 (about $6.10 if I'm doing the math right) at amazon.co.uk. Your going to but the $12.99 version because? You can?

As Amazon said in their release, you can price your book higher, we aren't going to stop you, but if you do, your going to be selling less. We have the numbers to prove so. Lower your price, sell more books, you get a bigger cut, and so do we. They know the vast majority of customers have an upper limit of what they are going to spend, and Amazon are trying to incentivize authors to stay under that limit, because Amazon knows that what you will lose in price you will make up for in volume, to the tune of 1.74 to 1 apparently.

Dav


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> This is not so good for indies because it will leave Amazon in a very powerful position.


So... to deny them a powerful position, the other guys should surrender on all fronts?


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> So... to deny them a powerful position, the other guys should surrender on all fronts?


No. They need to stop trying to delay the inevitable. Ebooks have been big news for three years now. How many ebook stores do the big 5 have? None. Have they changed their contracts to attract new writers as self publishing gains traction? No. Have they looked into abolishing the stupid practice of windowing? No. Have they done anything at all except fight Amazon on every front and try to delay the inevitable rise of digital distribution? I can't see anything like it. Can you?


----------



## 555aaa (Jan 28, 2014)

Mercia McMahon said:


> You are wrong. The biggest expense for Amazon is delivering free the millions of freebies that self-published authors try so hard to get onto Amazon and from which Amazon make absolutely no money.


Oh, Amazon makes a ton of money off of freebies. It keeps customers engaged not only with Amazon as a whole but keeps the readership within the closed Kindle platform. But I agree with the rest of your post, Mercia (the place?)

If you want to contemplate where this is all going, to me it's looking to me that we are moving to a fixed price model where Amazon sets the prices. Basically that's what happened in the music industry, where Apple and Amazon basically have fixed the price of a song download at around a dollar.

I (once more) trot out ACX as an example of where I think Amazon is headed. On ACX:

1) Amazon sets the retail price and it can vary by about a factor of two for works of the same length. (Apple, also sets their own price on iTunes, but Amazon will only reimburse you for iTunes sales based on the Amazon pricing, not the iTunes pricing)

2) Amazon locks you in to an exclusive seven year contract, which is 40% royalty, but only for retail sales, but most sales actually are using a membership rate calculation which works out to about a 20% royalty. They can also lower the price to free at any time.

3) If you are on non-exclusive contract, it is only 25% royalty against retail (non-member) sales, but as most sales come from memberships or member credits, the effective royalty rate is about 13%.

The membership rate factor is not public information and I am using my sales numbers, and I have asked for other ACX producers to confirm here on these boards. These terms are so bad that I think a lot of books that should be produced aren't - it's just too little reward for the risk.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> No. They need to stop trying to delay the inevitable.


And do everything Amazon tells them to do.



> How many ebook stores do the big 5 have? None.


How many stores does Black and Decker have? Or Paramount Studios?

No, seriously, I'm not going to let this grapefruit wobble past me.

This is how business works these days. There are people who produce and they either a) sell their product to a merchant who then sells the product to customers (usually at a markup if they want to make a profit... which Amazon admittedly wants no part of), or b) they pay a merchant for shelf space to sell their wares from.

Producers don't need to make their own store. That's why they're producers, so they can focus on creating their products and let someone else focus on maintaining a store. Division of labor: this is one of the cornerstones of the modern world.

It is in this way that we developed the specialization that allow us to have dedicated writers, dairy farmers and molecular biologists in the first place. By having a 'merchant' job, you give other people the freedom of time to produce.

What you're demanding here is no 'the future' or 'the inevitable', it's the village blacksmith selling horseshoes from the forge behind his house. It's a farmer who has two cows for milking, a dozen chickens, and a plot of land for vegetables and he takes the excess to town during the harvest festival.

... and of course, we just had a thread where one of thme, I forget which, did what you're demanding, so you're on thier same wavelength, except for the 'do what Amazon tells you because, Amazon' thing.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Mercia McMahon said:


> You are wrong. The biggest expense for Amazon is delivering free the millions of freebies that self-published authors try so hard to get onto Amazon and from which Amazon make absolutely no money.


No, seriously:

-snerk-

I did the math last year and freebies 'cost' Amazon ~$1 per 100,000 and that's if you assume Amazon doesn't own the internet infrastructure that's serving the file instead of the facts.

Plus, every time someone buys a paid book, Amazon takes--above and beyond thier 30%-- a 'delivery fee' that could pay to serve several thousand books.

'Millions' of freebies costs Amazon about as much money as is in my wallet right now--and Amazon is late paying me this month.


----------



## Lazy Bodhisattva (Nov 18, 2013)

Joe_Nobody said:


> Someone tell me if I'm wrong here, but...
> 
> Amazon isn't telling anyone how to price their book. Any of us, including the big 5, can price our titles at $999.99 if we want. What Amazon is saying is that they won't pay the 70% at higher than $9.99. Given their overhead and the statistics they quoted citing lower revenues at higher prices, that would make business sense on their part.
> 
> ...


Seems to me this is a corporate version of the parental comment " so long as you live in my house... you will obey my rules".

ZON "knows" e-books priced between 2.99 and 9.99 sell best or make the most income.

Therefore they will take 30% of the listing price. 
Books below 2.99 don't make enough profit therefore ZON takes 65% of listing price.
E-Books above 9.99 don't sell as well, or, people that pay over 9.99 purchase fewer additional items. 
ZON makes less therefore, they charge 65%.

Any publisher is welcome to list any book at any price. What they are not free to do is demand that ZON pay 70% for titles above 9.99 or below 2.99.

Hachette like everyone else is free to do any of the following.

1. stop whining. blow their nose and accept the royalty structure.
2. keep whining. and hope ZON agrees to the royalty structure Hachette wants.
3. Stop whining. Take their balls and go home.

I don't know how this one will end. But I know that most urinating matches end with both parties walking home in wet trousers.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> How many stores does Black and Decker have? Or Paramount Studios?
> 
> No, seriously, I'm not going to let this grapefruit wobble past me.


Netflix is making television shows. How about that? Obviously, being a distributor, they shouldn't but they have. And have you heard of the gaming producer valve? They made Half Life, and Portal and games like that. They also have Steam and distribute games to their loyal followers. Not just Valve games, but everyone's games. And they're still making games. And you know that electronic arts has a distribution service for its games, don't you. And so does Time Warner Ubisoft. They make the Assassin's Creed and Fallout series, among others. And Nintendo, which makes games and consoles to play them on!

The big 5 have a treasure trove of material that they own the copyright for but they don't publish. Now imagine Penguin opened up a little subscription service and offered as many ebooks you can read from its back catalogue for $5.99 per month. Each read earned the author $1. I reckon it would work. Imagine how happy the authors would be to earn off dead books.



> Producers don't need to make their own store. That's why they're producers, so they can focus on creating their products and let someone else focus on maintaining a store. Division of labor: this is one of the cornerstones of the modern world.


Looking at how drills and grapefruits are sold and distributed is to look backwards. These are digital products and don't need physical stores - something that the gaming industry worked out years ago - Valve launched steam in 2004 or 2005. Not only is Steam innovative, it's also tried, tested and wildly successful. There are many ways that the big 5 could get out there and mix it with Amazon, but all they seem capable of doing is complaining about Amazon. Not a winning strategy.

As for the distinction between producers and sellers, the line is bluring. Back in the day, my dad made furniture at hoime and took it to market where he paid $30 for a stall. What was he? A producer or a seller? Fast forward 30 years, and I write books at home and put them on Amazon and pay 30% of my sales to Amazon. What am I? A producer or a seller?

Apple started as a hardware company but now does all sorts of things. They also have physical stores and a distribution system for digital products. What is Apple? A hardware producer or a retailer?

Google made their name with a search engine, and has subsequently mapped the world, is working on self-driving cars, and has a digital distribution system for digital products.

See. The old ways are falling behind. Companies that do not adapt - and the big 5 are NOT adapting - will fall behind. Anyone got a nokia phone handy? No? Gee, weren't they leaders in mobile technology. What about a Blackberry?


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Mercia McMahon said:


> No-one suggested that non-fiction pricing was a sticking point in those negotiations, but I complained that Amazon had introduced a defence of their blanket 70% ceiling of $9.99 for widgets (sorry, books) into PR on the negotiations. As I also noted such a low ceiling does not apply in UK/EU where it is 25% higher at $12.99. This is Amazon defending an unpopular policy by trying to harness popular support for their seemingly victimhood at the hands of the nasty European publishing giant.


 I think maybe we're talking about different things?

I wouldn't call Amazon's pricing an unpopular policy. I would call it a VERY popular policy: that's why they are trumpeting it. I also wouldn't say they were crying victim: they've been accused of victimizing Hachette and are taking the high ground by stating their position -- on this one issue that was raised in the press by Hachette. I can see accusing them of being condescending, but not of crying victim.

The statement also does not state that there should be a blanket price limit. It acknowledges that there shouldn't be.

As for price ranges in non-U.S. countries: each region has different issues and different demographics, so of course the data will reflect different "sweet spots" in pricing. Are small markets being short changed? I don't know, but I can believe it.

I've heard a few other things that indicate that the actual offer from Amazon is very much like the policy on KDP: items priced in certain ranges get a better split than those that don't. The number I've heard is that Amazon has been getting (and wants to keep) a 50-50 split on books priced outside of the range they prefer. I haven't heard anything about the discounting issue.

Camille


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> With research-focused non-fiction, you are generally aware you aren't going to sell a ton in the first place, so you price higher to make up for the firmer cap on the possible number you're going to sell.


This has been my experience with non-fiction.


----------



## Mark E. Cooper (May 29, 2011)

Passive Guy has picked this up. Watch the feathers fly in the comments now! http://www.thepassivevoice.com/07/2014/update-re-amazonhachette-business-interruption/


----------



## scottmarlowe (Apr 22, 2010)

An update from the Amazon Books team: http://www.amazon.com/forum/kindle/ref=cm_cd_tfp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1D7SY3BVSESG&cdThread=Tx3J0JKSSUIRCMT

*Announcement Update re: Amazon/Hachette Business Interruption*

_With this update, we're providing specific information about Amazon's objectives.

A key objective is lower e-book prices. Many e-books are being released at $14.99 and even $19.99. That is unjustifiably high for an e-book. With an e-book, there's no printing, no over-printing, no need to forecast, no returns, no lost sales due to out-of-stock, no warehousing costs, no transportation costs, and there is no secondary market -- e-books cannot be resold as used books. E-books can be and should be less expensive._

Click-through for full post.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> What Amazon is offering is something they know Hachette cannot contractually do on short notice, and probably can't contractually do at all (as Courtney pointed out several pages ago). Further, what they are offering requires Hachette to eat the majority of the cost, because in most cases Hachette HAS already paid the authors (in the form of an advance).


Actually, Amazon has made *three* offers now to compensate affected authors. The first is being conveniently ignored: Amazon proposed to set up a pool - co-funded with Hachette - which would estimate any lost sales as a result of the dispute, and pay out the respective royalties.

That offer, like all the offers, was also turned down. And I should note that this is the exact compensation system agreed by Amazon and Macmillan in 2010. Finally, I should also note that Hachette has made *zero* counter-offers. I suspect that's because Hachette wants to keep authors in the firing line to increase the pressure on Amazon.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

scottmarlowe said:


> An update from the Amazon Books team: http://www.amazon.com/forum/kindle/ref=cm_cd_tfp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1D7SY3BVSESG&cdThread=Tx3J0JKSSUIRCMT
> 
> A key objective is lower e-book prices. Many e-books are being released at $14.99 and even $19.99. That is unjustifiably high for an e-book. With an e-book, there's no printing, no over-printing, no need to forecast, no returns, no lost sales due to out-of-stock, no warehousing costs, no transportation costs, and there is no secondary market -- e-books cannot be resold as used books. E-books can be and should be less expensive.[/i]


Can't argue there. I know I bristle whenever I see a kindle price >$10.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Can't argue there. I know I bristle whenever I see a kindle price >$10.


My wish list is full of tradpub ebooks that I'm monitoring to see if they go on sale. Every one of them is over $9.99. Some have been on my list for months, some so long that I've forgotten why I wanted to read it.


----------



## ToriWritesWords (Mar 26, 2014)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Can't argue there. I know I bristle whenever I see a kindle price >$10.


Just this week I've bought two that were 11.99. If people want them, they'll buy them.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

While my preference is not to spend over $7.99 on a digital book, I will if I really want to read it. (bought both those Lance Armstrong books that came out) I blow my money on way more frivolous things than books. And I LOVE books. I can easily drop over $30 at the movies. I get far more enjoyment out of reading a book.


----------



## Ros_Jackson (Jan 11, 2014)

I'm unsure what Amazon are saying in that announcement that we didn't already know, other than the revelation about sales rates for books at $9.99 versus $14.99. I guess that's useful information if you generally deal in non-fiction.


----------



## ToriWritesWords (Mar 26, 2014)

Ros_Jackson said:


> I'm unsure what Amazon are saying in that announcement that we didn't already know, other than the revelation about sales rates for books at $9.99 versus $14.99. I guess that's useful information if you generally deal in non-fiction.


They're just turning the PR wheel, doubling down on their "we're pro-author" rhetoric which implies, of course, publishers are not.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

romanceauthor said:


> And I LOVE books. I can easily drop over $30 at the movies. I get far more enjoyment out of reading a book.


Same here, but at the same time if I blow $20 on movie tickets and another $20 on a few drinks and popcorn I leave knowing I've probably been ripped off. I know I'll do it again, but it definitely doesn't endear me to the experience. Same with books. I've dropped $15 on an ebook I've really wanted, but it clouds the experience ever so slightly.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Same here, but at the same time if I blow $20 on movie tickets and another $20 on a few drinks and popcorn I leave knowing I've probably been ripped off. I know I'll do it again, but it definitely doesn't endear me to the experience. Same with books. I've dropped $15 on an ebook I've really wanted, but it clouds the experience ever so slightly.


I find that my expensive book buying experience was only ever clouded when I was FORCED to drop $200 or more on a college textbook I would use once--and not even use/read the whole thing--and at the end of the class I could turn it in and getting a whopping $20-$30. I'd rather had just leased the thing.


----------



## D-C (Jan 13, 2014)

ToriWritesWords said:


> Just this week I've bought two that were 11.99. If people want them, they'll buy them.


Nope. I've walked away from ebooks I really wanted to read, because of the outrageous ebook price.


----------



## Bookslinger (Jan 12, 2014)

I love that Amazon finally came out with this and I think Amazon is being incredibly reasonable in how they explain the circumstances.  I expect to hear nothing but whining from Hachette and its followers. My answer to them is if they're so upset with the way Amazon does things, they'll have to go find some other business that does things the way they want.  Sitting online whining about how you wish things were different and how mean and potentially evil Amazon will become isn't going to accomplish much. If you're still publishing on Amazon and criticizing them with everything you post online, you're a hypocrite. Go find another retailer already. You are not locked into a contract until you die (or close) like you would be with Hachette. Go find somewhere else to sell your books and get over it already.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2014)

Mercia McMahon said:


> You are making Amazon's mistake of thinking that books are widgets and price is all that the customer is interested in. If I sell a book on postmodern hermeneutics in the continental philosophical tradition (my PhD topic) at $25 I will not sell many copies because of the topic, not the price. If you sell a book on postmodern hermeneutics in the continental philosophical tradition at $10 you will sell even less because at that price most people will assume that you are an undergraduate trying to earn a quick buck off poorly understood lecture notes. You might sell more at $1 because first year undergraduates are looking for a cheap source to plagarise for their essay.


Bless your heart, thank you!

The primary issue is that indies have become conditioned to think of their books as commodities that are interchangeable, and the only way to compete is on price. But for many books, there is a "fixed" audience for the book, and lowering the price is not going to change the size of the market. Channie's last book is literary post-feminist speculative short fiction. It is NOT going to sell a million copies, because the audience for that type of book is not that big. Pricing the book at 99 cents or $2.99 isn't going to spur sales of value shoppers, because value shoppers aren't looking for literary post-feminist speculative short fiction. In fact, the worst thing I could do for Channie's book would be to do a free run and have hundreds of people who don't read that type of book leaving one star reviews because they don't get it.

Amazon's position is essentially treating ALL books as if they are 50,000 word romance/YA/NA popcorn books meant for quick consumption. That is a huge market. But you can't force the mechanics of THAT marketplace on every other marketplace. If I see a book on the subject of psychology priced at $2.99, I question the credentials of the person who wrote it because the topic requires a lot of education and research to do properly.

Insofar as Amazon insisting what publishers should get paid, it is not their place as a retailer to dictate to a business partner what that business partner should be paying contractors. That would be like one of my company's corporate clients dictating my salary. Show of hands: how many people would be cool if Amazon began dictating to indies how much they should be paying their editors? Or all of you people who publish magazines and anthologies where the only "payment" the authors get was 'exposure.' What if Amazon suddenly insisted that they would no longer allow you to sell anthologies on their site unless each author was paid X amount? How quickly would people be screaming to the high heavens?

It is all funny when Amazon does this to someone you don't like. Which is sad. Because the very behavior Amazon is demonstrating with Hachette is the same behavior you would all be flipping out about if done to you. And the only reason you won't acknowledge that is because Amazon "would never do that to us." That is a little like saying, "Yeah, I know my boyfriend beat up his ex. But he's never hurt me and I don't like her anyway. She probably deserves it."


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

romanceauthor said:


> only ever clouded when I was FORCED to drop $200 or more on a college textbook


Hah, I'd say that's less clouded and more cursing at the gods as it storms down upon you.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2014)

LizWheeler said:


> If you're still publishing on Amazon and criticizing them with everything you post online, you're a hypocrite.


Soooooooo, if you publish on Amazon, you are required to agree with everything Amazon does and you are never allowed to criticize them when they are doing something wrong? Is it really that hard for people to both disagree with a company's position on X and still support a company's position on Y?

This "all-or-nothing" mentality is why nothing gets accomplished in this country...


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Liz that is a fairly redundant statement as I do not think that I have ever read anyone post on kboards who criticises everything that Amazon does. Asking Amazon to change its policies to be fairer to non-US customers (or whatever) is not whining. Selling through Amazon is not buying a subscription to a fan club, it is a business to business relationship.



LizWheeler said:


> Sitting online whining about how you wish things were different and how mean and potentially evil Amazon will become isn't going to accomplish much. If you're still publishing on Amazon and criticizing them with everything you post online, you're a hypocrite. Go find another retailer already. You are not locked into a contract until you die (or close) like you would be with Hachette. Go find somewhere else to sell your books and get over it already.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

ToriWritesWords said:


> Just this week I've bought two that were 11.99. If people want them, they'll buy them.





DaCosta said:


> Nope. I've walked away from ebooks I really wanted to read, because of the outrageous ebook price.


In fact, both things are true.

Depending on circumstances, I may drop $12 or $14 on a book. Next month, maybe I won't and will simply wishlist it and wait. This is true for me when my circumstances haven't even really changed -- I can _afford_ to spend, but sometimes my mood is such that I choose not to. Or choose to. _And_ I've been known to wishlist a book because I didn't want to pay for it today, but a couple of months later buy it, even though the price hasn't changed.

Others will _always_ spend for a book they want and will not pay much attention to the price. I'm this way with a lot of grocery items; I mostly don't notice how much the milk is 'cause I'm going to buy it anyway. 

Others will _never_ spend more than $x.xx because that's where they've set their limit. Sometimes it's a budgeting issue, sometimes it's principle.

I see it as a question of value. Folks are always saying, "that's probably worth a lot of money". Well, yeah. If you can find someone who wants to buy it. Otherwise it's trash.

Or, you may want to sell your house for $750,000. But if it's in a neighborhood where houses are generally selling for no more than $500,000 you probably are going to have to drop the price. Or make tons of concessions. Might have been worth that two years ago, but now there are lots available that look just as good to buyers and are priced lower.

Similarly, you can price an ebook at $15 or $16. But there are a LOT of them available priced well lower. No, not exactly the same book (not exactly the same house, either) but close enough that the price difference is a clear factor in the buying decision. If you really want to get the price you're asking, there better be something truly extraordinary that justifies the difference to someone!

And, with a house, you only have to find one person to buy it. With books, presumably you want to sell it many times. So you have to find that many more people you have to 'Wow!' to get what you're asking.

I find Amazon's figures on aggregated sales rates at various prices very interesting. And not really very surprising.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> This "all-or-nothing" mentality is why nothing gets accomplished in this country...


Haha! I love extreme positions on extremism. This one was delicious.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

I've walked away from MANY things because I refused to pay the price for it. Don't I wish those Bose speakers were cheaper.


----------



## NickSpalding (Apr 21, 2010)

Hugh Howey said:


> Haha! I love extreme positions on extremism. This one was delicious.


I live in Britain, where we wouldn't take up an extremist position if our lives depended on it, for fear of looking bad in front of the neighbours. Sadly, nothing gets accomplished here either.


----------



## Bookslinger (Jan 12, 2014)

Sigh. Of COURSE you can disagree with some things a company does and call them out on it. But a couple of people here criticize nearly everything Amazon does. Not everyone, obviously. Some people have understandable problems with Amazon. Some just want to be snarky and cynical all the time because they can and predict that Amazon is going to turn into a beast at any moment. So far that moment hasn't come but they're always waiting and snarking. Meanwhile, Hachette actually is harming its authors right now and has shown little concern for its readers. Really, people? Amazon is the evil one here? Amazon is the one you're going to spend this much time criticizing? I find it really short-sighted and hypocritical. Just don't sell on their site if you have so many problems with their methods. There are other places to sell your books.


----------



## D-C (Jan 13, 2014)

LizWheeler said:


> Go find somewhere else to sell your books and get over it already.


^This^


----------



## Saul Tanpepper (Feb 16, 2012)




----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2014)

LizWheeler said:


> Sigh. Of COURSE you can disagree with some things a company does and call them out on it. But a couple of people here criticize nearly everything Amazon does. Not everyone, obviously. Some people have understandable problems with Amazon. Some just want to be snarky and cynical all the time because they can and predict that Amazon is going to turn into a beast at any moment. So far that moment hasn't come but they're always waiting and snarking. Meanwhile, Hachette actually is harming its authors right now and has shown little concern for its readers. Really, people? Amazon is the evil one here? Amazon is the one you're going to spend this much time criticizing? I find it really short-sighted and hypocritical. Just don't sell on their site if you have so many problems with their methods. There are other places to sell your books.


I think the point you are missing is that most people criticizing Amazon in this case ALSO have criticized Hachette. I AGREE that publishers overall should pay authors more. However, that fact has nothing to do with what Amazon is doing. I can, simultaneously, believe that Hachette is not acting in the best interest of its authors AND believe that Amazon is not acting in good faith. These are not mutually exclusive beliefs. The fact that I believe Hachette is not acting in the best interest of its authors does not mean I must agree with Amazon's position.

If I was arbitrating this dispute, I would be force lightning both of them.


----------



## abishop (May 22, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> The primary issue is that indies have become conditioned to think of their books as commodities that are interchangeable, and the only way to compete is on price. But for many books, there is a "fixed" audience for the book, and lowering the price is not going to change the size of the market. Channie's last book is literary post-feminist speculative short fiction. It is NOT going to sell a million copies, because the audience for that type of book is not that big. Pricing the book at 99 cents or $2.99 isn't going to spur sales of value shoppers, because value shoppers aren't looking for literary post-feminist speculative short fiction. In fact, the worst thing I could do for Channie's book would be to do a free run and have hundreds of people who don't read that type of book leaving one star reviews because they don't get it.


To be clear, I'm not saying that non-fiction books would _all_ produce more revenue at a lower price point or that I agree with Amazon's push to reduce the price to $10. What I want to know is what the ideal price point is, and I suspect it's different from book to book. Some books (fiction or non-) have such a fixed market that the optimum price point is fairly high, perhaps even higher than they currently sell for. But there are almost certainly non-fiction books that would sell more copies at a lower price, and if I was the writer of one of those books I would want to try to figure that out.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

*Moderator pokes head in door to make sure everything is going well.*



Hugh Howey said:


> Haha! I love extreme positions on extremism. This one was delicious.


I NEVER take all-or-nothing positions....


Betsy


----------



## Bookslinger (Jan 12, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Bless your heart, thank you!
> 
> "Pricing the book at 99 cents or $2.99 isn't going to spur sales of value shoppers, because value shoppers aren't looking for literary post-feminist speculative short fiction. In fact, the worst thing I could do for Channie's book would be to do a free run and have hundreds of people who don't read that type of book leaving one star reviews because they don't get it. "
> 
> ...


In reference to Amazon making the dig at what Hachette pays its authors: I think Amazon's comment about what their authors are paid was just acknowledgement that Hachette keeps talking about how they're trying to help their authors yet that doesn't seem to be the case. It's calling them on their fake emotional pleas to the media and I definitely agree with Amazon on that. I don't think Hachette cares that much for its authors, at least not as much as it does its own survival.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

How many of us have stayed working at a job we thoroughly disliked? I know I have. I didn't quit until I found another job. I didn't quit the minute I became unhappy because I had bills to pay. I did start looking though. 

Well it's not even close to that when it comes to selling my SP books on ANY of these retailers sites. In general, I'm pretty d*mn happy. I get to do what I love AND bonus, I make a pretty comfortable living doing it. Seriously, who could ask for more than that?

Do I love everything Amazon does? No. Won't even pretend I wouldn't love to see changes to certain things (let me make my books FREE for the love of God). Are they wonderful to deal with in other respects. Hell yes. Do I think they have my SP needs in mind with the decisions they make? No, I'm not naive. They are in the business of making money aka profits--okay maybe not this second, but hopefully in the future--and they're not about trying to please me. 

Am I going to defend them even if I think what they're trying to do WILL in fact result in more book sales? No, not if they're saying they want the right to set the retail prices for their vendors. Companies set retail prices and retailers set selling price. With very few excpeptions, that's just how it works in a capitalist society. 

To me, they've told Hachette what they want. Hachette has told Amazon what they want. If they can't come to an agreement, it's time to part ways. Amazon doesn't have to sell their books and they can walk away from table.


----------



## Bookslinger (Jan 12, 2014)

I think Amazon and Hachette should part ways as well. They want completely opposite things. They both have a completely different view of what is going on in the publishing industry. Thankfully it's not up to me though, because if I were Amazon, I would have dumped Hachette the minute I realized that Hachette wanted to raise prices on customers without good data to back up why it would not tank my profits. Raising prices is almost always a losing strategy in the U.S. when you're dealing with the general public. In this case, there's just no reason to do it except greed and trying to protect a broken system.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2014)

In sociology, there is something called "The Principle of Least Interest." The principle states that the person with the LEAST interest in a relationship has the most power. It is generally used to discuss interpersonal relationships, but it also applies to business.

Hachette has said that Amazon accounts for 60% of their ebook business. That is a huge number. However, what we DON'T know is how much of that is because people DISCOVER Hachette books on Amazon (i.e. Amazon is driving the sale) versus how much of that is people who have already made a decision regarding what to buy and chose to shop on Amazon (Hachette driving the sale or showrooming). This is a vital distinction. IF, on one hand, the decisions are being made on site based on Amazon's discoverability, then Hachette needs Amazon just as much as that 60% implies. If on the other hand, those are merely convenience sales, then the average consumer will simply buy at the next most convenient location. So, for example, if customers are discovering books in bookstores, but then checking Amazon to see if the book is available on the Kindle, many will simply buy the book in the store if the book isn't available digitally. And we have already seen some of this in action recently, with other outlets seeing increases in sales volume due to consumers changing their behavior. 

So if the two sides don't reach an agreement, Hachette will see a reduction in ebook revenue. However, it is unclear if that decrease in revenue from ebooks will be significant or if shoppers will simply buy ebooks elsewhere. Or, if shoppers simply continue to buy print books, if the increase in revenue from print sales offsets any loss from ebook sales.

Now let's look at Amazon. If Amazon loses this battle, the only way they come out on top is if Hachette ends up going bankrupt. Why? Because if Hachette survives not having its books for sale on Amazon, Amazon loses its bargaining power against the other big publishing houses. If Hachette can walk away from this and continue to remain in business successfully, even at a reduction in overall revenue, that sends the signal to every other publisher that Amazon is not as important to their overall business plans as Amazon expects them to believe.

What happens if Amazon loses the big publishers? It becomes the retailer where you can only buy indie books. Which, if you work under the assumption that this is a selling point I guess is a good thing. But in reality only a very specific demographic ACTIVELY looks for indie books. Most readers don't really care about the publisher per se, but will be put off if they can't find mainstream books on what is supposed to be the "world's biggest bookstore."  It doesn't matter, in reality, what people actually buy at checkout. It matters what brings them in the door. In retail, it is called the illusion of choice. You may always buy the same brand of coffee every month, but if one day you walked into your supermarket and the only brand of coffee they had was the brand you buy, you would be put off by it. WalMart went through this a couple of years ago and I have seen the research on the subject. When WalMart decided to reduce the number of brands it carried based on what customers actually bought, they thought it would increase sales by maximizing shelf space and encouraging faster checkout. In reality, sales fell as people felt they had FEWER CHOICES (Despite the fact that they would look at all of the choices and still buy the same stuff anyway!). When WalMart began restocking the brands it previously removed, sales increased again. There have been similar studies done with fast food restaurants over the same thing. 

So based on that, what actually happens to Amazon's market share if it suddenly becomes the retailer that doesn't sell anything but indie titles?

Amazon knows the answer. There is NO other reason they have been making such a huge public relations push. Remember, Amazon is a company that traditionally doesn't talk publicly about ANYTHING regarding its business practices. Even their stock reports to shareholders are vague and cloak-and-dagger.


----------



## CaraS. (Jul 18, 2014)

From the announcement:

_A key objective is lower e-book prices. Many e-books are being released at $14.99 and even $19.99. That is unjustifiably high for an e-book. With an e-book, there's no printing, no over-printing, no need to forecast, no returns, no lost sales due to out-of-stock, no warehousing costs, no transportation costs, and there is no secondary market -- e-books cannot be resold as used books. E-books can be and should be less expensive._

As a reader, I agree. As an author, I still agree. Big publishers have run their game a long time, and now that the rubber has hit the road (indie authors), they are crying & wringing their collective hands. And the last bit, about publishers giving the authors a bigger share, oh yes. Won't happen though.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> In sociology, there is something called "The Principle of Least Interest." The principle states that the person with the LEAST interest in a relationship has the most power. It is generally used to discuss interpersonal relationships, but it also applies to business.
> What happens if Amazon loses the big publishers? It becomes the retailer where you can only buy indie books. Which, if you work under the assumption that this is a selling point I guess is a good thing. But in reality only a very specific demographic ACTIVELY looks for indie books. Most readers don't really care about the publisher per se, but will be put off if they can't find mainstream books on what is supposed to be the "world's biggest bookstore." It doesn't matter, in reality, what people actually buy at checkout. It matters what brings them in the door.
> So based on that, what actually happens to Amazon's market share if it suddenly becomes the retailer that doesn't sell anything but indie titles?
> Amazon knows the answer. There is NO other reason they have been making such a huge public relations push. Remember, Amazon is a company that traditionally doesn't talk publicly about ANYTHING regarding its business practices. Even their stock reports to shareholders are vague and cloak-and-dagger.


Finally someone states the obvious. Amazon has not delisted Hachette because Amazon needs Hachette more than Hachette needs them. Amazon's strategy is to invest all profits in order the dominate the market, but if they do not continue to be the best place to shop they become a seller of server space (which they already are) and of warehouse space, because they no longer need the space themselves in the servers or warehouses because no-one shops with them. Amazon is a retailer with a few own brands, it needs to keep the supply side happy. Hachette is a producer and could choose to sell direct to customers if it did not want to keep its retailers happy. That is why the two sides are still in a *confidential *business negotiation hampered by the content providers going all Chicken Licken. Hachette may have put out the first call to the hen house, but Amazon's rooster booster press release shows that they are frustrated that Hachette did not crumble as they had hoped. The press release makes clear that they are living in the false assumption that the court case against the publishers took place and Amazon legal need to talk to Amazon marketing about the precise meaning of an out of court settlement.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Now let's look at Amazon. If Amazon loses this battle, the only way they come out on top is if Hachette ends up going bankrupt. Why? Because if Hachette survives not having its books for sale on Amazon, Amazon loses its bargaining power against the other big publishing houses. If Hachette can walk away from this and continue to remain in business successfully, even at a reduction in overall revenue, that sends the signal to every other publisher that Amazon is not as important to their overall business plans as Amazon expects them to believe.


I don't think Hachette would need to go bankrupt. If they don't work something out with Amazon and then have a significant decrease in revenue, that might be enough for the other publishers to recognize that they are likely better off staying with Amazon.

I don't think it's a likely scenario that all the publishers would pull out of the strongest online retailer, or that Amazon would let it happen.

But who really knows?


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Mercia McMahon said:


> Finally someone states the obvious. Amazon has not delisted Hachette because Amazon needs Hachette more than Hachette needs them.


Hardly. They have not delisted Hachette because they are in active negotiations. I don't think Amazon needs Hachette more than Hachette needs them. They'd like to keep them of course, but I think Amazon could survive the loss of Hachette far more easily than Hachette could weather losing Amazon as a retailer.

Just my opinion of course.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

There is a symbiotic relationship in play here. If one of them wants to play chicken to find out who needs the other more, I say go ahead and do it. Everyone will be watching to see the outcome of that.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

PamelaKelley said:


> Hardly. They have not delisted Hachette because they are in active negotiations.


They removed Macmillan's buy buttons back in 2010 when they were negotiating with them.


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

Joe_Nobody said:


> Someone tell me if I'm wrong here, but...
> 
> Amazon isn't telling anyone how to price their book. Any of us, including the big 5, can price our titles at $999.99 if we want. What Amazon is saying is that they won't pay the 70% at higher than $9.99. Given their overhead and the statistics they quoted citing lower revenues at higher prices, that would make business sense on their part.
> 
> ...


Joe, you hit the nail on the head, and the longer you watch this, the less chance you have of cutting through all of the muck. Welcome back.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2014)

romanceauthor said:


> They removed Macmillan's buy buttons back in 2010 when they were negotiating with them.


Correct. And they DID delist Hachette's print books for a short time as well. Amazon has traditionally used publishers PRINT books as hostages when negotiating ebook agreements. The only difference this time was that Hachette authors went public first, causing a blowback on Amazon.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Stepping in here to congratulate Julie on reaching posting level "Jeffry S Hepple" about a hundred posts ago--I just noticed.

Betsy


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Correct. And they DID delist Hachette's print books for a short time as well. Amazon has traditionally used publishers PRINT books as hostages when negotiating ebook agreements. The only difference this time was that Hachette authors went public first, causing a blowback on Amazon.


And now there's been a lot more blowback on Hachette and the Authors Guild, who started this publicity war. Now, suddenly, publications which never gave any good press to Amazon -- which always took the publisher's side in any dispute -- are actually looking at both sides. There's a reason Amazon's press release sounds so smug. Hachette started something and it's doing them more damage than it is Amazon.

What goes around, comes around. (Or maybe I should say something about glass houses here....)

Camille


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Stepping in here to congratulate ***** on reaching posting level "Jeffry S Hepple" about a hundred posts ago--I just noticed.
> 
> Betsy


A more important milestone. I think I've gone a hundred posts without a shock from the cattle prod!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> A more important milestone. I think I've gone a hundred posts without a shock from the cattle prod!


And I'm proud of you. And your posts have been the stronger for it.

Betsy


----------



## Saul Tanpepper (Feb 16, 2012)

I know exactly what's going on between Amazon and Hatchette, and you're all wrong. Or right. Whichever.


----------



## abishop (May 22, 2014)

Let's assume that everything Amazon says in its recent posting is correct; why do so many people assume that what they've revealed is the _only_ (or even most important) aspect of the negotiations? I would assume that Hachette and Amazon's contracts are complex and that they have a number of disagreements. Wouldn't it stand to reason that Amazon would reveal the one that puts them in the best light while keeping anything else hidden?


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

New thread on Amazon's statement has been merged with the ongoing thread about the issue.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Mercia McMahon said:


> Amazon is a retailer with a few own brands, it needs to keep the supply side happy. Hachette is a producer and could choose to sell direct to customers if it did not want to keep its retailers happy.


Hatchette could choose this route, and it could quite possibly prove disastrous to them as they're not a retailer. Some manufacturers are able to step into the retail space quite well. For others, it's a massive money loser simply because it's not a core competency and they proceed without staffing up on people for whom it is. The major name authors will do fine. People will go to other stores for them. The smaller names? Don't be so certain they'll be fine should Hatchette decide to become their own retail side.

As for Amazon keeping the supply side happy, don't think for a second that's not a two way street. In some cases a supplier has a unique product. Many do not. Someone who supplies Amazon with Widget A is probably terrified of the concept of ticking them off, thus letting the makers of Widget B gladly step in and take that extra revenue.


----------



## Bookslinger (Jan 12, 2014)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Hatchette could choose this route, and it could quite possibly prove disastrous to them as they're not a retailer. Some manufacturers are able to step into the retail space quite well. For others, it's a massive money loser simply because it's not a core competency and they proceed without staffing up on people for whom it is. The major name authors will do fine. People will go to other stores for them. The smaller names? Don't be so certain they'll be fine should Hatchette decide to become their own retail side.


I agree. I doubt Hachette would be waging this publicity war if they had another, better option. Whenever I read articles about them they come off as extraordinarily desperate--criticizing Amazon while begging Amazon to help them. I just want to say "Dudes, walk away already. Save some of your self respect." It's clear to me that they don't think they can do any better so they keep up the pattern of antagonizing (through their reps) and begging.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

I think Amazon and Hachette are right. And each of them thinks they are right. Each does need the other. So they are in the trench warfare mode until they can come to an agreement. It's an awkward dance and the other Big Pubs are watching closely. More popcorn.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

jackz4000 said:


> It's an awkward dance and the other Big Pubs are watching closely.


And isn't this exactly why Amazon can't give in to Hachette? If they do, they'll have to give the other big publishers the same conditions. If they do, what will be the next demands? Better visibility for their own books to the detriment of ours?

Amazon has made Hachette and its authors millions. Isn't Hachette now trying to dictate the conditions under which Amazon can sell books, not only Hachette's but also ours?


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Andrew, my wild guess is that Amazon wants Big Pubs to get less % or $ on high priced ebooks. Sort of like KDP's 9.99 ceiling. 

Publishers have different deals with Amazon than KDP authors I know nothing about it.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Amazon is the entity that drove this entire thing public when they stopped accepting pre-orders of new books and artificially delayed delivery of print books to customers. Whatever the details are that the two sides can't agree on, Amazon is the one that chose to make it a public issue when they decided to inconvenience their own customers for leverage. THINK about that for a minute. Amazon willfully and with full intent inconvenienced their own customers simply to extract leverage over Hachette. As an AUTHOR, that should bother you. For all the talk about how Amazon allegedly is looking out for authors, we should be concerned about the customers. If your books are in Select, and Amazon takes actions that drives customers to other retailers, that negatively impacts your ability to do business.


No, what Amazon did is treat Hachette like they do me. As an author, it's okay with me if they treat Hachette like me, because it levels the playing field. I don't get preorder buttons, nor do most authors.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2014)

> (This is where many people decide to opine that the cost of eBooks should reflect the cost of production in some way that allows them to say that whatever price point they prefer is the naturally correct one. This is where I say: You know what, if you've ever paid more than twenty cents for a soda at a fast food restaurant, or have ever bought bottled water at a store, then I feel perfectly justified in considering your cost of production position vis a vis publishing as entirely hypocritical. Please stop making the cost of production argument for books and apparently nothing else in your daily consumer life. I think less of you when you do.)


http://whatever.scalzi.com/2014/07/30/amazons-latest-volley/


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> No, what Amazon did is treat Hachette like they do me. As an author, it's okay with me if they treat Hachette like me, because it levels the playing field. I don't get preorder buttons, nor do most authors.


I'd rather be elevated than remain where I am while others get dragged down.

Why aren't we asking to be treated better instead of cheering for others to be treated worse?

I'd much rather get pre-order buttons of my own (among other things like full BISAC categories and sales) than seeing someone else lose control of their prices.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> I'd rather be elevated than remain where I am while others get dragged down.
> 
> Why aren't we asking to be treated better instead of cheering for others to be treated worse?
> 
> I'd much rather get pre-order buttons of my own (among other things like full BISAC categories and sales) than seeing someone else lose control of their prices.


Those pre-orders aren't all they're cracked up to be unless you're already a bestseller. I'd love the full BISAC categories and the ability to put my book up for free without price-matching. I'd love to get 70% from all countries without having to be exclusive to Amazon. My wishlist is plentiful. I won't even start in on my wishlist for B&N, iTunes and Kobo.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2014)

The real irony of this is that while Amazon is insisting that ebooks should cost lest by virtue of being digital and having no print costs...

Titanfall costs $39.96 whether you buy the disc or the download version.

Destiny costs $59.96 whether you buy the physical game or the download game code.

And Assassin's Creed: Black Flag is $17.99 for the physical game, but $59.99 for download!


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> The real irony of this is that while Amazon is insisting that ebooks should cost lest by virtue of being digital and having no print costs...
> 
> Titanfall costs $39.96 whether you buy the disc or the download version.
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone here is drunk enough on vodka or kool-aid to even begin discussing how the videogame publishing business works. "Hey, let's hurl blockbuster movie money at half our projects, dedicate three quarters of the budget to meaningless graphical improvements and jiggle physics, then recoup those wasted costs by charging literally all the money!"


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

romanceauthor said:


> I won't even start in on my wishlist for B&N, iTunes and Kobo.


B&N - Get a web server that isn't actually a fainting goat in disguise.

iTunes - Stop being so Apple-y.

Kobo - Search engine, do you speak it?

Actually, I would tell all of them just to do what DriveThruFiction does. They're pretty much the only sales channel I've found that treats the self-pub author like some kind of human being AND manages to be competent with their own site.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> B&N - Get a web server that isn't actually a fainting goat in disguise.
> 
> iTunes - Stop being so Apple-y.
> 
> ...


I read this and laughed and laughed and laughed. I'm still laughing.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> I'd rather be elevated than remain where I am while others get dragged down.
> 
> Why aren't we asking to be treated better instead of cheering for others to be treated worse?
> 
> I'd much rather get pre-order buttons of my own (among other things like full BISAC categories and sales) than seeing someone else lose control of their prices.


Nobody is"cheering" for them to be treated worse. Just stating the fact that most authors do not get the perks they take for granted.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> The real irony of this is that while Amazon is insisting that ebooks should cost lest by virtue of being digital and having no print costs...
> 
> Titanfall costs $39.96 whether you buy the disc or the download version.
> 
> ...


You can buy the digital Titanfall for as low as 20 Euro

Black flag for as low as 14 Euro

Destiny for as low as 42 Euro

These are for the PC, but they are also available for Xbox at similar prices. See. Digital distribution changes things. It kills regional gouging - I buy most of my games from places like this, including Civ 5 + expansions, and all the Black Flag games for my son. I've just pre-ordered Civ Beyond Earth for $40 even though it's $100 here in Oz.

Digital distribution broke the stranglehold game distributors had on the industry. When Lord of the Rings Online was first published, Atari delayed the Australian shipment for several months. I had to have a copy shipped over from Singapore. Now, with the advent of digital distribution, this simply won't happen. Now, game producers companies like Valve and Mojang have their own distribution systems, publishers who adapted such as Electronic Arts and Ubisoft sell their own games online, and companies like Atari have faded into irrelevance. Oh, and Mojang started off as a small development studio that made a game called Minecraft. They released it online themselves and have sold upwards of 20 million copies. They didn't even look at distributing any other way.

Another innovation in the gaming industry is bundling. Old games are bundled together and sold online with a split of the profits going to charity. Check out the humble bundles, or indie gala. Often, the game companies that bundle their products do so to advertise new releases, or to inject life into fading series. Now here's the funny thing. Some of these bundling sites are beginning to bundle books*! Comics mostly at the moment, but how long before one of them includes an indie book bundle? See. Innovation. It's what the big 5 should be doing, but they aren't.

The question is, will one of the big 5 come up with something innovative to take advantage of the new distribution systems? Or will they simply whinge about Amazon and run interference to try and extend the life of paper sales?

* These sites can kill productivity. I've just noticed I can get the entire Hitman series, the Deus Ex series and Lara Croft Guardian of Light for a grand total of $15. There goes the next week month.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Nobody is"cheering" for them to be treated worse. Just stating the fact that most authors do not get the perks they take for granted.


Why *shouldn't* we get them? That's my thing. People seem so complacent, like they feel like we don't deserve better terms than what we're allowed.

Like what is the actual justification that you don't have a pre-order button and I don't have BISAC control? Why shouldn't we ask--no, demand them?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Good night!

This thread is in desperate need of some common sense.

Common sense, thy name is Joe Konrath: http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/07/so-real-authors-guild-is-amazon.html

Important notes from Joe's post:

1) Hachette's contract with Amazon has expired. A while ago, actually. These negotiations are not taking place under cover of an existing contract.

2) Hachette let the contract expire, without ever sitting down to a negotiating table with Amazon. They still haven't gotten serious about negotiations, rejecting one Amazon proposal after another out of hand, and pouring all their time and effort into name-calling the company they refuse to negotiate with. In public.

3) To use a sports analogy, if Kevin Love's contract with the Minnesota Timberwolves expired last May, how reasonable would it be for Kevin Love to expect the Timberwolves to continue paying him in July? (This is not the case, just an illustration.) It wouldn't be reasonable. But that's what Hachette is demanding from Amazon: to pretend their expired contract still exists even though it does not and even though they completely refuse to sit down and negotiate the terms of a new contract.

4) Despite refusing to negotiate, Hachette and their allies call it unfair when Amazon takes measures to bring them to the negotiating table, to even at least get their serious attention. Technically, Amazon could simply de-list all Hachette titles any time they want to. They would be within their rights to, because there is no contract currently between Amazon and Hachette. None at all. Frankly, they should. Maybe then reality would hit home to Hachette that a new contract is required for a continued business relationship.

But please, continue to believe that Amazon is the stick-in-the-mud if that is your preference.

Please continue to believe that Hachette, the company that refuses to even sit down to the table, and insists on $15 ebook prices to protect their print books, and wants to grossly underpay their authors to the tune of about 17.5 percent of retail instead of 35 percent on ebook sales, even while inflating the price of those ebooks to depress ebooks sales... yes, please continue to believe that THAT company is the good guy in this situation.

Because that makes sense.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> Why *shouldn't* we get them? That's my thing. People seem so complacent, like they feel like we don't deserve better terms than what we're allowed.


Gaining pre-order buttons from Amazon, and other perks, is a laudable goal.

But that's not even remotely what Amazon-Hachette negotiations are about.

Hachette is completely uninterested in "better terms and features" for indie authors. They're barely interested in how their absolute refusal to even negotiate affects their own authors.

Believing otherwise is where you stop making sense.


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Sort of like Amazon inventing the Kindle, making ebooks a viable medium, and inviting indie authors to participate while giving them a great royalty rate.
> 
> That's kind of a big deal.


Just for the record, Sony invented the first dedicated ereader and Fictionwise along with publisher-backed storefronts like New Concepts and Ellora's Cave made ebooks a viable medium. There were plenty of authors and publishers making handy livings from ebook sales before the Kindle.

As for the great royalty rate, KDP rolled out in 2007 with the Kindle. The 70% royalty rate didn't com into effect until 2010, when the Big 5 switched to agency pricing. Maybe you should reconsider whom you credit for that particular change.

I'm not saying Amazon is good or evil, but they also didn't invent the wheel and it's time to stop pretending they did.


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> Why *shouldn't* we get them? That's my thing. People seem so complacent, like they feel like we don't deserve better terms than what we're allowed.
> 
> Like what is the actual justification that you don't have a pre-order button and I don't have BISAC control? Why shouldn't we ask--no, demand them?


Word.

Also, while we're at it, how about the ability to price our books on other sales channels however we damn well please? Like, Apple will pay me 70% on my 99-cent book. Why shouldn't I be allowed to price my book on Amazon and Apple to achieve the same per unit revenue instead of being forced to ensure my price isn't lower anywhere else? (This is something publishing houses can do all day long.)


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Jackie Barbosa said:


> Just for the record, Sony invented the first dedicated ereader and Fictionwise along with publisher-backed storefronts like New Concepts and Ellora's Cave made ebooks a viable medium. There were plenty of authors and publishers making handy livings from ebook sales before the Kindle.
> 
> As for the great royalty rate, KDP rolled out in 2007 with the Kindle. The 70% royalty rate didn't com into effect until 2010, when the Big 5 switched to agency pricing. Maybe you should reconsider whom you credit for that particular change.
> 
> I'm not saying Amazon is good or evil, but they also didn't invent the wheel and it's time to stop pretending they did.


Joe's quote said the Kindle made eBooks a "viable medium," not that they invented the eBook. Big difference.

The Sony eReader was indeed first. And yes, there were other storefronts before Amazon.

Kindle is what caught on fire and made such things both popular and affordable.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

My question is simple--and I have no horse in this race--why doesn't Amazon just walk away? If Hachette is unwilling to sit down and negotiate, why does Amazon still continue to deal with them? Pull their books and end it. 

Obviously there's a reason Hachette's books are still up on their site. Is it only Amazon that knows why? Do they need Hachette more than any of us know?


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

CraigInOregon said:


> Gaining pre-order buttons from Amazon, and other perks, is a laudable goal.


Hell, I don't even want preorder; I just want to be able to set a hard release date.

And no, this isn't what the Hachette-Amazon negotiations are about BUT it is about Amazon's shameless effort to act as though it's primary motive in these negotiations is the "help" authors. That's nonsense, plain and simple. Amazon's motive in these negotiations is to help itself, and that's as it should be. Amazon's income statements the last few quarters haven't looked great. Investors are grumbling. Amazon needs to improve its margins. It will do whatever it thinks will achieve that goal, whether it hurts authors or not.


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

CraigInOregon said:


> Joe's quote said the Kindle made eBooks a "viable medium," not that they invented the eBook. Big difference.
> 
> The Sony eReader was indeed first. And yes, there were other storefronts before Amazon.
> 
> Kindle is what caught on fire and made such things both popular and affordable.


The ebook market goes back to at least 2000. It was profitable, particularly in certain genres (notably erotic romance). I know a lot of people who were pulling in tidy five figure incomes before the Kindle existed.

Yes, the Kindle helped the ebook market GROW. But so have iThings, non-Kindle Android phones and tablets, and small, portable notebook computers. Amazon's primary "genius" lies not so much in the Kindle itself, but in the fact that it supports Kindle reading across platforms. I'd argue, actually, that the cross-platform app is actually a more powerful factor than the Kindle hardware. I buy a lot of books on Amazon; I don't own a Kindle.

But that's neither here nor there. We don't OWE Amazon anything for growing the ebook market; they grew that market for their benefit, not ours.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

This is like how Apple 'invented' tablets six years after they were a staple in lab settings and also 'popularized' smartphones because Blackberry is also a fruit and therefore also Apple.

It's confirmation bias at it's most doubleplus ungood.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> Why *shouldn't* we get them? That's my thing. People seem so complacent, like they feel like we don't deserve better terms than what we're allowed.
> 
> Like what is the actual justification that you don't have a pre-order button and I don't have BISAC control? Why shouldn't we ask--no, demand them?


We do get BISAC control on the paperbacks through Createspace.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Jackie Barbosa said:


> .... BUT it is about Amazon's shameless effort to act as though it's primary motive in these negotiations is the "help" authors. That's nonsense, plain and simple. Amazon's motive in these negotiations is to help itself, and that's as it should be. Amazon's income statements the last few quarters haven't looked great. Investors are grumbling. Amazon needs to improve its margins. It will do whatever it thinks will achieve that goal, whether it hurts authors or not.


It's not nonsense: it's a matter of the company's history. It happens to be that Amazon serving the best interests of consumers first, and authors second, over large publishers, is indeed something that serves its best interests as a company: it's made them the largest online retailer on earth.

To believe otherwise? Well, "That's just nonsense, plain and simple."

Please, ignore that 7-10 years ago, virtually no one was even questioning Big 6 publishers claim to 85 percent or more of author's IP income for up to 70 years after the death of said author, because it was indeed the only option. I guess it's nice to believe that the current economic realities now open to all writers would have somehow just spontaneously happened on its own. And that a Kryptonian man can fly. &#128512;

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## 555aaa (Jan 28, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> This is like how Apple 'invented' tablets six years after they were a staple in lab settings and also 'popularized' smartphones because Blackberry is also a fruit and therefore also Apple.


Apple released the Newton in 1993. Are you referring to something before then?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

555aaa said:


> Apple released the Newton in 1993. Are you referring to something before then?


Vaal's right on this one.

He's likely thinking of either Dynabook or perhaps products like Pencept, Linus, GoCorp and EO.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tablet_computers


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

555aaa said:


> Apple released the Newton in 1993. Are you referring to something before then?


Also, I have no problem crediting a company with "reinventing" something ie taking a concept that exists, but maybe kinda sucks and making it good. And yes, I know this is entirely subjective but there is something to be said about the masses having spoken.

Bottom line for me, I knew ereaders existed before the kindle, but I never gave them a second thought. It wasn't until a VP at a former company went off about the new 1st gen Kindle he'd bought and how much he loved it and was making it a point to give as gifts to all his friends blah blah blah that I said "maybe this is something worth checking out"


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

romanceauthor said:


> My question is simple--and I have no horse in this race--why doesn't Amazon just walk away? If Hachette is unwilling to sit down and negotiate, why does Amazon still continue to deal with them? Pull their books and end it.
> 
> Obviously there's a reason Hachette's books are still up on their site. Is it only Amazon that knows why? Do they need Hachette more than any of us know?


The reason is simple - Amazon and Hachette need each other, but Hachette know that Amazon's need is stronger. Hachette without Amazon can probably do well enough to be considered Big 5, but can Amazon be considered the biggest bookstore in the world if you cannot buy the likes of James Patterson? It is not that unusual in the world of multi-million dollar business that the contract continues de facto even after it has expired.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Mercia McMahon said:


> The reason is simple - Amazon and Hachette need each other, but Hachette know that Amazon's need is stronger. Hachette without Amazon can probably do well enough to be considered Big 5, but can Amazon be considered the biggest bookstore in the world if you cannot buy the likes of James Patterson?


So you're comparing one company who relies on the other for 60% of their book business and assume the other is more at risk because they're afraid that it's reputation of being the biggest bookstore might be in question? I'm not quite seeing this logic. If Amazon were B&N, then yes I'd say they need Hachette more. Amazon, though, has branched out far beyond books. Heck, 90% of the time when I go to the homepage what I see on there isn't even close to book-related.

Hachette without Amazon might do fine, being they're bolstered by their parent company, or they might not, but either way I have a feeling the smaller authors contracted to them might think differently as their publisher fumbles about trying to figure out ways to make up that lost Amazon shelf space.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Hachette without Amazon might do fine, being they're bolstered by their parent company, or they might not, but either way I have a feeling the smaller authors contracted to them might think differently as their publisher fumbles about trying to figure out ways to make up that lost Amazon shelf space.


But I think we all know Hachette doesn't really care about their "smaller" authors. But if Hachette is the one unwilling to come to the negotiation table and Amazon can do without selling their books, why is this the topic of this thread even a point of discussion. Amazon can walk and still survive quite nicely without Hachette, no?

The fact that "talks" still continue leads me to believe that is simply not the case. At least not in Amazon's mind.


----------



## Bookslinger (Jan 12, 2014)

Amazon does not "need" Hachette. Hachette is a very small part of its business. Amazon would like to have Hachette...if they ever get themselves together and stop trying to protect paper sales at the expense of ebooks and at the expense of their customers.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2014)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> You can buy the digital Titanfall for as low as 20 Euro


My point was not about video game prices in general. It was about AMAZON's pricing of digital video game content versus physical video games in relationship to their stated position on print versus ebooks.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

LizWheeler said:


> Amazon does not "need" Hachette. Hachette is a very small part of its business. Amazon would like to have Hachette...if they ever get themselves together and stop trying to protect paper sales at the expense of ebooks and at the expense of their customers.


Need as in for their survival? Probably not. But do they see the repercussions of NOT being able to supply their readers with the latest James Patterson, JK Rowlings etc books. I'm certain they do. And if Hachette survives a split from Amazon, the other Big 4 NY publishers will think they can too. I don't know about you, but I think ALL self-published authors are better off with the top Big 5 NY published books in the mix.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2014)

Jackie Barbosa said:


> Just for the record, Sony invented the first dedicated ereader and Fictionwise along with publisher-backed storefronts like New Concepts and Ellora's Cave made ebooks a viable medium. There were plenty of authors and publishers making handy livings from ebook sales before the Kindle.


I would also like to point out that, despite claims to the contrary, Amazon does not, technically pay a "royalty." Amazon pays themselves a commission (either 30% or 65%, depending on your price) and what we are technically paid are net earnings. The concept of Amazon paying "royalties" is a residual effect of the POD industry, where POD printers were considered "publishers" for tax purposes because they printed and distributed print books (and were the publisher-of-record for the ISBN).

People need to stop comparing Amazon's payments to publisher royalties. If you want to compare apples to apples, Amazon would need to be footing 100% of the bill for production, editing, formatting, and cover design to accurately compare the two. What does Amazon pay its authors through their actual imprints? THAT is what you need to compare Amazon to in relation to publishers.


----------



## Bookslinger (Jan 12, 2014)

Yeah, it doesn't sound like what Amazon has going on is the same as the publisher royalty system. I also don't agree that publishers always do what they need to do to earn their cut, like the editing and marketing they keep crowing about. We've seen writers complain about how little their publisher actually did for their book and even if they did their part perfectly, it still wouldn't be worth the 85 percent cut they take.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2014)

Jackie Barbosa said:


> The ebook market goes back to at least 2000. It was profitable, particularly in certain genres (notably erotic romance). I know a lot of people who were pulling in tidy five figure incomes before the Kindle existed.


Jackie, thank you. You're stating what I have been reminding people for years. I started self-publishing way back in 2004. People have short memories.

As you said, Amazon helped advance the cause, but the ebook industry was already growing. Amazon didn't invent it. They just recognized it and got involved in it. And I applaud them for that. I use to buy ebooks and print them, because I have sensitive eyes and didn't like reading long text from the computer. The Kindle made it possible to buy ebooks and not have to print them to read them. But other technologies were already around and evolving. There were already people making full time income as ebook publishers (besides erotica, sci-fi readers were early adopters of the digital format. Not to mention the information industries).

The truth is, Amazon benefits far more from its affiliate program than the Kindle. Amazon has the best and easiest affiliate program on the net, and has been able to turn tens of thousands of customers into a sales force to promote their website. Every single self publisher is a salesperson for Amazon, spending THEIR money to drive traffic to Amazon's site. I seriously believe that if BN and other sites got their acts together with functional affiliate programs, Amazon would be in deep crap.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2014)

LizWheeler said:


> Yeah, it doesn't sound like what Amazon has going on is the same as the publisher royalty system. I also don't agree that publishers always do what they need to do to earn their cut, like the editing and marketing they keep crowing about. We've seen writers complain about how little their publisher actually did for their book and even if they did their part perfectly, it still wouldn't be worth the 85 percent cut they take.


There are definitely publishers that don't pull their weight. I don't think anyone argues otherwise. The point is simply that you need to compare apples to apples in these discussions are things get convoluted. I've had conversations with authors who would say "I only made $500 with my publisher but made $1000 self publishing!" Which sounds great. But then you find out the author spend $2500 on editing, proofreading, and cover art and you realize she is actually in the hole $1500.

And unfortunately there are also "publishers" that really are nothing more than self-publishers uploading other people's files to Amazon. When I specifically talk about publishers, I'm talking about real publishers who actually do their jobs, not just people with websites.


----------



## chris56 (Jun 8, 2013)

I'm not siding with Amazon or Hachette but I do want to point out an inconsistency on Amazon's part with regard to the last paragraph in their most recent statement:



> One more note on our proposal for how the total revenue should be shared. While we believe 35% should go to the author and 35% to Hachette, the way this would actually work is that we would send 70% of the total revenue to Hachette, and they would decide how much to share with the author. We believe Hachette is sharing too small a portion with the author today, but ultimately that is not our call.


If Amazon believes authors should be getting more, then why do books have to be enrolled in Select to get the full 70% for sales in several countries outside of the US? Is there a logical business reason for doing this that I'm missing?


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> People need to stop comparing Amazon's payments to publisher royalties. If you want to compare apples to apples, Amazon would need to be footing 100% of the bill for production, editing, formatting, and cover design to accurately compare the two. What does Amazon pay its authors through their actual imprints? THAT is what you need to compare Amazon to in relation to publishers.


THIS

edited to add: Also, keep in mind Amazon is not paying a 30% cut to another entity to distribute their books.


----------



## Diane Patterson (Jun 17, 2012)

romanceauthor said:


> My question is simple--and I have no horse in this race--why doesn't Amazon just walk away?


Because this isn't about Hachette. This is about setting the terms with Hachette before sitting down with the other 4 or 5. Hachette = not that big a part of Amazon's business. The Big 5 = much bigger part. And absolutely huge in terms of PR stakes.



> This is like how Apple 'invented' tablets six years after they were a staple in lab settings and also 'popularized' smartphones because Blackberry is also a fruit and therefore also Apple.


Could you show me one place, just one, where Apple claimed to invent the tablet? A video is okay, although an official company PR release would be better.

Also, please look at the growth of both the smartphone market and the overall mobile phone market on January 2007 and today. If your response is only, "Well, that was bound to happen, and in exactly that way," you don't understand the phone market and should not talk about it.

(I really hate strawmen arguments. I do.)


----------



## Bookslinger (Jan 12, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> There are definitely publishers that don't pull their weight. I don't think anyone argues otherwise. The point is simply that you need to compare apples to apples in these discussions are things get convoluted. I've had conversations with authors who would say "I only made $500 with my publisher but made $1000 self publishing!" Which sounds great. But then you find out the author spend $2500 on editing, proofreading, and cover art and you realize she is actually in the hole $1500.


I don't agree with that. I don't think you understand what those self-publishers are saying. They spend a one-time amount on editing, marketing, etc (which, is usually cheaper than trad pub gets--but it just depends what kind of talent they hire) and they get to keep the rights to their books forever, meaning those costs are done with for that book. The rest is profit. I use stock photography for most of my work, most of which costs less than $50 per image if I do it myself and cover designers are not that expensive either. I get friends who are English majors to help edit. Marketing, which I haven't done much of so far, is probably the most expensive cost and that looks to be in the hundreds of dollars, which I think is manageable. As I'm sure people here can testify, there are ways to get it done even cheaper than that. So I'm not saying that you need to be rich to self-publish. You do need a job and some savings and you need to know how to spend your money on things that will get you the most bang for your buck. But when you think about it, it's the same for ANY business that you start yourself. You will ALWAYS have costs of some kind upon start up. In the end, it's like any other business. People who are willing to sacrifice and work smart will be the most successful at it.

Your posts sometimes read like you don't understand how people are self-publishing. A lot of these things you're bringing up have already been addressed. You should read J.A. Konrath's posts more often. I think he addresses the differences between what happened when his publisher had control his books versus when he had the control over his books. You should also spend more time looking at the threads from authors who are finding ways to get services for cheaper. I'm not saying it's easy, but it can be done. It really comes down to how much you are willing to sacrifice and learn.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> There are definitely publishers that don't pull their weight. I don't think anyone argues otherwise. The point is simply that you need to compare apples to apples in these discussions are things get convoluted. I've had conversations with authors who would say "I only made $500 with my publisher but made $1000 self publishing!" Which sounds great. But then you find out the author spend $2500 on editing, proofreading, and cover art and you realize she is actually in the hole $1500.


That only takes into account the short tail, not the long haul. Until I earn out my production costs, then that is indeed the case. Afterwards, though, I'm pocketing the lion's share of the sale price - which in the long term can be quite profitable (or not). Regardless, with a big publisher after I earn out those expenses I'm still looking at a much small share of the cut for the foreseeable future.

I agree that there's an apples and oranges thing going on, but it's more complex than to just equalize it against costs.


----------



## Bookslinger (Jan 12, 2014)

Basically what Rick said. He said it more concisely. But also this: you could spend the few hundreds or thousands today on self-publishing or you could give the book to a trad publisher and it could cost you thousands in lost income for years plus maybe some legal fees if you ever want to get that book's rights back. It just depends. Some people would rather take on the risks for the reward. Some would rather have less responsibility for the business aspect of the work. Both paths are not equal but they both involve risk.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Hachette needs Amazon, which is why they have not yanked all their books from the Amazon bookstores. 

Amazon doesn't need Hachette, which is why they were not afraid to take away pre-order buttons from books not available to sell, stopped stocking their books and went to real time orders, and in general don't want to price products they've already agreed to pay x amount for, at any other price than the one they think will get more people to buy from their store.


----------



## ToriWritesWords (Mar 26, 2014)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Hachette needs Amazon, which is why they have not yanked all their books from the Amazon bookstores.


All book sellers need Amazon right now, which exactly what Amazon wants. Now that they have that market share, they're trying to pin down terms that are most favorable to them. Which is fine. That's what businesses do.

But anyone who thinks those kinds of rigid terms aren't going to apply to self-publishers in the future is deluding themselves.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Hachette needs Amazon, which is why they have not yanked all their books from the Amazon bookstores.


Why hasn't Amazon just de-listed every single one of their books?


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2014)

LizWheeler said:


> Your posts sometimes read like you don't understand how people are self-publishing.


Liz, I have been self-publishing since 2004. I've been actively involved in self publishing for a decade...long before most people even knew self-publishing was a thing. Not to sound like one of those people shaking a fist at teenagers to get off the lawn, but I understand a great deal more than most people. Most people are too blind by the cult status of certain celebrity cheerleaders to see the difference between the rock stars and the average guys in the trenches.

Unless you are active in writer communities outside of Writer's Cafe, it is very difficult to understand the huge differential between the Hugh Howeys of the world and the vast majority of people self publishing. I have said, HUNDREDS of times in this forum, that the writers who frequent KB are a higher caliber of business person. I wasn't talking about them. I was talking about the majority of authors who honestly DON'T understand the difference between Amazon's "royalties" and a publisher's "royalties." I've had these conversations with writers at conventions and workshops. When I hear people make comments like "how come Amazon can afford to pay authors 70% royalties by XYZ publisher only pays 30%" then you know people genuinely don't understand the difference.

But none of my points in this thread had anything to do with "self publishing versus trade publishing." I was specifically discussing Amazon's relationship with its vendors, and how it should not be interfering in how its vendors pay their employees and contractors. And I was stressing that people need to recognize that they too are vendors of Amazon and not Amazon's authors. To bring the ENTIRE conversation back to the original point, Amazon has no more business trying to publicly humiliate Hachette into changing how it pays authors than they would if they publicly shamed indie authors who used Fiverr for book covers. if Amazon tomorrow went public and said "we believe cover artists deserve better compensation and authors should be paying them a minimum of X" everyone here cheering them now would be screaming to high heaven. And now imagine if not only did Amazon state that publicly, but that they changed their TOS to require you to pay cover artists a fixed amount or you could not sell through them. The people who are saying "Amazon isn't forcing Hachette to do anything. Hachette can walk away" would be hyperventilating.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

We need a button where you can just "Like" a comment in a post. Well said Bards and Sages (Julie).


----------



## 90daysnovel (Apr 30, 2012)

I quite like the idea of Fairtrade eBooks - a status only accorded to those publishers (of all ilk) who pay all involved parties the equivalent of a Living Wage.


----------



## ToriWritesWords (Mar 26, 2014)

romanceauthor said:


> We need a button where you can just "Like" a comment in a post. Well said Bards and Sages (Julie).


Agreed!


----------



## Bookslinger (Jan 12, 2014)

Sorry, Julie. I figured you probably were involved in self-publishing in some way since I've seen you on here for a while, but honestly your comments about indie authors and Hachette just seem strange sometimes for someone who hangs out here regularly. And part of your comment was about self-publishers comparing what they make alone to what they make with publishers. That's why I said you should see Konrath's posts, because he covers that. 

The remark Amazon made about what Hachette pays its people was just a dig at them. Hachette has been throwing bombs at Amazon for weeks now, Amazon threw one back after trying for a while to not be too public about it. It's not that big a deal so I think you're being way too emotional about that, imo. But nevertheless, if it annoys this much, don't use them. It sounds like you have a lot of issues with the way Amazon works that would make a business relationship with them unwise.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

ToriWritesWords said:


> All book sellers need Amazon right now, which exactly what Amazon wants. Now that they have that market share, they're trying to pin down terms that are most favorable to them. Which is fine. That's what businesses do.
> 
> But anyone who thinks those kinds of rigid terms aren't going to apply to self-publishers in the future is deluding themselves.


We already have rigid terms. As someone else above pointed out, you only get 70% in some stores if you enroll in Select. You get more visibility if you are in Select/KU.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

LizWheeler said:


> Sorry, Julie. I figured you probably were involved in self-publishing in some way since I've seen you on here for a while, but honestly your comments about indie authors and Hachette just seem strange sometimes for someone who hangs out here regularly. And part of your comment was about self-publishers comparing what they make alone to what they make with publishers. That's why I said you should see Konrath's posts, because he covers that.
> 
> The remark Amazon made about what Hachette pays its people was just a dig at them. Hachette has been throwing bombs at Amazon for weeks now, Amazon threw one back after trying for a while to not be too public about it. It's not that big a deal so I think you're being way too emotional about that, imo. But nevertheless, if it annoys this much, don't use them. It sounds like you have a lot of issues with the way Amazon works that would make a business relationship with them unwise.


Liz, you seem to be relatively new here: Julie is one of our most experienced members. Certainly a senior member who has been in the middle of the Indie movement for longer than even people like Joe Konrath. She's also more broadly experienced than most people here, as she has been running small businesses of other sorts, and also been involved in other areas of independent publishing.

People here often couch their arguments in an "Us vs. Them" way which warps the truth. Julie doesn't. When she criticizes indie publishers, she's not taking the other side. She's just trying to ground things in reality again. You don't have to agree with her, but don't assume an anti-indie agenda or lack of knowledge.

Camille


----------



## Bookslinger (Jan 12, 2014)

I'm just responding to comments she left. And I've been here for years. Just haven't always commented.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

And again, we just roll over and accept that.


----------



## CaraS. (Jul 18, 2014)

Some of my work was published in the earliest ebook market for the Rocket ebook. I never made a lot of money, but my erotica did sell best. Not sure the Sony e-reader was the first, since the Rocket came out in 1998. My work had a publisher, but copyright reverted to me when they went out of business. I've only started selling those for the Kindle in the past year or so, and doing better than I ever did with the early ebook market.

Here's some info on the Rocket ebook: 
NuvoMedia Rocket eBook
Launched: 1998
Launch price: $500
Think Kindle-vs-Nook is a heated battle? The first round of the E-Reader Wars was fought back in 1998, when the NuvoMedia Rocketbook went head-to-head with the EB Dedicated Reader and SoftBook Press's SoftBook.
The Rocketbook weighed in at 1.25 pounds and had 4 MB of Flash memory -- enough to hold 4,000 pages worth of material. The Pro version had 16 MB of Flash memory and could hold about 40 books. Modern e-readers typically hold thousands.
The Rocketbook was a full pound lighter than its most serious rival, the SoftBook, which could hold 100,000 pages. It went for $600 -- or $300 if you also subscribed to a $20-a-month "content package."
Alas, the e-readers of yore were an idea ahead of their time.
The Rocketbook "did almost everything the Kindle does, except for wireless downloads, though it was also thicker and heavier," Gregory T. Huang wrote in Xconomy in September. "But there was not enough of a market for such a device at the time, and it was discontinued after five years."

Link for full article: http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/technology/1010/gallery.ereader_history/2.html


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> And again, we just roll over and accept that.


Accept what? This is a busy topic -- it's really hard to know what people are talking about when we don't know what point they are responding to.


----------



## Bluebonnet (Dec 15, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I would also like to point out that, despite claims to the contrary, Amazon does not, technically pay a "royalty." Amazon pays themselves a commission (either 30% or 65%, depending on your price) and what we are technically paid are net earnings. The concept of Amazon paying "royalties" is a residual effect of the POD industry, where POD printers were considered "publishers" for tax purposes because they printed and distributed print books (and were the publisher-of-record for the ISBN).
> 
> People need to stop comparing Amazon's payments to publisher royalties. If you want to compare apples to apples, Amazon would need to be footing 100% of the bill for production, editing, formatting, and cover design to accurately compare the two. What does Amazon pay its authors through their actual imprints? THAT is what you need to compare Amazon to in relation to publishers.


I'd like to know what Amazon pays in royalties on their imprints. There are a few authors on Kboards who publish under Amazon imprints, but I can't recall whether any of them ever discussed their royalty percentage. Is there a non-disclosure agreement where they cannot tell us the percentage of royalties?


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

daringnovelist said:


> Accept what? This is a busy topic -- it's really hard to know what people are talking about when we don't know what point they are responding to.


Yeah, things rolled on and I didn't notice people popped up between LisaGraceBooks' post about how we have another terrible set of terms regarding royalties with some of the international Amazon stores.

Again, why do so many of us just lay back and go 'well I'm sure Amazon is super-smart and knows best (without my actually doing any research on my own) and knows what's best for me, so I'll just be okay with this even if it's not actually good for me'?

Look, people keep trying to paint this as blind hate or something, but realizing that you can't just be passive and completely disengaged from healthy skepticism when dealing with a business partner, especially in a MASSIVELY unequal partnership isn't 'hate', it's just good business sense.

You have a business partner that unilaterally dictates terms and can change those terms at any minute playing hard ball and pushing another business partner who _does_ have some power in their relationship into some of the already unfair terms you have no choice about. That does not say good things about your chances of getting better terms for yourself _ever_.

But no, no. They're super-smart or something and they made a witty remark about some guys we hate. This is excellent business acumen and certainly not falling into the classic cognitive trap of needing to identify a 'hero' and a 'villain' in every story even when it's really just two mindless amoral giants smashing into each other.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Bluebonnet said:


> I'd like to know what Amazon pays in royalties on their imprints. There are a few authors on Kboards who publish under Amazon imprints, but I can't recall whether any of them ever discussed their royalty percentage. Is there a non-disclosure agreement where they cannot tell us the percentage of royalties?


Yes, there is a nondisclosure agreement.  Authors have been able to say that the terms are significantly better than any they have received in traditional publishing, but they can't actually give the figure.

I do think Julie's point is valid that when we compare what we make with what traditionally published authors make, there are several issues that are conflated: We indies make both the author's share AND the publisher's share. Authors working through a publishing house don't do the job of publisher, and so they don't get that publisher's share. It's reasonable to question how that money is split, but unreasonable to compare how much each kind of author makes and expect equity.

On the other hand... being able to claim that publisher's share of the proceeds does mean indie authors, in general, make more money overall. The thing to keep in mind is that we make that because we do an additional job. It's really two income streams merged into one.

Camille


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> Yeah, things rolled on and I didn't notice people popped up between LisaGraceBooks' post about how we have another terrible set of terms regarding royalties with some of the international Amazon stores.
> 
> Again, why do so many of us just lay back and go 'well I'm sure Amazon is super-smart and knows best (without my actually doing any research on my own) and knows what's best for me, so I'll just be okay with this even if it's not actually good for me'?
> 
> ...


I think the key phrase there is "without my actually doing any research on my own." I don't know if you are referring to yourself or your opponents with that, but most of the people I know who talk about how much Amazon knows actually have done extensive research.

The thing I think you're missing is that people who say "Amazon knows" aren't saying "and we trust them to have our best interests at heart." No, Amazon does not have our best interests at heart. However, we don't have to make uninformed guesses at what their real agenda is either. There is a ton of information out there in their financials. But more than that, we can do what Amazon itself does -- pay attention to the company's behavior over time, to gain an understanding of how they operate and think, and what they are and aren't likely to do.

In other words, Amazon is not our friend or our enemy, but rather a force of nature. If you want to deal with it, you have to understand it. Complaining about it is about as useful as standing in the rain and complaining about being wet.

And if you want to change something about it, you won't succeed by using force. First you have to look at what they want and how they operate, and then you have to assess whether you can leverage that to get what you want. If you can't, you have to find another path. You don't drive into a tornado because you want to use the highway it happens to be on. You use another road or you wait it out.

In this case, from looking at Amazon's history over 20 years (dealing with associates and other efforts they've made, as well as the strategies they have used in breaking into new markets) I find that Amazon's current policies and recent changes are right in line with everything they've ever done, and I do expect that at least some of the policies people are complaining about will change as a matter of course. Amazon tends to start conservatively and then open up.

This doesn't mean I expect them to love me and do what pleases me, or that I don't expect them to ever make changes that I don't like. I'm just looking at which way the river is flowing.

You could say that I treat Amazon exactly like I treat Smashwords. Or Barnes & Nobel, or Google. I stick with them when they do things that serve my needs, and I move away from them when they don't. Over the years, Amazon has done a great deal that works for me, and very little that doesn't -- and every thing they've done that doesn't work for me is something that makes complete sense.

I don't expect that to last forever, but I see no reason why to get upset with Amazon just because publishers (who have never done anything for me, as a reader or a writer -- and have done SO much against my interests) are whining for me to take their side in a dispute with Amazon.

Camille


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> You have a business partner that unilaterally dictates terms and can change those terms at any minute playing hard ball and pushing another business partner who _does_ have some power in their relationship into some of the already unfair terms you have no choice about. That does not say good things about your chances of getting better terms for yourself _ever_.


But this isn't about whether Amazon is nice, it's about the tug of war between Amazon and Hachette.

Hachette is stalling on negotiations until September when the ban on agency is lifted. They want agency pricing so they can set their ebook prices high and protect their paper products. Amazon doesn't give a rats backside about Hachette's paper products and just wants to maximize revenue.

As has already been mentioned, Amazon are [illegitimate persons] and will not let Hachette win. There are four other publishers in the wings watching with interests and if Hachette wins, they all win. So the question is, what will Amazon do? I wouldn't be surprised if they drop all Hachette paper products and sell only ebooks at the inflated prices Hachette wants.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I would also like to point out that, despite claims to the contrary, Amazon does not, technically pay a "royalty." Amazon pays themselves a commission (either 30% or 65%, depending on your price) and what we are technically paid are net earnings. The concept of Amazon paying "royalties" is a residual effect of the POD industry, where POD printers were considered "publishers" for tax purposes because they printed and distributed print books (and were the publisher-of-record for the ISBN).


Technically, you're right and we all know that.

On the other hand, you pointing this out so often has the net effect of a teacher correcting at student who asks, Can I... and responds, I don't know, can you? It's technically correct, but no one really misunderstands the question, nor is the incessant complaint going to change most people's use of the word royalty, a term even Amazon (mis)uses.

Sent from my LG G2 Android Phone.

_Edited to conform with forum decorum. --Betsy_


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

New common sense from Joe:

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/07/fisking-shatzkins-and-caders-fisks-of.html?m=1

Sent from my LG G2 Android Phone.


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> Hachette is stalling on negotiations until September when the ban on agency is lifted. They want agency pricing so they can set their ebook prices high and protect their paper products.


I agree that Hachette is stalling, but that's not because they can reimpose agency pricing (which does not allow retailers to discount) in September. The DOJ settlement banning that practice was reached in April of 2012 and is in effect for five years. Hachette would have to stall until April of 2017 to get an agency pricing agreement with Amazon or any other retailer.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

One of the issues regarding the term of "royalty rates" for some is because that's the term Amazon uses on its dashboard. I think (or rather hope) that most self-publishing understand Amazon is not their publisher and therefore can't pay them royalties. 

Going on to another point someone raised, the split Amazon proposed:

30% - Amazon
35% - Publisher
35% - Author

I understand the split of 30% - retailer and 70% (authors) in terms of self-published authors. However, if the pie is going to be split 3 ways, 30% seems to me a lot for the entity doing the least in terms of production.  If the author deserves more, why can't a bit of that cut come from retailer.  

I propose:

20% - Amazon
30% - Publisher
50% - Author

That looks like a fair split to me. The person who does the MOST work creating the product gets the biggest slice of the pie. The entity that does the least, receives the least.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

Jackie Barbosa said:


> I agree that Hachette is stalling, but that's not because they can reimpose agency pricing (which does not allow retailers to discount) in September. The DOJ settlement banning that practice was reached in April of 2012 and is in effect for five years. Hachette would have to stall until April of 2017 to get an agency pricing agreement with Amazon or any other retailer.


The conditions were -



> Renegotiate contracts with Apple and other retailers, with a two-year prohibition on any contract that prevents retailers from discounting retail prices.


From this wired article that discusses the terms of the settlement between US DoJ and publishers. I'm not sure if it's different in Europe. (I'm in Australia, and our authorities sat, slack-jawed and unmoving through the whole thing. And then decided to maintain the moratorium on cheap, imported books that allows the trad 5 publishers ability to sell books at such high, artificially inflated prices. The [illegitimate persons]).


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

romanceauthor said:


> One of the issues regarding the term of "royalty rates" for some is because that's the term Amazon uses on its dashboard. I think (or rather hope) that most self-publishing understand Amazon is not their publisher and therefore can't pay them royalties.
> 
> Going on to another point someone raised, the split Amazon proposed:
> 
> ...


Don't forget that Amazon came to the 70-30 split quite late. It was 35-65 in Amazon's favor until Apple entered the ebook fray.

Remember, they are the indie's friend only when it suits them to be. If all competition melted away and only the big 5 remained (with their pathetic 17%) then I don't doubt for a moment that our cut would drop.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> Don't forget that Amazon came to the 70-30 split quite late. It was 35-65 in Amazon's favor until Apple entered the ebook fray.


Yes, I haven't forgotten the timing of that. Apple had been paying developers that since the beginning and authors would receive the same.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

romanceauthor said:


> I propose:
> 
> 20% - Amazon
> 30% - Publisher
> ...


Well, you can PROPOSE whatever you want, even giving Amazon 5 percent, but it's a proposal that's not even on the table between Amazon and Hachette and none of us are at that table either.

And if you believe Hachette would move from 17.5 to 50 percent for authors just to stick it to Amazon, you are a bit uninformed about how badly Hachette is already treating its authors.

It will not happen.

Also, a retailer's cut in retail sales in the paper era was typically 45 to 55 percent of cover... I did invoices and returns for a B. Dalton in college, so I know this firsthand.

30 percent for the retailer is already historically low.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> Don't forget that Amazon came to the 70-30 split quite late. It was 35-65 in Amazon's favor until Apple entered the ebook fray.


Let's keep the pro-Apple stuff in perspective here. They are also the ones who were found guilty of conspiring with the Big 5 to eliminate discounting, push ebook prices higher to protect paper sales, and thus generally inhibit the growth of ebook sales.

So they've done some good things, but Apple's almost as bad as the big 5 in other respects.

Personally I sell way more on Google Play than Apple, and Google seems better positioned to compete with Amazon with the same customer-first focus. Apple still has that elitist/luxury feel.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

CraigInOregon said:


> Well, you can PROPOSE whatever you want, even giving Amazon 5 percent, but it's a proposal that's not even on the table between Amazon and Hachette and none of us are at that table either.
> 
> And if you believe Hachette would move from 17.5 to 50 percent for authors just to stick it to Amazon, you are a bit uninformed about how badly Hachette is already treating its authors.
> 
> ...


Gosh, why so serious? I was simply PROPOSING the same way Amazon was PROPOSING the 30/35/35 split. Obviously it's not going to happen the same way Amazon KNEW it wasn't going to happen when they threw it out. But if they were proposing in terms of fairness, I thought MY proposal was way more fair.

And you can't compare paper goods to electronic goods. If that were the case, I'd be getting a bigger cut of earnings from CreateSpace for my print books.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

romanceauthor said:


> Gosh, why so serious? I was simply PROPOSING the same way Amazon was PROPOSING the 30/35/35 split. Obviously it's not going to happen the same way Amazon KNEW it wasn't going to happen when they threw it out. But if they were proposing in terms of fairness, I thought MY proposal was way more fair.


There's a big difference.

Amazon is using their current terms with KDP authors and most of their other vendors as their boilerplate. The 30/70 model exists already and Amazon's only change is to suggest that the 70 that goes to Hachette be split 50/50 between them and their authors, a bit of public pro-author advocacy from "evil selfish" Amazon that everyone's overlooking conveniently.

Your model doesn't exist anywhere. So why not be completely over the top ridiculous and suggest 80 to the author, 15 to the publisher and 5 to Amazon? Because that has as much chance of happening as your suggestion... Or are you so anti-author that you oppose 80-15-5? LOL... 

Sent from my LG G2 Android Phone.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

CraigInOregon said:


> Amazon is using their current terms with KDP authors and most of their other vendors as their boilerplate. The 30/70 model exists already and Amazon's only change is to suggest that the 70 that goes to Hachette be split 50/50 between them and their authors, a bit of public pro-author advocacy from "evil selfish" Amazon that everyone's overlooking conveniently.


I suspect it is closer to what Amazon offers its imprint authors, because otherwise it would be hypocritical to ask Hachette to offer better deals than Amazon are offering their authors (as distinct from their KDP publishers).


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Mercia McMahon said:


> I suspect it is closer to what Amazon offers its imprint authors, because otherwise it would be hypocritical to ask Hachette to offer better deals that Amazon are offering their authors (as distinct from their KDP publishers).


More than hypocritical: their authors have seen this and know how it compares. It wouldn't be good PR to p*ss them off. From what I've heard, Amazon may well offer better than they are suggesting for Hachette.

Camille


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

CraigInOregon said:


> Your model doesn't exist anywhere. So why not be completely over the top ridiculous and suggest 80 to the author, 15 to the publisher and 5 to Amazon? Because that has as much chance of happening as your suggestion... Or are you so anti-author that you oppose 80-15-5? LOL...


The truth? I'd love to see authors be able to sell from their websites and only pay a fee to process the payment. Cut out the middleman entirely. So what does that equate to: 95/5(payment processing). I'm really good with that.

And if Amazon can throw out % they know will never happen, so can I. I think they were as tongue-in-cheek about their statement as I was.

Hey, I write for a living. I LIVE in the world of fiction and fantasy.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

romanceauthor said:


> And if Amazon can throw out % they know will never happen, so can I. I think they were as tongue-in-cheek about their statement as I was.
> 
> Hey, I write for a living. I LIVE in the world of fiction and fantasy.


That's the thing, though, my friend. Amazon's proposal is not tongue-in-cheek or a fantasy. It's what they do with KDP and other vendors.

But it's funny that I'm horror and dark genres and I'm the more optimistic between us, LOL.

Then again, given how historically bad Harlequin and Silhouette have treated romance authors, maybe it's not so unexpected...

Sent from my LG G2 Android Phone.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

The thing to remember is that Amazon, et alia, are not actually competing for writers with their basic terms.  Any smart writer will list everywhere with a reasonable offer.  Because, after all, listing on iTunes will not get to you to a Kindle reader's Kindle. 

Amazon did not offer us 70 percent to compete with Apple. They offered it to get us to set our prices the way they want us to.

And if they had never offered it, would we still list there, even though Apple would be offering more?  Of course we would.  As long as there are no exclusivity clauses going on, the only factor that matters is whether a venue gives us enough additional sales to be worth the trouble.

Some people DO sell books off their website and do well with it, but they still also offer books at Amazon.

Where Amazon competes is with the readers -- they bring them in.  But part of the way they do that is by treating people like indie writers a little like customers.  They know that if we like them, we use Associates links to our books.  And if we mention someone else's books, we're likely to use Associates links.

Because Amazon is customer-centric, they understand the value of good will and enthusiasm.  They are buying that from us, and from their associates and from their customers.  Sure, they will always be looking at the ROI on that, and deciding how much our enthusiasm is worth -- but it is worth a lot.  That's how Amazon beats the competition: they leverage the enthusiasm of the customer against their competition.

And yes, that enthusiasm is leverage against us leaving them.  But when it comes to enthusiasm, no one is as enthusiastic as a writer desperate to flog his or her book, so keeping us a fanboys and fangirls of Amazon does have value worth paying for.

Camille


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

CraigInOregon said:


> Then again, given how historically bad Harlequin and Silhouette have treated romance authors, maybe it's not so unexpected...


I admit I signed on the dotted line for a paltry $2500/bk when I was offered a contract. But as naive as I once was when it came to publishing, I still balked and railed at the powers that be that the WRITER, the producer of the work earned the tiniest portion of the book-earning pie. And yes, I write romance (although I do watch a ton of Investigation ID and mob movies) but the publishing industry in of itself can make writers a tad jaded and cynical.

I don't expect traditional publisher to look out for me--they've proven they won't and don't care about me. And as much as I use Amazon (during Christmas specifically), I don't expect them to look out for me either. The same goes for Apple and the other retailers. The only thing I would ask is that they don't pretend to care. This is business, I understand that. I don't need the warm and fuzzies.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

romanceauthor said:


> I admit I signed on the dotted line for a paltry $2500/bk when I was offered a contract. But as naive as I once was when it came to publishing, I still balked and railed at the powers that be that the WRITER, the producer of the work earned the tiniest portion of the book-earning pie. And yes, I write romance (although I do watch a ton of Investigation ID and mob movies) but the publishing industry in of itself can make writers a tad jaded and cynical.
> 
> I don't expect traditional publisher to look out for me--they've proven they won't and don't care about me. And as much as I use Amazon (during Christmas specifically), I don't expect them to look out for me either. The same goes for Apple and the other retailers. The only thing I would ask is that they don't pretend to care. This is business, I understand that. I don't need the warm and fuzzies.


I empathize a lot with those who write romance, because of all the genres out there (except maybe erotica), romance writers seem to get the worst treatment of all from trad-pubs. Worse advances, worse royalty rates, worse everything...

And here's something really kinda double-minded, too, when you think about it: one of the most popular movie genres is the romantic comedy... for example, I count When Harry Met Sally among my Top 10 movies of all-time... yet take the same genre of storytelling and place it in print, and suddenly it gets labelled "chick lit" by some.

Since when? If a guy can appreciate WHEN HARRY MET SALLY in the movie theater, then he ought to be able to read it without apology, too. 

Sorry. Small tangential rant. 

P.S. I'm currently reading a rom-com: Accidentally Married by Victorine E. Lieske.

P.P.S. Another movie on my all time list? I know technically it's probably considered a fairy tale, but I count The Princess Bride as more of a romantic comedy than anything else. That whole "as you wish" stuff is the stuff of romantic comedies. That the romance out of The Princess Bride and the whole thing falls apart to nothing.


----------



## Frank Zubek (Apr 27, 2010)

http://publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/retailing/article/63591-over-900-authors-sign-open-letter-to-amazon.html 
Someone should figure this out soon because the holiday shopping season is just months away. I have a feeling this is going to get even uglier than it already is. Which is very sad.


----------



## Randall Wood (Mar 31, 2014)

"Complaining is not a business strategy."  -Jeff Bezos


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot (Apr 10, 2014)

Oh gawd. Did you see the James Patterson thing on CNN.com?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/07/opinion/patterson-if-i-were-jeff-bezos/index.html?hpt=hp_t3


----------



## Moist_Tissue (Dec 6, 2013)

James Patterson as Jeff Bezos: "You think I want to be known as the man responsible for the biggest quality drought in the history of novel writing?"


----------



## Randall Wood (Mar 31, 2014)

He (Patterson) already is!


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

SevenDays said:


> Oh gawd. Did you see the James Patterson thing on CNN.com?
> http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/07/opinion/patterson-if-i-were-jeff-bezos/index.html?hpt=hp_t3


I got about halfway through before the smug became too cloying.


----------



## books_mb (Oct 29, 2013)

This made me lol:

"Without taking sides on the contractual dispute between Hachette and Amazon, we encourage Amazon in the strongest possible terms to stop harming the livelihood of the authors on whom it has built its business."

This is what not taking sides sounds like (same letter!):

"It is not right for Amazon to single out a group of authors"
"Amazon is contradicting its own written promise to be Earth's most customer-centric company."
"We call on Amazon to resolve its dispute with Hachette without further hurting authors"

Ok, then ...


----------



## D-C (Jan 13, 2014)

*Facepalm* I read the Patterson piece. No mention of what the readers want, or how amazon has repeatedly offered to help authors, or how Hachette didn't even sit down to negotiate... Dude, take off your blinkers and look around you.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Randall Wood said:


> "Complaining is not a business strategy." -Jeff Bezos


"...giving your workers heat stroke instead of being a responsible employer, however, totes is."


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Well now see Patterson wants a sweet deal so he can continue to take advantage of unsuspecting authors.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

This is what got me:



> --Suggesting on some Hachette authors' pages that readers might prefer a book from a non-Hachette author instead.


Are they talking about also-boughts? Otherwise known as "How Amazon Works"?

I was very bummed to see a lot of authors I really like on that list. Sigh.


----------



## D-C (Jan 13, 2014)

DianaGabriel said:


> This is what got me:
> 
> Are they talking about also-boughts? Otherwise known as "How Amazon Works"?


Yeah, that's how I read it.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

DaCosta said:


> Yeah, that's how I read it.


I can't decide if this is the weirdest spin ever OR if the authors who wrote this are just THAT out of touch with how their books are sold every day.


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2014)

Wait so they are complaining because people can't pre-order their books. Since when is it a right for an author to have his/her books pre-ordered?

Any company can decide arbitrarily to no longer allow pre-orders for anyone with a book that has a title beginning with a "b" or any author with an "a" in their name. No company is required to expediate the sale of your books, allow pre-orders of your books or stick your books at the top of the list in the searches. 

If the author dislikes that the company doesn't want to do that, they can take their business elsewhere and it is the company - in this case - Amazon who are losing money by not stocking, expediting your work. 

These letters from the Hatchett authors are ridiculous. No one is forcing you to sell through Amazon, you want to do so because it allows you to reach a large customer base and make money. If you are not happy with how Amazon is treating your works, speak to your publisher and put the pressure on them to come to an arrangement, don't whine about the company that has every right to choose who does and doesnt get their books pre-ordered.


----------



## heidi_g (Nov 14, 2013)

More coffee, please, while we wait for Amazon's response


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Rhayn said:


> Wait so they are complaining because people can't pre-order their books. Since when is it a right for an author to have his/her books pre-ordered?
> 
> Any company can decide arbitrarily to no longer allow pre-orders for anyone with a book that has a title beginning with a "b" or any author with an "a" in their name. No company is required to expediate the sale of your books, allow pre-orders of your books or stick your books at the top of the list in the searches.
> 
> ...


They should be sending a letter to their publisher instead, telling them to please work something out with Amazon.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Rhayn said:


> Wait so they are complaining because people can't pre-order their books. Since when is it a right for an author to have his/her books pre-ordered?


I have to admit, as someone who had never had a pre-order button on Amazon yet has done pretty darn okay anyway, this one sort of falls on deaf ears for me.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

I'd play my tiny violin but it's so small I can't find it.


----------



## H. S. St. Ours (Mar 24, 2012)

I've tried to see it Hachette's way, honestly I have. But ultimately, they've twisted the spin such that their authors believe that it is Amazon who's the greedy one, while the facts seem to indicate the opposite. And let's not forget the slap-back Hachette's already received from the courts for their price collusion with Apple ex. unc. 

Of course, Hachette could always just design and build their own online trad and ebook retail operation, and then they could charge anything they like, while also continuing to pay absurdly low ebook royalties to their stable of authors. 

The larger problem, of course, is that Amazon treats their authors better. As a new author without a proven record, Hachette wouldn't give me the time of day. Yet Amazon allows me full reign (and full responsibility) over my works, taking a very fair percentage IMHO (by Hachette's standards) for my access to their customer base. And there's a world of options from Select to KOLL to KU, should an author think that kind of exclusivity is in their best interest.

I believe we're seeing the last throes, if you will, of a lumbering giant.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

From Patterson's column:  "we are going to have fewer great books and writers discovered in the coming years if there are fewer curators with the financial wherewithal to nurture them."

Hahahahahahahahaha.  What a comedian!!  

As for the Hachette authors, I didn't read through the whole list of names.  I doubt there's any name there that I read anyway.


----------



## D-C (Jan 13, 2014)

Jena H said:


> From Patterson's column: "we are going to have fewer great books and writers discovered in the coming years if there are fewer curators with the financial wherewithal to nurture them."
> 
> Hahahahahahahahaha. What a comedian!!


Fantasy land...

These days, the readers decide who succeeds.


----------



## heidi_g (Nov 14, 2013)

Jena H said:


> From Patterson's column: "we are going to have fewer great books and writers discovered in the coming years if there are fewer curators with the financial wherewithal to nurture them."


the mantra...


----------



## Moist_Tissue (Dec 6, 2013)

Henry Louis Gates, Jr. , Sherman Alexie, (the?) Michael Jordan, and Sebastian Junger were on the list. I admire their work but seeing their names there leave a bad taste in my mouth.


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> I have to admit, as someone who had never had a pre-order button on Amazon yet has done pretty darn okay anyway, this one sort of falls on deaf ears for me.


Exactly. Oh, sigh, you won't be able to have your books filling up the Hot New Release lists for months and crowding out the books that are actually available to read now. Cry me a river.


----------



## chris56 (Jun 8, 2013)

This whole thing is beginning to feel like a big soap opera rather than two companies negotiating a deal.  

I'm almost embarrassed for Patterson because the article on CNN (which I couldn't even finish) was just plain weird.  And judging by the comments, a lot of other people feel the same way.  I get the feeling that it's a desperate move on his part.


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

Is this really over a pre-order button? Hell, I was offered one and turned it down! I don't see the use in it!


----------



## Randall Wood (Mar 31, 2014)

Sebastian Junger signed this?!? 

Wow. Just wow. Severely disappointed.


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2014)

I am fairly new to the self publishing game. Heck, I am new to the writing game and with just two books released since May and around a hundred sales I can say that so far Amazon has treated me better than any traditional publisher would have. 

Those trads have been great for maintaining quality over the years but that has come at the cost of so many talented writers falling at the wayside. Prevented from getting their work out there by those gatekeeping trads. 

Amazon opened those gates and made getting your work out there, ridiculously easy and in many cases, profitable. 

All this argument has done so far is show how badly Hatchett deals with its stable of authors and how utterly ridiculous some of those authors ideas are.


----------



## Frank Zubek (Apr 27, 2010)

I think - and I could be wrong- a number of midlevel writers....even if they are aware of the ebook revolution....are bound by contract TO the paper publishers for the length of the contract so if a number of others sign onto this they kind of "have to" join in and sign on. They may not agree with it ( especially if they don't get the same huge advances Patterson gets) but because of that contract obligation they go with the flow

I should think a number of the writers on that list might actually be very interested in self publishing but.....
1 They may feel they might be blackballed by New York if they go for it
2 They are aware they'll have to do all the self marketing too even though they have a built in fan base
3 There is such comfort in a contract deal despite the chance they MIGHT make better money at self publishing ( after all the word ...MIGHT and the idea of THE POTENTIAL of better personal control over their works....while tempting.....aren't enough to take the dive when you still have a mortgage and a car payment and the need to eat regularly

But again.... that's just guessing on my part.
But I kind of doubt all 9,000 authors who signed this document are fully behind big boy Patterson on this campaign


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> "...giving your workers heat stroke instead of being a responsible employer, however, totes is."


Oh, look, the only argument anyone can ever make. How come no one who bashes Amazon ever talks about the fact they did something about it? Oh boo hoo, they made warehouse workers get too hot, then when someone got sick, the media blew up, Amazon fixed the issue, but let's just keep bashing them over this one thing because we don't have any arguments beyond that.

From now on, whenever I see someone saying something positive from Amazon, I'm going to just imitate Vaal and bash Amazon openly, reminding you all that Amazon wants to KILL THEIR WORKERS. Amazon HATES WORKERS and wants them to DIE. That's after Amazon eats the UNBORN FETUS FROM YOUR WOMB. Because Amazon is evil and I have to find every single mention of Amazon in this forum so I can tell you how AMAZON WANTS TO KILL YOU AFTER TAKING OVER YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, YOUR MARRIAGE, AND EATS A BABY FROM YOUR BLOODY WOMB THAT IT JUST RIPPED OPEN WITH SHARP CLAWS IT BOUGHT FROM ITSELF AND GOT PRIME SHIPPING ON.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Oh good, 
No unborn babies here.  I am safe.


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

AngryGames said:


> ... CLAWS IT BOUGHT FROM ITSELF AND GOT PRIME SHIPPING ON.


Right? Because the evil genius is: got free shipping too, yo.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## Moist_Tissue (Dec 6, 2013)

When I worked at Amazon (and it remains the same), corporate employees weren't expected to be tied to a 9-5 schedule, frequently could work from home, many had non-traditional work schedules, each org had a pool of funds to be used on employee social events, there were trips to baseball games during "work hours", opportunities to meet celebrities, and a twice yearly corporate get-together for all employees and their families. I mean, it wasn't Boeing, but it wasn't bad, either. 

(Of course the burn out rate was still 2 years but that's a minor point.)


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

DianaGabriel said:


> This is what got me:
> 
> Are they talking about also-boughts? Otherwise known as "How Amazon Works"?
> 
> I was very bummed to see a lot of authors I really like on that list. Sigh.


Around the time this whole uproar started, there was a feature called "Comparable books at a lower price" or something along those lines which was a sort of banner that appeared above some trad pub books that later turned out to be Hachette books.

I recall seeing it at the Amazon.com page for Ann Leckie's _Ancillary Justice_. Ironically, the "comparable book at a cheaper price" banner featured generic military SF published by Baen, i.e. the books were not even remotely comparable.


----------



## Janet Michelson (Jun 20, 2012)

Yes, James Patterson, we are well aware of your position: Soon, very soon, there will be no books worth reading, and no authors who know how to write. And it's all Amazon's fault. The earth is flat, the sky is falling, blah, blah, blah. We hear the same thing from you year after year, but it doesn't happen. It will never happen. 

Tomorrow the Big 5 could all disappear forever, and there would still be good quality new books to read. The fear mongering wears thin over time. He must think all readers are idiots who believe anything he writes regardless of the facts.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

If he thinks readers really give a rat's behind, he is mistaken.  James Patterson vanishes/JA Konrath and friends appear.  Same genre.  Different publisher.    People will just think Patterson is not writing anymore.  It happens.  No skin off the reader's nose.
Oh and very personal opinion.  JA Konrath actually writes better than Patterson.  
Also I pay more for an unused Konrath e-book than I ever will for a used Patterson hardback.


----------



## Frank Zubek (Apr 27, 2010)

cinisajoy said:


> If he thinks readers really give a rat's behind, he is mistaken. James Patterson vanishes/JA Konrath and friends appear. Same genre. Different publisher. People will just think Patterson is not writing anymore. It happens. No skin off the reader's nose.
> Oh and very personal opinion. JA Konrath actually writes better than Patterson.
> Also I pay more for an unused Konrath e-book than I ever will for a used Patterson hardback.


Patterson has grown into a company of his own the way he cranks out books....with the help of other writers who seem to have some spare time on their hands between their own stuff....and he has become the official spokesman for the rest of the other writers. Aside from Preston, aren't there any other writers who want to step the microphone and let Patterson take a break from his soapbox? And if not, it makes me wonder if they are all truly behind this fully or just stuck with it due to a contract obligation?


----------



## pauldude000 (May 22, 2013)

Lydniz said:


> I'd play my tiny violin but it's so small I can't find it.


ROFL

Rub your thumb in tiny circles on your forefinger. When someone asks what you are doing, explain that you are listening to the song "My Heart Bleeds for You" on the world's smallest record player.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

Steve Sasson, the Kodak engineer who invented the first digital camera in 1975, characterized the initial corporate response to his invention this way: But it was filmless photography, so management's reaction was, 'that's cute--but don't tell anyone about it.'

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

Former Random House CEO Peter Olson:

Publishers will likely continue to overbid for potential bestsellers, justifying their offers on marginal contribution from outdated sales projection models. This means bad news for other writers, as the willingness of publishers to invest time and money in developing new projects and of retailers to risk stockpiling unknown authors may drop precipitously.

(source http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-petrocelli/no-one-warned-the-dinosau_b_374796.html)

Five short years ago:

Walmart, Target, Costco, and other mass merchandisers now control about 30% of the book market; Barnes & Noble and Borders have another 30%; Amazon.com claims another 15%.

(source http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-petrocelli/no-one-warned-the-dinosau_b_374796.html)

And in 2011

Executives Surveyed
In conjunction with Digital Book World, Forrester also conducted a survey of American publishing executives about the digital future. They spoke to 35 executives representing 27 different companies (firms that are responsible for a total of 65% of overall publishing revenue in the US).

Overall, two-thirds of executives said they felt readers read more because of e-books and 74% felt the that consumers were "better off" because of the introduction of e-books.

(source: http://publishingperspectives.com/2011/01/half-of-us-publishers-expect-e-books-to-be-dominant-by-2014/)


----------



## RaeC (Aug 20, 2013)

Randall Wood said:


> He (Patterson) already is!


I made the mistake of reading this comment while drinking water. LOL


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Frank Zubek said:


> Patterson has grown into a company of his own the way he cranks out books....with the help of other writers who seem to have some spare time on their hands between their own stuff....and he has become the official spokesman for the rest of the other writers. Aside from Preston, aren't there any other writers who want to step the microphone and let Patterson take a break from his soapbox? And if not, it makes me wonder if they are all truly behind this fully or just stuck with it due to a contract obligation?


I see no reason why authors couldn't abstain from signing, just because they have book contracts with hachette. No one forced them to sign. I doubt NOT signing one's name to an open letter would have a great impact on their publishing contracts. If they'd signed _Hugh's_ letter, maybe, but there are plenty of trad pubbed authors whose names are not on that list, and I'm sure they'll be fine.

Cora - thanks! I didn't know about that. At least they're not referring to the also boughts, I thought my head would explode with that one.


----------



## Maia Sepp Ross (May 10, 2013)

AngryGames said:


> From now on, whenever I see someone saying something positive from Amazon, I'm going to just imitate Vaal and bash Amazon openly, reminding you all that Amazon wants to KILL THEIR WORKERS. Amazon HATES WORKERS and wants them to DIE. That's after Amazon eats the UNBORN FETUS FROM YOUR WOMB. Because Amazon is evil and I have to find every single mention of Amazon in this forum so I can tell you how AMAZON WANTS TO KILL YOU AFTER TAKING OVER YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, YOUR MARRIAGE, AND EATS A BABY FROM YOUR BLOODY WOMB THAT IT JUST RIPPED OPEN WITH SHARP CLAWS IT BOUGHT FROM ITSELF AND GOT PRIME SHIPPING ON.


Well, I just choked on my ice cream. Which I didn't even know you could do. .


----------



## Colin Taber (Apr 4, 2011)

Randall Wood said:


> He (Patterson) already is!


This!

When I used to be part of the management team at Borders (Bondi and Perth) we used to laugh hysterically when a new James Patterson book arrived (pretty much every month). So much white space and huge text point size on the fonts! I'd be amazed if any of them were over 45,000 words, and all, of course, stretched out over 300 pages at a premium price!


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

At what stage do the moderators get fed up acting as sub-editors and permanently rename this thread "The Merged Thread - merged again."


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

Interesting article. Don't know if anyone posted this link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/business/media/plot-thickens-as-900-writers-battle-amazon.html


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

That little "authorly" rustic shack was a nice touch.  LOL


----------



## Avis Black (Jun 12, 2012)

The support of trad authors for Hachette is only going to last until those authors' sales flag because they've gone out of fashion.  Hachette will then offer only lousy contracts or dump those authors completely.  It's only a matter of time for most of those people.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

My first thought was Ok guess I won't be reading them.    Did they actually pull their books from Amazon or are they just talking out their _____?


----------



## williamvw (Mar 12, 2012)

I subscribe to David Farland's "Kick in the Pants" daily emailing, which this morning linked to the Authors United letter. Disappointing, as I usually enjoy his emailings and find them educational. Not today, though.


----------



## Jash (Apr 4, 2013)

I got a laugh out of "It is a rambling love song to the retailer", but beyond that it's a hell of a one sided take on the situation.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

It would be interesting to see the actual details of the REAL proposals put forth by both parties, not just the phony negotiating positions used as propaganda for the masses, but we never will. Allegedly, Hachette wants Amazon to sell the books at full list, and Amazon wants to adjust the selling price as it sees fit. Hachette's position seems to be that Amazon's discounting will severely harm bookstores and other resellers, while Amazon wants to offer the most favorable price possible. (I won't speculate on other possible motives. They've been thoroughly discussed in other threads.)

Indies accept that Amazon can sell their books at whatever price it chooses, as long as we receive our established royalty rate based on the LIST price. But what if our royalty rate was computed against NET (or SP), as most trad publishing contracts require with authors. Does anyone know if all trad publishing contracts with Amazon are based on LIST price royalties? Just wondering.


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

Hmm. That dolphin-whale meat ban petition really got some traction. That's where the action is. I think the battle of myriad pygmies vs Amazon will be won by whomever figures out how to team up with the anti-whale meat people.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2014)

scribblr said:


> Indies accept that Amazon can sell their books at whatever price it chooses, as long as we receive our established royalty rate based on the LIST price. But what if our royalty rate was computed against NET (or SP), as most trad publishing contracts require with authors. Does anyone know if all trad publishing contracts with Amazon are based on LIST price royalties? Just wondering.


Actually, you have it backwards. If you are on the 70% royalty, you are paid based on the SALE price, which is not the same as the list price. If Amazon price matches your $9.99 book to $5.99, you get paid 70% of $5.99. If you are on the 35% royalty, _then/ you are paid on the LIST price, so if Amazon sold your $9.99 book for $5.99, you would be paid 35% on the $9.99.

Part of the disconnect is we think in terms of "royalties." In normal retail, you think in terms of discounts. So Amazon pays a fixed price for the book based off a discount on the list, and then sells the book for whatever price it wants. So If my book is listed at $25, and I sell it to Amazon for a 50% discount, they pay $12.50. They can then sell it for whatever price they want. It doesn't matter what they sell it for because they already paid me.

Even with ebooks, most of the large houses are working with a normal "wholesale" contract, where Amazon pays a fixed price for the book. Even with agency pricing, where the publisher sets the fixed price, Amazon is still taking a fixed discount.

In addition, in PRINT, royalties are generally calculated on LIST price. Many large houses also calculate ebook royalties on List as well (though the norm with small presses is net)._


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Is this a news article or an editorial, because the anti-Amazon spin in it is pretty much making me dizzy?


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

So is it hot pokers or thumb screws for whoever starts the next Amazon / Hachette thread?


----------



## Janet Michelson (Jun 20, 2012)

Christopher Bunn said:


> Hmm. That dolphin-whale meat ban petition really got some traction. That's where the action is. I think the battle of myriad pygmies vs Amazon will be won by whomever figures out how to team up with the anti-whale meat people.


Where's the emoticon for LMFAO? BEST. POST. OF. THE. DAY.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

> From now on, whenever I see someone saying something positive from Amazon, I'm going to just imitate Vaal and bash Amazon openly, reminding you all that Amazon wants to KILL THEIR WORKERS. Amazon HATES WORKERS and wants them to DIE. That's after Amazon eats the UNBORN FETUS FROM YOUR WOMB. Because Amazon is evil and I have to find every single mention of Amazon in this forum so I can tell you how AMAZON WANTS TO KILL YOU AFTER TAKING OVER YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, YOUR MARRIAGE, AND EATS A BABY FROM YOUR BLOODY WOMB THAT IT JUST RIPPED OPEN WITH SHARP CLAWS IT BOUGHT FROM ITSELF AND GOT PRIME SHIPPING ON.
> 
> Cute.
> 
> No, really, I just want to pinch your cheeks and tousle your hair, you scamp.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Actually, you have it backwards. If you are on the 70% royalty, you are paid based on the SALE price, which is not the same as the list price. If Amazon price matches your $9.99 book to $5.99, you get paid 70% of $5.99. If you are on the 35% royalty, _then/ you are paid on the LIST price, so if Amazon sold your $9.99 book for $5.99, you would be paid 35% on the $9.99.
> _


_

The Indie agreement with Amazon is that we establish a LIST price and not offer the book at a lower price anywhere else. If you do offer it at a lesser price elsewhere, in violation of the agreement, they LOWER the list price to agree with the selling price at the other vendor, even though they retain the original stated price on the site for reference, with a line through it to show it's no longer the LIST price on Amazon. You may call it SALE price if you wish, but they have not put it on sale, the publisher has, by violating the Amazon agreement. We may be dealing with semantics here, but that's the basis for many discussions.

As far as the royalties at the 35% rate go, I'll accept your statements as factual since I have no experience there. I've never sold a book below 2.99 so my only experience with the 35% royalties is where Amazon takes twice their justified share because they send the book via the internet to Japan, Mexico, India, or Brazil, or anyplace where they have not established a 'cloud' store. However, it doesn't seem reasonable that if someone checks the 35% box for their book and sets the price at 9.99, then offers it on say-- Smashwords for 99 cents, causing Amazon to price match, that Amazon would pay you 35% of 9.99. Perhaps I just misunderstand your post._


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

In case this of interest, I'll be taking this issue - and my pro-Amazon assessment - to the world of academe in the Keynote Address I'll be giving at Baylor University on September 25, to mark the 50th anniversary of the publication of Marshall McLuhan's Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man

An abstract of the Keynote follows. There'll be a video of it up on YouTube some time soon after the talk.

The Medium of the Book: Fifty Years after Understanding Media

A half century after the publication of McLuhan's Understanding Media seems like a good time to examine the recent evolution of the book itself as a medium. In Understanding Media, McLuhan quotes the French poet Alphonse de Lamartine's circa 1830 observation that "the book arrives too late". Today, in a revolution as important as the introduction of Gutenberg's press, books can arrive instantly anywhere in the world, via Kindles and other ebooks. But the most significant part of this development may pertain not to readers but authors, who can now can publish books without a publisher and within an hour or less after the book has been written. The advantages and disadvantages of this bypassing of the traditional gatekeeper for authors and the world at large will be explored -- they are mostly advantages -- as well as the decline of gatekeeping in other media. Current conflicts, such as the dispute between Amazon and the traditional publisher Hachette will be examined. Connections between the evolution of the book and other facets of writing on the Web will be traced, including the capacity of readers to communicate directly and easily with authors, in modes akin to the "intelligent writing" that Socrates yearned for in the Phaedrus.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2014)

scribblr said:


> However, it doesn't seem reasonable that if someone checks the 35% box for their book and sets the price at 9.99, then offers it on say-- Smashwords for 99 cents, causing Amazon to price match, that Amazon would pay you 35% of 9.99. Perhaps I just misunderstand your post.


In _that_ scenario, it is still a violation of the Amazon TOS. However, the violation is only triggered by offering a lower LIST price. However some vendors do actually discount all on their own. For example, Google Play placed one of my titles on sale all on their own. My LIST price is the same on Google Play as on Amazon, but Google play is offering a sale price. If Amazon chose to match that sale price, that is their decision. I've abided by the terms and set the list price the same on Google Play as it is on Amazon.

_Point of clarification:_ I have in the past deliberately set books to 35% that were above $2.99 in order to trigger Amazon's sales mechanisms. Sometimes Amazon would decide to place books on sale all by itself, and in those cases I was always paid off the list price, not the sale price. I haven't done this this year so I went to the TOS to pull up the actual text. It appears they have changed the language in the TOS to make no differentiation, however there is some residual language still there that seems to reflect the previous terms.



> If we match a free promotion of your Digital Book somewhere else, your Royalty during that promotion will be zero. *My note: There was previously additional information here that explains the parentheses statement that follows* (Unlike under the 70% Royalty Option, if we match a price for your Digital Book that is above zero, it won't change the calculation of your Royalties indicated in C. above.)


Without the missing line, the statement in parentheses makes no sense since there is, technically no different between the 35% and 70% to be "unlike." I have to assume this change occurred sometime at the end of last year, since that was the last time I used the 35% terms on purpose for a higher priced item.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

SevenDays said:


> Oh gawd. Did you see the James Patterson thing on CNN.com?
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/07/opinion/patterson-if-i-were-jeff-bezos/index.html?hpt=hp_t3


Did you see Joe Konrath's excellent response?

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/08/if-we-were-james-patterson.html


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

PamelaKelley said:


> They should be sending a letter to their publisher instead, telling them to please work something out with Amazon.


Exactly this. Hachette has refused to even meet with Amazon for over six months now. Yet some still blame Amazon for the mess.

I sense Israel/Gaza parallels...


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

AngryGames said:


> Oh, look, the only argument anyone can ever make. How come no one who bashes Amazon ever talks about the fact they did something about it? Oh boo hoo, they made warehouse workers get too hot, then when someone got sick, the media blew up, Amazon fixed the issue, but let's just keep bashing them over this one thing because we don't have any arguments beyond that.


Exactly. +1


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

scribblr said:


> Interesting article. Don't know if anyone posted this link.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/business/media/plot-thickens-as-900-writers-battle-amazon.html


Joe's working overtime combating the stupid here:

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/08/david-streitfeld-embarassment-to-new.html


----------



## zoe tate (Dec 18, 2013)

scribblr said:


> Interesting article. Don't know if anyone posted this link.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/business/media/plot-thickens-as-900-writers-battle-amazon.html


Interesting indeed.

Here's the BBC's take on it - "Authors rally against Amazon in Hachette dispute": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28703264


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/08/authors-ad-new-york-times-petition-amazon?commentpage=1

comments from people on the Guardian site are disheartening to be honest.


----------



## beccaprice (Oct 1, 2011)

Can anyone tell me whether Nora Roberts has signed any of Patterson's letters? because I'll be heartbroken if she has - I'd hate to drop her down to borrows rather than autobuy.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

phildukephd said:


> I NEVER say ANYTHING about Amazon, because it could be misunderstood, and then the Zon steamroller might flatten me like a pancake.
> 
> As for the others having given up, they have been beaten up, both in and out of court. When your opponent has like Zon 30 billion dollars, and is the major player, you can be sure you will lose. And all of Zon's opponents have lost.


You SERIOUSLY think that Amazon has more money that the Murdoch empire? Not really. Nor do their deep pockets come even close to those of Apple.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

CraigInOregon said:


> Did you see Joe Konrath's excellent response?
> 
> http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/08/if-we-were-james-patterson.html


Joe is the Stephen Colbert of the indie world.


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

beccaprice said:


> Can anyone tell me whether Nora Roberts has signed any of Patterson's letters? because I'll be heartbroken if she has - I'd hate to drop her down to borrows rather than autobuy.


Unfortunately, she is. See http://authorsunited.net/


----------



## Navigator (Jul 9, 2014)

PaulLev said:
 

> Unfortunately, she is. See http://authorsunited.net/


Well that's disappointing.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Actually, you have it backwards. If you are on the 70% royalty, you are paid based on the SALE price, which is not the same as the list price. If Amazon price matches your $9.99 book to $5.99, you get paid 70% of $5.99. If you are on the 35% royalty, _then/ you are paid on the LIST price, so if Amazon sold your $9.99 book for $5.99, you would be paid 35% on the $9.99.
> 
> _


_

Julie, I have to disagree with this section of your post. Right now, in their infinite wisdom, Amazon has one of my ebooks on sale. Here is the link: http://www.amazon.com/The-Olympus-Device-Book-One-ebook/dp/B00EW5BSIM/ref=tmm_kin_title_0

This is not a price-match. I did nothing to instigate this discount. On my KDP Bookshelf, it is listed at $9.99. Yet, I'm still receiving full royalty on the "list" price of $9.99.

Maybe I'm reading something wrong here, but I believe this situation goes against what you were describing.

As a matter of fact, if you look at that link, you'll see a "what's this" help link next to the ebook's List Price. If you hover over that spot, it even says $9.99 is the list price established by the publisher. Now I'm sure Amazon didn't do that just for old Joe's tome._


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Joe_Nobody said:


> This is not a price-match. I did nothing to instigate this discount. On my KDP Bookshelf, it is listed at $9.99. Yet, I'm still receiving full royalty on the "list" price of $9.99.


This is not what Julie is talking about she is referring to KDP matching a discount on another platform. If you do nothing to instigate the discount (including staying within T&C) then you are paid list just as you are on Google Play who nearly always discount. If Amazon price match Google Play then you are paid sale if you are on 70%. As far as KDP is concerned a sale price offered by another retailer is something instigated by you.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Mercia McMahon said:


> This is not what Julie is talking about she is referring to KDP matching a discount on another platform. If you do nothing to instigate the discount (including staying within T&C) then you are paid list just as you are on Google Play who nearly always discount. If Amazon price match Google Play then you are paid sale if you are on 70%. As far as KDP is concerned a sale price offered by another retailer is something instigated by you.


I read the post Julie originally posted about as having nothing to do with pricematching. She introduced it into the discussion and it's all a muddle now.


----------



## VincentZandri (Apr 21, 2010)

_Preston, an admitted wimp, talks tough via the NYTimes ..._

I've been in the limelight recently with my take on the Amazon/Hachette situation. My opinion on the matter is said to be somewhat unique in that I don't support one side or the other. I would like to see a healthy publishing environment where many publishers compete for the right to publish great books for low costs to consumers. Seems like a no-brainer to me. I said as much on my interview this week at Fox News.

Recently The New York Times featured me in an article that was pretty much balanced in its take on the publishing war situation, if you want to call it that. The reporter, David Streitfeld, and I have become professional friends over the years we've corresponded via Internet, telephone, and more recently, in person. But the latest article the journalist penned regarding Douglas Preston and his encouraging 900 authors to sign a petition against Amazon and its practices is so off base as to be not considered journalism, but instead, an attack on a company that has treated me, my books, my family, and my career, far better than the corporate giants who make up the Big 5.

(Me, taking a breath, ...)

Questions and more:

--Why do I feel like The New York Times, and Mr. Streitfeld in particular, take an opinion of Amazon Publishing that is not far different from Jimmy Carter's take on the terrorist organization Hamas, which utilizes little children as human shields to protect their missiles which they indiscriminately lob at Israel? Amazon Publishing wasn't born with the sole purpose to destroy Big Publishing anymore than Israel was created to crush Palestine. AP was born as a result of Big Publishing's mistakes, greed, and mismanagement. They have thrived out of a reader's basic need for good books at low prices. They have thrived out of an author's need to make a living without being a slave to an antiquated system that places writers at the bottom of the totem pole.

--What is wrong with a major publishing company that wants to treat its authors like human beings and offer books up to its readers at low costs, and willing to take a huge loss as the same time? It's easy for the Times to select an author like Preston to give them the cocaine they need for their anti-Amazon fix, when said author is speaking to them from a cozy writer's cabin on a golden pond only feet away from his mansion. Of course Preston doesn't want to see change, folks. He's swimming in Hachette loot. Do you think he gives a rat's ass about the mid-list author barely making a living? Trust me mid-list author, you have about as much chance of being invited to the Preston's for dinner as Nancy Pellosi does of housing all those poor south-of-the-border kids who were dropped off at the border.

--Have we, as a country, become so disenchanted with "winners" and "doers" that we want nothing more than to see success become failure? Have we become jealous and bitter over someone else's success? Preston describes himself in the NYTimes piece as a wimp and a boy who used to run from fights. That's pathetic. I prefer the company of strong people who stand up for strong values.

--I was treated so poorly by a Big 5 publisher that I nearly had a nervous breakdown. For certain, their dropping of me and many other authors over a corporate merger, resulted in my wife and I divorcing when I nearly went bankrupt. People in the business whom I thought were my friends turned out to be morally corrupt and concerned with saving themselves.

--It took me years to battle back to my level of success when none of the Big 5 would touch me because I hadn't earned out my advance (Of course I didn't earn out my advance. I was dropped before I had the chance!). Because in the publishing business in NYC, if you don't earn out your advance, it's not the publisher's fault. It's the author's fault. But when you score, it's because of an awesome publisher marketing program. Later on, when I was able to sell hundreds of thousands of copies of these same books via Amazon Publishing, suddenly, I'm not only back to making a living, I'm building up an audience that my Big 5 Publisher prevented me from establishing by not only dropping me, but by holding my book rights hostage for 8 years ... Hey Hachette and the Big 5, if you're gonna drop an author, then how's about releasing their books rights immediately!!!!?. Perhaps Mr. Stretfield would like to write an article about that.

--Listen up Hachette Authors, it's not Amazon Publishing that's holding you and your books hostage. It's Hachette Publishing's corporate giants and their Hampton's beach house mortgages and their Park Avenue rentals. Wake up, you are being used in a ploy meant to dismantle a success story, when in fact, reporters like Mr. Streitfeld are not only championing an antiquated and author-unfriendly system (and this goes for you too bookstores and your "returns" policy), they are doing so not with true reporting, but with propaganda. This isn't journalism, it's butchery.

--I still support a healthy publishing environment, and I hope to God that publishers like Hachette wake up and realize that by trying to fabricate a bully out of another publisher is really just a maneuver to tug at the heartstrings of those who are ill informed. Let's all get on the same page and create a new New York and a new publishing world with lots of publishers who offer great books at low costs. Come on David Streitfeld, you are so much better than this! And sorry, Big 5 New York, this might mean that you have to give up the Broadway location, move to Jersey, and buy a metal building for both publishing and distribution. Instead of lunch at Les Halles, you can eat at Franks' Diner. Costs less, the savings of which will be passed on to authors and readers. And you authors out there who are drinking the NYTimes and Preston Kool-Aid, save yourself now. You are being used for their own profit, for their own agendas, and as a palliative for something that is seriously missing in their souls and in their lives.

But don't take my word for it. Berry Eisler has written far more eloquently about this matter than I ever could in a response to today's NYTimes article. Get Berry's blog here:


----------



## WordNinja (Jun 26, 2014)

That pretty much says it all. Thank you!


----------



## H. S. St. Ours (Mar 24, 2012)

kward said:


> Okay *out of breath* I've finally caught up with reading this thread - when will the part about Amazon winning be written? 20 pages from now? 30 pages?


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

> Okay *out of breath* I've finally caught up with reading this thread - when will the part about Amazon winning be written? 20 pages from now? 30 pages?


I don't think that's written in stone. Hachette is stalling until September, when the DoJ's two year moratorium expires on them being able to negotiate a non-discounting deal with Amazon.


----------



## Saul Tanpepper (Feb 16, 2012)

VincentZandri said:


> But don't take my word for it. Berry Eisler has written far more eloquently about this matter than I ever could in a response to today's NYTimes article.


I'd say that was pretty darn eloquent. More importantly, it was heartfelt, something noticeably lacking in many of the screeds I've read elsewhere lately.


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

Ah... a new shot in the battle between Amazon and Hachette:



> Dear KDP Author,
> 
> Just ahead of World War II, there was a radical invention that shook the foundations of book publishing. It was the paperback book. This was a time when movie tickets cost 10 or 20 cents, and books cost $2.50. The new paperback cost 25 cents - it was ten times cheaper. Readers loved the paperback and millions of copies were sold in just the first year.
> 
> ...


I'm assuming every author that published via KDP got a copy of this?


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

Hm. Yes.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

kward said:


> Okay *out of breath* I've finally caught up with reading this thread - when will the part about Amazon winning be written? 20 pages from now? 30 pages?


Judging by this morning's email plea from KDP the answer is never. That email was virtually an admission of defeat. Amazon need Hachette more than Hachette need Amazon and the whole world is getting to see than that (although only authors are noticing).


----------



## Saul Tanpepper (Feb 16, 2012)

Mercia McMahon said:


> Judging by this morning's email plea from KDP the answer is never. That email was virtually an admission of defeat. Amazon need Hachette more than Hachette need Amazon and the whole world is getting to see than that (although only authors are noticing).


Yeah, that wasn't my take on this either. While it does have a hint of desperation to it, that may only be because this is the first we've seen from the Amazon camp. A response is probably overdue.

On a side note, I hope David Gaughran's blog has some good bandwidth capability.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2014)

> The famous author George Orwell came out publicly and said about the new paperback format, if "publishers had any sense, they would combine against them and suppress them." Yes, George Orwell was suggesting collusion.


http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/09/orwell-is-amazons-latest-target-in-battle-against-hachette/?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes

WOW! Talk about doublespeak!



> First, when Orwell wrote that line, he was celebrating Penguin paperbacks, not urging suppression or collusion. Does Amazon, which early in its e-book days made copies of "1984″ vanish from Kindles after discovering it did not own the rights, really think George Orwell - of all people! - would want to suppress books?
> 
> Here is what the writer said in the New English Weekly on March 5, 1936: "The Penguin Books are splendid value for sixpence, so splendid that if the other publishers had any sense they would combine against them and suppress them."


Orwell was not suggesting "suppression" and to imply otherwise is like accusing Martin Luther King of fighting against African American voting rights. He was a huge fan of the paperback.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

DTW said:


> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/best-thing-for-books-is-more-power-to-amazon-183232178.html
> 
> This is what something approaching *proper* journalism looks like, as opposed to 'write X amount of words before the deadline'.


Actually it is very poor research and follows the post-Kindle myth that Amazon invented reader-friendly eBook pricing. Palm Digital Media was selling traditional published books at less than the price of a paperback in 2001. They and the original company Peanut Press were the first to convince publishers to sell for less than physical books.


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

DTW said:


> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/best-thing-for-books-is-more-power-to-amazon-183232178.html
> 
> This is what something approaching *proper* journalism looks like, as opposed to 'write X amount of words before the deadline'. Objective, supporting facts, drawing upon non-PR sources, asking questions about the statements and conclusions. The headline is pure clickbait -- which is unfortunate but par for the course for 21st century Internet -- but the article itself is properly done.


Fantastic! Thanks for the link.

I completely agree - Big 5 needs to pretend print publishing is viable for as long as possible, and pretend their roles as gatekeepers and pricefixers are critical to the ballyhoo art world. The problem is, it's the consumers who are driving actual demand (bless their hearts!). If Amazon wants to be elastic to suck the pennies out of that demand, then yes, please let's. And thank you.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Mercia McMahon said:


> Actually it is very poor research and follows the post-Kindle myth that Amazon invented reader-friendly eBook pricing. Palm Digital Media was selling traditional published books at less than the price of a paperback in 2001. They and the original company Peanut Press were the first to convince publishers to sell for less than physical books.


That may be true, but there were no affordable devices on which to read them! Amazon took it to another level by managing to combine an affordable device, attractive to high volume reader with LOTS of content that people actually wanted to read. And they made it incredibly easy to get that content onto the device.

I've been interested in having an ereader since watching Star Trek as a kid. As far as I'm concerned, though, until the introduction of the Kindle in November of 2007, ebooks and ereaders were a niche. Now, they're mainstream.


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

Actually, I remember reading digital books and magazines on BBSs in the late 80s. WHERE WERE YOU THEN, JEFF BEZOS?? HAH??


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

If I send an email will I get pre-orders? Will I be able to buy advertising? Will I be able to play in Select/KU and not be exclusive? If the answer is yes, I'm happy to pen a missive.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Ann in Arlington said:


> That may be true, but there were no affordable devices on which to read them! Amazon took it to another level by managing to combine an affordable device, attractive to high volume reader with LOTS of content that people actually wanted to read. And they made it incredibly easy to get that content onto the device.
> 
> I've been interested in having an ereader since watching Star Trek as a kid. As far as I'm concerned, though, until the introduction of the Kindle in November of 2007, ebooks and ereaders were a niche. Now, they're mainstream.


Palm PDAs were available for sub $100 how much did the original Kindle cost? Does not change my point that this article was poorly researched. For once it was not claiming that Amazon invented the eBook industry, but was claiming that they were the first to not charge more than the cost of a hardback, when Palm Digital Media beat Amazon to that by six years. I also wonder if Microsoft were charging that much, but I never used their service, although I tried Microsoft Reader with free texts. There was a news report in 2000 of Microsoft Reader forming the basis of an Amazon eBook store, but I don't know if that ever materialised (*according to someone at Passive Voice it did and Amazon's store did often charge more than a hardback for eBooks*).


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

And there was digital music before iPod. That in no way diminishes Apple's role in popularizing it. 

Sent from my LG G2 Android Phone.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

CraigInOregon said:


> And there was digital music before iPod. That in no way diminishes Apple's role in popularizing it.
> 
> Sent from my LG G2 Android Phone.


Not relevant this is about claiming that before Amazon Sony and Microsoft charged more for an eBook than the hardback costs. On further reflection I think that research is so bad that they have muddled the price of eBooks for The Rocket with eBooks for Microsoft Reader.


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

Monique said:


> If I send an email will I get pre-orders? Will I be able to buy advertising? Will I be able to play in Select/KU and not be exclusive? If the answer is yes, I'm happy to pen a missive.


Amen to all that. Otherwise, I'm doing my usual thing of sitting on the sidelines.


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

DTW said:


> Supporting Hachette is to support the destruction of ebooks. Any indie that wants that is not acting logically.


Agreed 100%


----------



## ElleT (Feb 2, 2014)

Monique said:


> If I send an email will I get pre-orders? Will I be able to buy advertising? Will I be able to play in Select/KU and not be exclusive? If the answer is yes, I'm happy to pen a missive.


There it is. Summed up.


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

Monique said:


> If I send an email will I get pre-orders? Will I be able to buy advertising? Will I be able to play in Select/KU and not be exclusive? If the answer is yes, I'm happy to pen a missive.


I'd settle for Zon just dropping the exclusivity, but the others would be nice. Either way, I'm not their b----, the same as I'm not Hachette's.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Mercia McMahon said:


> Actually it is very poor research and follows the post-Kindle myth that Amazon invented reader-friendly eBook pricing. Palm Digital Media was selling traditional published books at less than the price of a paperback in 2001. They and the original company Peanut Press were the first to convince publishers to sell for less than physical books.


Yes, Peanut Press set the table (then promptly proceeded to throw it all away, but thats a tangent for a different thread) when they convinced publishers to sell some items for for less. However, because they could not command the wholesale discounts that Amazon was able to, as a result, their sales prices were based on list price. As an example, Shadow of the Hegemon was selling for $18.16 when released in 2001, which could have been a deal at the time because the only other format it was available in at the time was hardback. Wait a year for the paperback, or save the cost of the paperback to get the ebook?

https://web.archive.org/web/20010129020900/http://www.peanutpress.com/book.cgi/0312700741/005055-7249-85101

Many paperbacks were also priced pretty high, because those sales prices were based of list price.

https://web.archive.org/web/20010127231200/http://www.peanutpress.com/book.cgi/0743423089/005055-7249-85101

I remember Peanut Press because they sold Star Trek books at close to retail price, maybe a dollar less.

So yes, Peanut Press invented reader friendly pricing. They couldn't maintain it. When Palm bought them in 2001, the average price on an ebook that was also available in paperback was $7.00.

At the end of the day, Peanut Press is Benz 1885 Patent Motorwagon, and Kindle is the Model T.

If you want a look at the Edsel, I suggest HarperCollins.com

Dav


----------



## Conrad.Murray (Aug 1, 2014)

An ad appears in the New York Times today asking Amazon "in the strongest possible terms to stop harming the livelihood of the authors on whom it has built its business".

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/08/authors-ad-new-york-times-petition-amazon

No doubt it won't be long before Howey, Guaghran and and other Amazon "supporters" turn up put the contrary view.

I try to be neutral on Amazon but it can be difficult. Everything they do seems intent on stifling competition. KU is undeniably an attempt to kill Smashwords and others. Long term independent authors may not be immune. As one man/woman businesses in the ring with an 800lb gorilla the hugging and cuddling may not last

There will be numerous people who will post to this thread to whom Amazon gave first and possibly only chance.

But there is also a nasty side to the Amazon business. Kindle Unlimited unashamedly seeks to be monopolistic - albeit with a 500,000 strong pile of books that most people do not want to buy, many of them written by people on this forum.

In fact Amazon seems to be creating a marketplace to its own advantage where there are more stalls than customers.

Am I right?

What's your view?


----------



## Frank Zubek (Apr 27, 2010)

Saw this on deadline Hollywood
http://www.deadline.com/2014/08/amazon-in-stand-off-with-disney-over-sales-of-captain-america-maleficent/#more-810161


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Conrad.Murray said:


> An ad appears in the New York Times today asking Amazon "in the strongest possible terms to stop harming the livelihood of the authors on whom it has built its business".
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/08/authors-ad-new-york-times-petition-amazon
> 
> No doubt it won't be long before Howey, Guaghran and and other Amazon "supporters" turn up put the contrary view.


Well, the petition they started that has eight times as many signatures as prestons could be a sign they already have....



> I try to be neutral on Amazon but it can be difficult. Everything they do seems intent on stifling competition. KU is undeniably an attempt to kill Smashwords and others. Long term independent authors may not be immune. As one man/woman businesses in the ring with an 800lb gorilla the hugging and cuddling may not last


 Well, being the remora stuck to the shark of traditional publishing may not be worth it either, but you make you choices and you live with them. Smashwords, Scribd and Oyster aren't going away, and if KU forces them to stay and their toes and up their game, all the better. Complacency kills more than incompetence does any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Traditional publishers, the music industry, Blockbuster video, they were all complacent.....Amazon isn't a monopoly like Monsanto with soybeans, or your local electric/gas provider.



> There will be numerous people who will post to this thread to whom Amazon gave first and possibly only chance.


 Theres also quite a few authors out there who found new life through amazon.



> But there is also a nasty side to the Amazon business. Kindle Unlimited unashamedly seeks to be monopolistic - albeit with a 500,000 strong pile of books that most people do not want to buy, many of them written by people on this forum.


 But if I go to my local BN, read the first chapter of a book from the shelf and put it back, thats better? Scrib and Oyster aren't trying for market share, they're happy with what they have and have no desire to to get bigger?



> In fact Amazon seems to be creating a marketplace to its own advantage where there are more stalls than customers.


You think to much choice for a customer is bad? Would it be better if Amazon forced you to do all your electronic interactions with it through a proprietary platform it doesn't license, and therefore are unable to use any third party purchases through it?

Dav


----------



## Mark E. Cooper (May 29, 2011)

kward said:


> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/97c3a63e-216d-11e4-a958-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3AEVLtcNN
> 
> Brilliant article posted on their site today - I agree that Amazon undersells the current changes in the industry when comparing the emergence of ebooks to the emergence of paperbacks. It is more on the magnitude of the invention of the printing press.
> 
> EDIT: Oh snap...apparently the article is behind a paywall - apologies for the confusion. When I originally read it no paywall appeared - now it is appearing on my end as well. Basic gist: Amazon empowers the formerly powerless. Good to see some positive coverage for Amazon in the media for a change.


Can't read it. TONS of popups that when deleted take you to something else.


----------



## NoLongerPosting (Apr 5, 2014)

Removed due to site owner's change of TOS.


----------



## S. Elliot Brandis (Dec 9, 2013)

Great article.


----------



## D-C (Jan 13, 2014)

Rickie Blair said:


> Not sure if we're allowed to post this, but here's that FT story:
> 
> _Edited to remove copyrighted content in quoted post. --Betsy_


Here here.


----------



## Bluebonnet (Dec 15, 2013)

Thanks so much, Rickie! That is an excellent, no-nonsense article. I think John Kay is correct in saying that the type of tactics Hachette is using with their top authors are the same that the music publishing industry tried to use with their artists. They convinced a few top musicians that defending the old way of music publishing would protect their careers. As Kay says, "The reality is very different."

I tried to read it on FT too and was defeated by the subscription barrier popups. FT used to let you read a few articles a month free, like other newspapers with paywalls, but apparently they changed their policy and won't let you read anything at all now unless you subscribe. At least that was my experience tonight.


----------



## Evan of the R. (Oct 15, 2013)

"The role of the book publisher has been based on control of access to channels of distribution." 

The FT gets it.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

VincentZandri said:


> My opinion on the matter is said to be somewhat unique in that I don't support one side or the other. I would like to see a healthy publishing environment where many publishers compete for the right to publish great books...


Thank you!

Amazon is great, and I think we are all grateful, but it needs competition--both as a publisher and as a vendor--so that it doesn't take us for granted.


----------



## Maxime LICH (Aug 13, 2014)

The worst thing is a Monopoly situation. So don't put all eggs in the same basket is possibly the best solution for us authors. Do you agree ? Some books through Hachette (exclusive) and some Amazon (exclusive)...  Your opinion welcome. 
Maxime LICH / French writer


----------



## Gennita Low (Dec 13, 2012)

Oh yeah, you can publish through Hachette any time you want .


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

If I understand the disagreement correctly (and that's a big if), I have one good reason why I'd like to see Hachette win:

I have a series of 8 (soon to be 9) books that have sold well for $9.99 (one is $9.00). I would like to combine the entire series into a boxed set and give my customers a 50% discount for buying the whole ball-of-wax. 

But I can't on Amazon. It doesn't make financial sense because of the 70% vs. 35% rule.

I know I could make another series of "mini" box sets, say two titles per set, but that would just confuse the dickens out of some number of readers. 

If Hachette wins, my understanding is that they want to remove the upper limit on the 70% rule, and that would be good for my one little, unimportant-to-everyone-else, example.

Has anyone else considered any benefits in the unlikely event that Amazon is forced to change the rules? I know many of us, as writers of drama, love to wrangle over the worst possible outcome... but have you considered any positives?


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

Regardless of whether Hachette wins or not, it won't change anything for those of us who must abide by Amazon's TOS. If we want to keep the 70% - delivery fees in certain countries without having to be in Select, we MUST price our books $2.99 - $9.99. 

Their contract with publishers is a whole other ball game.


----------



## 90daysnovel (Apr 30, 2012)

Why would Amazon negotiating terms with Hachette mean changing the terms of KDP? Amazon have no incentive to change the rules for KDP authors - if their data shows $9.99 sells more, they'll keep the rules that essentially cap titles at $9.99.

The main win with big publishers getting their high prices is that, even at $9.99, we maintain a competitive edge when it comes to price. Without all the middlemen and NY offices, we can price far lower and make more per copy.


----------



## rashad.freeman001 (Feb 23, 2012)

Well I haven't paid a ton of attention to the argument so my conclusion is probably totally wrong.  I don't know if Hachette has an issue with the price Amazon sets for it's books to the public or the price that they get or sell directly to Amazon.  At any rate I have issues with price restriction in any free market.  Whoever controls the product going to the public should be able to set whatever price they want and the buying public will determine if it's fair.  I like the idea of the big boys selling 20 dollar ebooks as it creates a market for the 4.99 price, which I think a lot of self published books hover around.  When a consumer has a choice between 4.99 hunger games and 4.99 whatever title by mr. unknown the choice seems simple.  Eventually big pub houses will be forced to lower prices as the industry continues to change, but I'd rather it happen naturally than it being forced.  What Amazon should really focus on is completely getting rid of free books.  I think that would benefit everyone if permafree was perma .99 cents.  Just my thoughts.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

90daysnovel said:


> Why would Amazon negotiating terms with Hachette mean changing the terms of KDP? Amazon have no incentive to change the rules for KDP authors - if their data shows $9.99 sells more, they'll keep the rules that essentially cap titles at $9.99.
> 
> The main win with big publishers getting their high prices is that, even at $9.99, we maintain a competitive edge when it comes to price. Without all the middlemen and NY offices, we can price far lower and make more per copy.


I'm not an expert on the US Commercial Codes, but I think Amazon might have some issues in this area offering such a significant difference to one set of suppliers versus another. From what I've read, a business can get away with different terms per supplier as long as they don't directly impact momentary potential. For example, on pre-order buttons, no money exchanges hands until the product actually ships. Grey, perhaps, but I'm sure a good attorney could argue that special "term" didn't mean squat as far as an unfair competitive advantage. Pricing is typically a whole different story.

I have no idea if concessions made to Hachette would be "passed down" to us lowly indies. I think for the most part, Amazon runs by a single set of rules with only a handful of exceptions. There would be a chance that indies would "see" changes.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

To tell you the truth, I hear more rumblings from authors whose books are priced at $7.99 and some whose books are even discounted to the $6 range, about the price of their books being priced to high because they are competing against books in the same genre with prices of $0 - $4.99. 

Big name authors may be able to get readers to pay above $9.99 for their books, but many of the midlist and practically none of the debuts authors can get readers to part with anything over $4.99 - $5.99 for their ebooks.


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2014)

Joe_Nobody said:


> I have no idea if concessions made to Hachette would be "passed down" to us lowly indies. I think for the most part, Amazon runs by a single set of rules with only a handful of exceptions. There would be a chance that indies would "see" changes.


Actually, this is where everyone is getting confused. There has always been two sets of rules: one for trade pubs and one for indies. Trade pubs don't use KDP nor are they held to the same rules. Trade pubs have always been paid 70% of the sale price regardless of price. This is even clear from Amazon's love letter, where if you actually look at the math it is assuming the same percentage payment across the board. Think about it, wouldn't Amazon make that point themselves if they were paying Hachette 35% of a $10.99 title? If you want to rile up Hachette authors, wouldn't Amazon tell them this?


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Actually, this is where everyone is getting confused. There has always been two sets of rules: one for trade pubs and one for indies. Trade pubs don't use KDP nor are they held to the same rules. Trade pubs have always been paid 70% of the sale price regardless of price. This is even clear from Amazon's love letter, where if you actually look at the math it is assuming the same percentage payment across the board. Think about it, wouldn't Amazon make that point themselves if they were paying Hachette 35% of a $10.99 title? If you want to rile up Hachette authors, wouldn't Amazon tell them this?


We are treated differently, less favorably, unless you are in the outliers of self publishers.

If they are forced to lower their prices, many readers (not all) would rather choose a known quantity (brand) over a new one. It will just make getting "discovered" even harder. Once your brand is established, you will have enough repeat buyers that this will not be a concern, but until then, it should be.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Whether or not Amazon discovers they can push the trad pubs around, they most certainly _can_ push us around, so why would they stop?


----------



## Frank Zubek (Apr 27, 2010)

Germany joins the Occupy Amazon movement.....

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/retailing/article/63709-amazon-responds-to-german-authors-protest.html


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> Whether or not Amazon discovers they can push the trad pubs around, they most certainly _can_ push us around, so why would they stop?


* Expanded the August KOLL/KU pot to well over $2.5M in response to high level of use KU has inspired.

* Finally just offered indies the #1 thing on the wish lists most of us had: pre-order buttons for indies.

If that's getting "pushed around," I'd hate to imagine what being "totally dictated to" is like.


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

CraigInOregon said:


> * Expanded the August KOLL/KU pot to well over $2.5M in response to high level of use KU has inspired.


I'm not in Select, so this is of no interest to me whatsoever.



CraigInOregon said:


> * Finally just offered indies the #1 thing on the wish lists most of us had: pre-order buttons for indies.


Again, no interest. It's a bell and whistle, as far as I'm concerned.



CraigInOregon said:


> If that's getting "pushed around," I'd hate to imagine what being "totally dictated to" is like.


As long as there is exclusivity, I will consider myself "pushed around." I have yet to hear an argument that makes me feel otherwise. And for those who cry, "Well, if you don't love absolutely everything Amazon has ever done or ever will do, then you need to pull your books" ... believe me, the possibility is growing day by day.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

Ty Johnston said:


> As long as there is exclusivity, I will consider myself "pushed around." I have yet to hear an argument that makes me feel otherwise. And for those who cry, "Well, if you don't love absolutely everything Amazon has ever done or ever will do, then you need to pull your books" ... believe me, the possibility is growing day by day.


I've had my dealings with both traditional publishing and Amazon. Good and bad for both.

There are some people on this board who won't hear one bad word about Amazon. It doesn't matter what they do, they will defend their actions. I've come to realize and accept that.

And I'm all for opening up *another* outlet that allows me to sell directly to my readers and cuts out the middleman.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Ty Johnston said:


> I'm not in Select, so this is of no interest to me whatsoever.
> 
> Again, no interest. It's a bell and whistle, as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> As long as there is exclusivity, I will consider myself "pushed around." I have yet to hear an argument that makes me feel otherwise. And for those who cry, "Well, if you don't love absolutely everything Amazon has ever done or ever will do, then you need to pull your books" ... believe me, the possibility is growing day by day.


Hate to point this out, Ty, but there is NO exclusivity if you're not in Select. And you said you're not.

So, you have nothing to complain about, really.

We all do business with the retailers we see fit to do business with. Or choose not to do business with them if we don't like the terms.

For example, I approach Apple, Nook, and now Kobo again via D2D, because terms of going direct with them doesn't appeal to me, in one way or another. I go direct with Amazon and Google because I've found ways to work with them that work for me.

I pulled my titles out of Nook when they transformed from PubIt! to Nook Press because I didn't like the changes they made; I used Smashwords for a while, to get my books on that market; I now use D2D.

I sometimes put titles on Amazon that are exclusive for an initial period, then go wide with those titles to other sites.

Those are my choices. There's no Amazon Cop with his sniper-dot on my forehead, telling me, "Enroll in Select, punk! Enroll now!"

I used to be direct with Kobo because I liked their system. I've been pulling out because they've never paid out once in two years, against their own Terms and Conditions. I still like Kobo as a market, but prefer now to approach them via D2D.

I used to be in Smashwords full-bore. I have pulled back, opting out of channels that D2D now serves as well, because personally I hated the pay-delays with Smashwords. (Quarterly, rather than monthly, was my breaking point.)

If Amazon does things that I don't like, I'm totally free to change how and if I utilize them to sell my books.

Yet of all the markets I utilize, I'm happiest with my results on Amazon.

And they control me not at all. If I opt into Select with a title, I go in with full knowledge of the terms and conditions. Kind of endemic to the terminology "opt in."

So does anyone else. No "pushing around" to the relationship. It's a mutual "at will" agreement.

Now, some might argue they feel "pushed around" because they don't have access to the preferred treatment given to those in Select. Hey, if you consider that being pushed around, fine; but one opts into it and gets access to extra benefits, or opts to stay out and not get access to those extra benefits.

It's still a voluntary choice. I can walk into any Wal-Mart in the nation, but if I want to walk into a Sam's Club, I need a membership card. Membership offers access to things you can't find at Wal-Mart. No one makes you join a Sam's Club. It's a choice.

Same goes with regular KDP vs. Select. It's all voluntary.

To claim otherwise is to not understand the agreement entered into in the first place.

And as for pre-order buttons, you can consider it a "bell and whistle" if you wish; that's your right.

But many of us consider it the fulfillment of a long-wished-for feature. I happen to be one who does.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

Frank Zubek said:


> Germany joins the Occupy Amazon movement.....
> 
> http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/retailing/article/63709-amazon-responds-to-german-authors-protest.html


Those buggers are crazy!  The publisher in dispute with Amazon had set a HIGHER wholesale price for ebooks than for their paper books! How can anyone justify that except with the words "We don't care if it doesn't make sense to you, that's the way we like it...."

On the positive side, at least they're not hiding their true intentions behind 'It's for the betterment of literature' guff like Hachette is doing.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

New brainstorm from Joe Konrath: Amazon should stop discounting paper!

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/08/amazon-vs-hachette.html


----------



## Frank Zubek (Apr 27, 2010)

CraigInOregon said:


> New brainstorm from Joe Konrath: Amazon should stop discounting paper!
> 
> http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/08/amazon-vs-hachette.html


Go Joe! Go Joe! Go Joe! Go Joe!


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

CraigInOregon said:


> New brainstorm from Joe Konrath: Amazon should stop discounting paper!
> 
> http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/08/amazon-vs-hachette.html


Someone here made that suggestion back on page 3 or so.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

"We are all about customers and lowering prices for them... right up until we see an avenue to be spiteful toward trad pub because they called us cows like a year ago."


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Haven't seen this posted yet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/15/technology/in-latest-volley-against-amazon-hachettes-writers-target-its-board.html?_r=0


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Wanted to save my opinions for the comments and not the OP, but from my perspective it's yet another biased NYT piece...offering a pretty one-sided tale and more or less dismissing those who might support Amazon's efforts in this.  What a surprise.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

new posts merged with existing thread . . .  why don't y'all bookmark this so you'll know where it is when you find new stuff to share.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Haven't seen this posted yet.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/15/technology/in-latest-volley-against-amazon-hachettes-writers-target-its-board.html?_r=0


The first sentence of the 2nd paragraph had me shaking my head. "Amazon is discouraging its customers from buying the publisher's printed books." Yes, of course they are.... that's how they make their money, by discouraging people from buying things. 

(Reminds me of the Simpsons bit of Homer in the 2008 voting booth, lol.)


----------



## josielitton (Jul 21, 2014)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Haven't seen this posted yet.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/15/technology/in-latest-volley-against-amazon-hachettes-writers-target-its-board.html?_r=0


Rick, thanks very much for posting this. I have a hard time imagining Amazon's board breaking ranks with Bezos to even respond to this but we'll see. With the Fall season underway and Christmas around the corner, it's about time for someone to blink. I just don't think it will be Amazon.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

There's still time to demand we soap Hechette's windows for Halloween.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> There's still time to demand we soap Hechette's windows for Halloween.


Soap their windows? Really?

When TP-ing all the trees in their front yard AND dumping a bucket of pig's blood on them at the big dance is still on the table?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

And there's this, from Joe:

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/09/nonsense-united.html


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

CraigInOregon said:


> And there's this, from Joe:
> 
> http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/09/nonsense-united.html


Tweeted, right after I peed myself laughing.


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

Good Lordy, the millionaires and billionaires are still going at it? 

Good stuff from Hugh and Konrath. Retweeted both.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

From that article:

"Authors United, a group of Hachette writers and their allies, is appealing directly to Amazon’s board. It is warning the board that the reputation of the retailer, and of the directors themselves, is at risk."

I feel sorry for the members of Authors United. 

This reminds me of a phone call I received from Organization X yesterday, asking for me by name and then inquiring how I was voting in the upcoming election. Thank God, I am only on their list as an afterthought. Had I been a true member of their target audience for that phone call, I would have felt pressured to at least lie and say I was voting the way they wanted me to. This is how they manipulate polling data.

I suspect the members of Authors United feel pressured by their publishers to be authors behaving badly. It's sad.


----------



## Frank Zubek (Apr 27, 2010)

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/

Yes, I know these take a while to read through but Konrath's counter pointing ( also known as a better way to do things- IMHO since after all he makes a living off his work as an independent writer)but his continual counter points to each chunk of the letter makes it not only entertaining to read but sheds a fresh light on the whole issue

Hard to believe this has gone on for several months now
I'm so curious to see how it ends what with the holiday season approaching at breakneck speed ( remember- Halloween displays are already on store floors-- that means Thanksgiving ( and Black Friday book sales) are just a blink away) If these guys are STILL wrestling with each other at that time a number of authors strapped to a Hachette contract might be hurting for sales

thoughts?


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Don't the sanctions for price collusion end September 30, 2014? That will shake things up.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

The newest Cup of Joe:

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/10/is-nyt-coverage-of-amazon-vs-hachette.html?m=1

Sent from my LG G2 Android Phone.


----------

