# Most important thread -- more on Hachette/amazon -- open letters, petitions.



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Okay, considering most of my threads are about my man-love for David Adams, that's not saying much. But still, I think this is very important.

Some high-profile authors are trying to mount a campaign against Amazon: http://www.thebookseller.com/news/child-grisham-patterson-amazon-protest.html

A group of us are petitioning fellow authors to instead thank our readers for allowing us to write and publish as we see fit. And we are hoping to dispel many of the myths being thrown about:

https://www.change.org/petitions/authors-to-thank-our-readers-2

If you agree with our sentiment, feel free to sign, to share, and to comment. And if you have thoughts, I would love to have a discussion here in this thread.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

I'm on it.


----------



## travelinged (Apr 6, 2014)

Done!


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Word up, Hugh. I'm not as big as some of you guys who'll sign it, but I want my readers to know how much I appreciate the opportunity to do what I love for my living. Not many people are as lucky as I am. I'm conscious of that every day.


----------



## Twizzlers (Feb 6, 2014)

On it!


----------



## 75910 (Mar 16, 2014)

Done.


----------



## Philip Gibson (Nov 18, 2013)

Signed it.

The petition is addressed to readers. Will readers actually get to see it?


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

I cannot sign a Change.org petition as I am in the final edits of a book that heavily criticises their ethically neutral approach to slacktivism. But then I don't really do petitions anyway.

Having said that the title amused me as it made me think of the myth of the Minotaur's lair. Then when I read the article I thought that these authors have caught their thread on a corner of the labyrinth and mistakenly think that it is still connected to the outside world. They are going deeper and deeper into the darkness and ultimately all they can come up with is a load of old bull.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Philip Gibson said:


> Signed it.
> 
> The petition is addressed to readers. Will readers actually get to see it?


If we share it with them. I hope readers will choose to sign it as well.

The petition is a clunky tool, but we needed some open document that people could sign.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Signed, wholeheartedly.  Shared on G+

But, man, that's a long read. Do readers care enough to read all this?  
It does make a fine counterweight to all them there high-falutin' authors making noise.

How will this reach those who need to see it?


----------



## SandraMiller (May 10, 2011)

Happy to sign.  The crazy, it is strong out there.


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

I signed it and shared on Facebook, so maybe if a lot of people share it there and other places, it'll eventually get the word spreading.



SandraMiller said:


> The crazy, it is strong out there.


No kidding.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Quiss said:


> Signed, wholeheartedly. Shared on G+
> 
> But, man, that's a long read. Do readers care enough to read all this?
> It does make a fine counterweight to all them there high-falutin' authors making noise.
> ...


By you sharing it with your readers. And encouraging them to read it, even though it's a long document.  It's full of good information that will help them understand all the hype surrounding the Amazon vs. Hachette battle from a working author's perspective. That's what I told my readers when I shared it.


----------



## Carol Davis (Dec 9, 2013)

Signed, and shared on Facebook, Hugh.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

I am all for thanking readers.  They're the most important piece in this puzzle and all too often get tossed to the sidelines while various parties bicker.


----------



## John Ellsworth (Jun 1, 2014)

Done! and shared on FB and invited followers to sign!


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2014)

I signed it, although I don't think this issue will keep readers away from Amazon.  Why?  Because it's SUPER convenient for readers to buy books from Amazon.  My husband, a reader and not an author, couldn't care less about this issue.  He'll always buy from Amazon, and there are millions of readers who feel the same way as my husband.


----------



## momilp (Jan 11, 2010)

Signed.


----------



## Adrian Howell (Feb 24, 2013)

Signed. (with a vengeance)


----------



## 鬼 (Sep 30, 2012)

Signed and shared!


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Joliedupre said:


> I signed it, although I don't think this issue will keep readers away from Amazon. Why? Because it's SUPER convenient for readers to buy books from Amazon. My husband, a reader and not an author, couldn't care less about this issue. He'll always buy from Amazon, and there are millions of readers who feel the same way as my husband.


This.

Also, just happened to noticed DWS's latest post -- Who really cares?

Sums up my thoughts pretty well, too. Tradpub is increasingly becoming irrelevant to my publishing and writing goals, so I'm finding I care less about their shenanigans.


----------



## A.W.Hartoin (Dec 27, 2011)

Signed and shared.


----------



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

All done


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Signed! Thanks, Hugh.


----------



## Joseph J Bailey (Jun 28, 2013)

Thanks for helping move this issue forward and creating an opportunity for discussion.


----------



## Randall Wood (Mar 31, 2014)

I'm in Hugh. Well done.


----------



## Brenda Ortega (Jul 22, 2013)

Perhaps the majority of readers don't care, but some do. I'm a teacher, and a colleague of mine asked me about this issue in the hope of seeing all sides of the argument. She was forming an opinion, which would shape her buying habits (some people do incorporate political beliefs into purchasing habits), and she had not heard anything other than the anti-Amazon position being presented in the media.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Joliedupre said:


> I signed it, although I don't think this issue will keep readers away from Amazon. Why? Because it's SUPER convenient for readers to buy books from Amazon. My husband, a reader and not an author, couldn't care less about this issue. He'll always buy from Amazon, and there are millions of readers who feel the same way as my husband.


I agree. I really, really doubt most readers care. They just want to buy their books. And in Romance, they LOVE that they can buy reasonably good books at really reasonable prices. In other words, they love indie books! Tradpub has had to start pricing more like indie in Romance to keep up. It's been really interesting to watch prices drop in my genre in the past year and a half or so, particularly on the backlist, and to watch the publishers doing price promos. Of course, that serves to make the competition stiffer for indies, but it's a win for readers--and having readers want to read and buy more (instead of borrowing or buying at yard sales, which is what romance readers did before ebooks) lifts all boats.


----------



## rosclarke (Jul 12, 2013)

Hahahahha!!!!

Oh, wait? It's not a joke?

*shrugs*

Hahahahaha!!!!


----------



## bluwulf (Feb 1, 2014)

Joliedupre said:


> I signed it, although I don't think this issue will keep readers away from Amazon. Why? Because it's SUPER convenient for readers to buy books from Amazon. My husband, a reader and not an author, couldn't care less about this issue. He'll always buy from Amazon, and there are millions of readers who feel the same way as my husband.


Agree with this. I'm going to sign it - I think traditional publishing is like the Titanic sinking and they are trying to plug up the holes, but it's too late for that.


----------



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

bluwulf said:


> Agree with this. I'm going to sign it - but I think traditional publishing is like the Titanic sinking and they are trying to plug up the holes, but it's too late for that.


It's not readers who worry me. They are sensible people when all is said, its the bloody governments getting into it and putting in their silly ideas and restrictions we need to defend against. All they care about is media opinion, and that so far is all with Hachette (oh excuse me, Hatchet or axe? Something like that)


----------



## Chris Northern (Jan 20, 2011)

Read it. Agreed it. signed it.

"We owe you so much, and we are forever in your debt. Thank you for reading late into the night. Thank you for reading to your children. Thank you for missing that subway stop, for your word of mouth, your reviews, and your fan emails. "

Indeed, I would have signed just this bit. We are forever in your debt.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Mark E. Cooper said:


> They are sensible people when all is said, its the bloody governments getting into it


Tell me about it. That anyone thinks government regulation (in a non monopoly situation) is a good idea with regards to Amazon is kinda scary.


----------



## Lucas Bale (Jun 4, 2014)

Signed.


----------



## lukas dvorak (Mar 18, 2013)

Signed and passed it along via Facebook. I can't imagine there's much to worry about here for those of us who support Amazon but I suppose it never hurts to be proactive. The economics of this whole situation seems apparent and is, short of some kind of weird legal wrangling or major changes incurred voluntarily by the traditional publishing companies, leading to a really different publishing landscape.


----------



## JuliMonroe (Apr 25, 2011)

Signed and shared on G+

Thanks for doing it!


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

***********


----------



## ScottS (Jul 3, 2012)

I signed it earlier today. Thanks for starting it, Hugh.


----------



## meh (Apr 18, 2013)

Hugh, I think you guys should have ended with the line about everything Hachette accuses Amazon, Hachette has been guilty of. Most of the stuff beneath that was redundant. But thank you for the effort!  I signed it.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Phoenix Sullivan said:


> Sorry, Hugh. Even I couldn't get through that tome. I did skim it, and here's what I saw. It purports to be about THE READER but then devolves into all about what it means to THE AUTHOR. How THE AUTHOR is benefitted via Amazon, with just a quick price mention benefit for the reader.
> 
> Readers won't stop reading even if they boycott Amazon. They'll go to another channel to pick up authors' books. Channels where authors will earn as much --* or more *-- than what they earn via Amazon. It doesn't really matter where readers buy so long as they buy. But really, when readers already have an investment in Amazon hardware that reads proprietary Amazon software, they aren't going to flee en masse because of author pleas.
> 
> ...


I don't think a "boycott Amazon" effort is going to produce much actual boycotting, either. Being deeply concerned about this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. But perhaps I'm just not well enough informed or am missing some of the possible repercussions. I'm hardly a publishing insider.

That said, it is *extremely* irritating to read that Preston letter and hear the assumption that all authors are being spoken for when, in fact, a huge group of us are not being considered. It seems appropriate to me that we do a little flag-waving to point out that we exist and, in fact, represent a sizable proportion of authors.

The "thanking readers" thing struck me as a rhetorical flourish -- the flip-side to the Preston letter's urging readers to take action. The Preston letter tells readers they need to take action to fix the situation; the "Thank Our Readers" petition says, _Hey, you don't have to take action -- what you're already doing is great. So just keep on keeping on and don't listen to that pester-Bezos-and-boycott-Amazon stuff._ Wrapping that message in the rhetoric of gratitude doesn't bother me. In fact, it strikes me as savvy.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Excellent.

Signed and shared.


----------



## Keith Rowland (May 20, 2014)

Happy to sign up.


----------



## Randall Wood (Mar 31, 2014)

Some may not think this is important to us as they aren’t signed to Hachette, but what about our fellow authors that are? I view them as POW’s.

I think it’s important for two reasons. One, it’s to thank the readers, without whom none of us would even be here.

Two; to preempt a political approach by the Big 5. One of the panel members that PG was onstage with the other night practically said that this was their next option. Get rid of the current administration and replace it with one that will do their bidding. Calling them out early and informing the reading public of what’s actually happening is the first step in defeating such an attack. 

There’s nothing better than having an educated and informed public when it comes to countering the stupid coming out of the Big 5.

This will also be a protracted battle. S&S vs B&N took 8 months.  Hachette is only the first of five to negotiate with Amazon.  This needs to stay on the front pages and screens of the reading public. 

So gear up. Stock up on liquor and condoms, we’re going to be here awhile.


----------



## Heather Hamilton-Senter (May 25, 2013)

I'm a nobody but I'm on it!


----------



## thomaskcarpenter (May 17, 2011)

I signed it.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

The Bookseller just gave us equal coverage.

http://www.thebookseller.com/news/indie-authors-launch-pro-amazon-petition.html

We're at 1000 signatures so far, compared to 69 for Preston's letter.


----------



## Geoff North (Apr 2, 2011)

Just signed. Took a bit since my work browser wouldn't allow it, but I figured it out!


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Jack Kilborn said:


> The Bookseller just gave us equal coverage.
> http://www.thebookseller.com/news/indie-authors-launch-pro-amazon-petition.html
> We're at 1000 signatures so far, compared to 69 for Preston's letter.


That's pretty awesome. What d'ya know, when we all shout at the same time it turns out we have a pretty loud voice.

It's kind of like a reverse 300 where many stood against a powerful few .


----------



## sstroble (Dec 16, 2013)

The petition states: "You may have heard that Amazon and Hachette are having a dispute about how books are sold. The details are complex, but the gist is this: Amazon wants to keep e-book prices affordable, and Hachette wants to keep them artificially high. Higher than for the paper edition of the same story."

Hachette can charge whatever they want to for their books. But why should they be able to force a distributor to sell those books at those prices?
What's next? Every business in America has to carry every single product offered by every company regardless of the price that company is charging for those products?
Maybe Amazon should go ahead and offer Hachette's books at their above market prices. It will probably take dismal sales for Hachette and their authors to stop ripping off readers.


----------



## Elizabeth Barone (May 6, 2013)

I get what Amazon is trying to do, but they're going about it the wrong way. Offer the books rather than banning them. Let the readers decide how much they want to pay. Money talks more than anything else. Whenever there is turmoil in the book industry, it's the readers who suffer. This indie versus traditional, us against them crap is too much like divorced parents; the kids are stuck in the middle.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

elizabethbarone said:


> Offer the books rather than banning them.


I'm pretty sure they're not banning anything. I was under the impression that this "ban" was little more than removing the pre-order buttons (aka those thingees that the majority of us don't get anyway).


----------



## Keri Knutson (Apr 10, 2011)

Signed!

Although it might irk some of my trad pub Facebook friends who signed the other petition......  Hopefully they'll come around.


----------



## Chrissy (Mar 31, 2014)

removed


----------



## Cactus Lady (Jun 4, 2014)

Signed and shared.

I don't have very many readers (so far), but I love the ones I have, and I love the opportunity that self-publishing and, especially (but not limited to) Amazon have given me to reach them.


----------



## meh (Apr 18, 2013)

Now James Patterson can experience what it feels like to be self/indie published, with no pre-orders. 

Somehow I don't think it'll be the end of the world for him.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

elizabethbarone said:


> I get what Amazon is trying to do, but they're going about it the wrong way. Offer the books rather than banning them. Let the readers decide how much they want to pay. Money talks more than anything else. Whenever there is turmoil in the book industry, it's the readers who suffer. This indie versus traditional, us against them crap is too much like divorced parents; the kids are stuck in the middle.


That's the thing, they've never banned any books. They took down pre-orders for books they may not be able to legally fulfill if their agreement expires without resolution.

It's this kind of misinformation that's being spread as if it's fact that we're trying to counter. Unfortunately, we aren't owned by media giants like the publishers are.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

I'm just about sick of hearing about this, especially the way it's constantly spun. These writers, I'm sure, know better. I'll check out the petition and will probably sign 

Maybe I'll even start a petition to Hachette!


----------



## Will Mastin (Jun 10, 2014)

Done and added to the Twitter machine.


----------



## Elizabeth Barone (May 6, 2013)

That's the thing, though: there's no accurate information, because everyone is too busy pointing fingers and shouting. There's got to be a better way.

Maybe Amazon isn't purposely banning books, but "we're not going to allow pre-orders" still comes off that way.

The readers get hurt in the end, plain and simple. Someone who loves those books by those authors now cannot pre-order through Amazon, a site they may prefer. So now those readers have to go elsewhere. This may not seem like a huge inconvenience, but it still is. Once again, the readers are caught in the middle.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Even if Amazon were refusing to sell Hachette books (which it's not), _book banning_ is an inappropriate term. Book banning is what the Nazis did. Or what happened to _Ulysses_ and _Lady Chatterley's Lover_. Or what school boards do when they decree books like _The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian_ have to be removed from syllabi and libraries. When B&N refused to carry S&S books, that wasn't book banning. That was a retailer deciding, without government pressure, not to sell a particular line of products because it could not agree with the producer on pricing.


----------



## Elizabeth Barone (May 6, 2013)

And maybe I'm not articulating this right. I don't want to take sides here. I just want readers to be happy.


----------



## jenminkman (Mar 2, 2013)

Done! Thanks for setting this up


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

We need a twitter hashtag.


----------



## SpringfieldMH (Feb 2, 2013)

Signed.


----------



## meh (Apr 18, 2013)

Elizabeth, say you're a business and you sell widgets. One of your suppliers wants to sell you widgets at $5 a piece but they want you to sell it at $4 to the customer _and pay them the $5_

Does this make sense? It doesn't to me. It doesn't to Amazon, either, which is why they're not agreeing to Hachette's demands.

And if you had a widget seller that wasn't going to negotiate with you, would you allow your customers to preorder their products that you might not be able to deliver?

It's that simple.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Signed! Thanks for starting this!


----------



## Sapphire (Apr 24, 2012)

I have also signed and tweeted.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

elizabethbarone said:


> And maybe I'm not articulating this right. I don't want to take sides here. I just want readers to be happy.


I'm sure readers will be fine once the dispute is resolved. Amazon is trying to put pressure on Hachette with these tweaks to book availability. Hachette has revved up the PR machine to put pressure on Amazon. Petitions like Hugh's try to counter that PR push. Eventually, one side or the other will fold, or they'll reach a compromise. A year from now, I imagine the whole event will have vanished from the minds of 99% of the readers who are currently upset about it ... which is probably about .01% of readers. Honestly, I don't think this is going to have a huge impact on readers.

Come to think of it, the removal of the pre-order button is a genius move on Amazon's part. It's only a tiny inconvenience for readers to have to buy a book on the day it's published, rather than ahead of time, but the loss of pre-order income is probably a noticeable cash-flow hiccup for Hachette. Amazon is smart.


----------



## Robert Dahlen (Apr 27, 2014)

Signed and Facebooked. I'm sure that Amazon isn't 100% on the side of the angels, but they are in this case, and I'm grateful and thankful that soon they'll give me the opportunity that I would never get from traditional publishing.


----------



## 69959 (May 14, 2013)

Signed and shared!


----------



## Elizabeth Barone (May 6, 2013)

I get it, Judy, I really do. I never said I agreed with what Hachette is doing! I just said that I don't agree with how this whole thing is going down. _Everyone_ is getting up in arms and asking readers to pick sides, which isn't really helping the readers. I'm saying that, every time there is an indie versus traditional issue, readers get caught in the middle because everyone involved is too busy pointing fingers. Then the issue goes to court and the government decides. There's got to be a better way. No one is winning, especially not the people both indies and traditional should care about the most. It's just a bunch of back and forth.

I don't know what the answer is here. I just know that I'm tired of having to pick sides. Let's not drag the readers into it. Let's just keep doing what we're doing: writing books for our readers.

Again, maybe I'm not saying this right. I know that Hugh's petition came from a good place. I'm not trying to beat on anyone. I hope it's not coming off that way. I'm just concerned that our readers are getting lost in all of these battles.


----------



## Elizabeth Barone (May 6, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> Come to think of it, the removal of the pre-order button is a genius move on Amazon's part. It's only a tiny inconvenience for readers to have to buy a book on the day it's published, rather than ahead of time, but the loss of pre-order income is probably a noticeable cash-flow hiccup for Hachette. Amazon is smart.


You see it as a tiny inconvenience. And I guess it is. But it's still using readers to hurt Hachette. That's not right, either.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

judygoodwin said:


> Elizabeth, say you're a business and you sell widgets. One of your suppliers wants to sell you widgets at $5 a piece but they want you to sell it at $4 to the customer _and pay them the $5_
> 
> Does this make sense? It doesn't to me. It doesn't to Amazon, either, which is why they're not agreeing to Hachette's demands.
> 
> ...


You could have saved us a lot of words in this open letter thingy!


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

--Signed--


----------



## Elizabeth Barone (May 6, 2013)

I'm a pacifist at heart, guys. I've said my piece. I love you all. I'll shut up now.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

elizabethbarone said:


> And maybe I'm not articulating this right. I don't want to take sides here. I just want readers to be happy.


Readers are happy. At least the Kindle owners. I know. Preorders aren't that big a deal with ebooks. They're not going to runout of ebooks on release day, and I can buy the book from the comfort of my sofa, my Jammie's and my iPad.

Another reason to stop reading paper.


----------



## Will Mastin (Jun 10, 2014)

judygoodwin said:


> Elizabeth, say you're a business and you sell widgets. One of your suppliers wants to sell you widgets at $5 a piece but they want you to sell it at $4 to the customer _and pay them the $5_
> 
> Does this make sense? It doesn't to me. It doesn't to Amazon, either, which is why they're not agreeing to Hachette's demands.
> 
> ...


Perfect illustration. Well done.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2014)

JimJohnson said:


> Also, just happened to noticed DWS's latest post -- Who really cares?


Oh my God! I love me some Dean Wesley Smith.

Thanks for sharing this.


----------



## Donna White Glaser (Jan 12, 2011)

Happily signed and shared.


----------



## Jerri Kay Lincoln (Jun 18, 2011)

Hugh, thank you for taking the time to do this.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Readers are happy. At least the Kindle owners. I know. Preorders aren't that big a deal with ebooks. They're not going to runout of ebooks on release day, and I can buy the book from the comfort of my sofa, my Jammie's and my iPad.
> 
> Another reason to stop reading paper.


^^^^^THIS!^^^^^


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

Done. Thanks, Hugh


----------



## Arrington Flynn (May 17, 2014)

Number One Reason to Sign the Petition:



> "I work in my underwear, thanks to my readers and Amazon." - Hugh Howey


----------



## 25803 (Oct 24, 2010)

Thank you! I signed and shared it on FB


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

elizabethbarone said:


> Maybe Amazon isn't purposely banning books, but "we're not going to allow pre-orders" still comes off that way.
> 
> The readers get hurt in the end, plain and simple. Someone who loves those books by those authors now cannot pre-order through Amazon, a site they may prefer. So now those readers have to go elsewhere. This may not seem like a huge inconvenience, but it still is. Once again, the readers are caught in the middle.


It come off that way to you, but you are probably the only one in this thread thinks that. The rest of us, while not in the know about the negotiations, know at least there is no 'banning' of books, there never has been, and there never will be. Removing a pre-order button = banning only in a world that makes zero sense.

As for inconvenience because you can't preorder a book... when did this become a first-world complaint? I've never heard a single reader, friend, family member, enemy, politician, or Martian complain about how hard life is because they can't pre-order a certain book.

No readers were hurt in the making of this thread, nor in the Amazon - Hachette negotiations. Not a single reader. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nil. If you can find a single reader who is hurt because of this ongoing negotiation (real hurt, not boo hoo I'm sad I can't hit the preorder button hurt), I'll retract every single word. But you won't.


----------



## RTEdwins (Jan 16, 2014)

Signed and shared with friends (both writers and non-writers)


----------



## AKMartin (Jul 21, 2012)

Signed & Shared 

Amazon Opened a Door That Was Often Shut >>>>>>>>>


----------



## Magda Alexander (Aug 13, 2011)

Signed it and put it on FB.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2014)

> I never said I agreed with what Hachette is doing! _Everyone_ is getting up in arms and asking readers to pick sides, which isn't really helping the readers.


What do you think the big name writers are trying to do? They want us indies out of the picture. The less of us the more they can sell. I wish more readers would give us indies a chance instead of going to a bookstore and just seeing rows and rows of big name writers. Signed petition.


----------



## Robert Dahlen (Apr 27, 2014)

Arrington Flynn said:


> Number One Reason to Sign the Petition:
> "I work in my underwear, thanks to my readers and Amazon." -- Hugh Howey


Now that image was almost enough to keep me from signing it.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Signed and tweeted. 

I don't get this big hate against Amazon. As a consumer, they've always done right by me and that's why I do most of my non-grocery shopping there. Books, toys, widgets, etc. Just bought a steam cleaner with my Amazon rewards points. 

As an author, I can't begin to express my gratitude to Amazon for the chance to put my work out there, for the shelf full of my own books that I can look at with a feeling of accomplishment, for the pride in my Mom and Dad's eyes, for the other authors I've been helping get published and the excitement on their faces when they see their own books up there for sale.

I was just discussing this with someone and I said it's all jealousy. Instead of good, honest, competition, these companies are trying to increase their market share by destroying Amazon.

It's the faithful Amazon customers like myself that will keep Amazon in business. We are legion out there and we speak with our dollars.


----------



## trublue (Jul 7, 2012)

Done!


----------



## Ethan Jones (Jan 20, 2012)

Already signed it and posted in on my blog. Will also put it on my FB and tweet about it.
Sincerely,
Ethan


----------



## Fredster (Apr 11, 2011)

I thought this story would be of interest here.



> Two weeks ago bestselling author Douglas Preston began quietly circulating a to other writers that encourages readers to write to Amazon CEO and founder Jeff Bezos. The letter, which calls on Amazon to "resolve its dispute with Hachette without hurting authors and without blocking or otherwise delaying the sale of books to its customers," is something Preston initially hoped a handful of other authors would sign. He wound up collecting hundreds of signatures.


Full story


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Signed it, tweeted, and Facebooked to John Ward, Russell Blake, Susan Kaye Quinn, Jason Matthews, Samantha Fury, and others who have large platforms. Showing your petition needs 504 more supporters.


----------



## Fredster (Apr 11, 2011)

Gah, didn't see the H. Howey thread before I posted this. That's what I get for just searching on 'Preston'. 

Mods, feel free to close / delete. Sorry for the extra work.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Oct 10, 2013)

Saw it on your FB and signed and shared to my FB


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Wow, in the last five minutes it jumped from 1,496 to 2,075 signers. It might go viral.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Sorry, can't do it. 

I love my readers. I tell them form time to time on the blog. I hang out with them online.

But I'm not going to let my love and respect for the actual people who give me money and support me be used to thinly veil cheerleading for one bad guy in a black hat fight.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,189001.0.html


----------



## Victoria LK (Jan 31, 2014)

Done!  And I do thank my readers-I need them sooooooooo much


----------



## Kia Zi Shiru (Feb 7, 2011)

And this is another reason 2014 is very important for the industry. d*mn, now I really need to talk about this in my master thesis...


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Robert Dahlen said:


> Now that image was almost enough to keep me from signing it.


Yeah, but it made David Adams sign 57 times. Net gain.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> Sorry, can't do it.
> 
> I love my readers. I tell them form time to time on the blog. I hang out with them online.
> 
> But I'm not going to let my love and respect for the actual people who give me money and support me be used to thinly veil cheerleading for one bad guy in a black hat fight.


^^^^^ This. This isn't David vs. Goliath, it's Alien vs. Predator. I don't support either Amazon or Hachette because both are responsible for a lot of underhanded tactics.

Chuck Wendig summed up my feelings far better than I could.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

I love me some Chuck, but this is one of those times where it appears he just wants to hear himself speak.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

Signed, tweeted, shared.


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

<3

Added my thoughts. Awesome idea.


----------



## JohnHindmarsh (Jun 3, 2011)

Signed, blogged, facebooked, commented...

Thanks Hugh.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> Okay, considering most of my threads are about my man-love for David Adams, that's not saying much. But still, I think this is very important.
> 
> Some high-profile authors are trying to mount a campaign against Amazon: http://www.thebookseller.com/news/child-grisham-patterson-amazon-protest.html
> 
> ...


I've signed & tweeted. Thanks for starting this, Hugh.


----------



## ElleT (Feb 2, 2014)

Signed. Good idea. Thank you for bringing it to the forefront.


----------



## I Give Up (Jan 27, 2014)

Signed


----------



## mphicks (Jan 29, 2014)

I've been trying to follow some of the feedback this petition has generated, and I think this blog-post from Brian McClellan has to be the biggest pile of BS I've come across so far. Curious what others' thoughts on it are.

My initial reaction was WTF?! and nearly did a spit-take as his estimate that it would cost $60K for him to self-publish his own work to the same standards of his publisher, Orbit, a Hachette imprint. Even when he pares it down to his standards, instead of Orbit's, he still ballparks it at close to $8K.

Has anyone here honestly spent even remotely close to that much money on a single title? His figures strike me as utterly asinine. Am I way off base here?


----------



## P.T. Phronk (Jun 6, 2014)

I have an uncomfortable amount of love for Hugh and everything, but this petition kinda creeps me out. It's not like Amazon is some person who needs emotional support. They'll act in their own best interest, which may align with our own best interests. Or not. The great thing about publishing books independently is that our fates are not completely tied up with Amazon, Hachette, or any other company. We're free. Like birds. And I'm going fly away and focus on writing awesome stuff instead of guessing about what's going on behind closed doors at two giant corporations.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

So you guys are going to tell readers this is a petition thanking them, then link them to an advertisement for a corporation instead.

...Please report back to this thread what the reaction was for the bait and switch.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

mphicks said:


> I've been trying to follow some of the feedback this petition has generated, and I think this blog-post from Brian McClellan has to be the biggest pile of BS I've come across so far. Curious what others' thoughts on it are.
> 
> My initial reaction was WTF?! and nearly did a spit-take as his estimate that it would cost $60K for him to self-publish his own work to the same standards of his publisher, Orbit, a Hachette imprint. Even when he pares it down to his standards, instead of Orbit's, he still ballparks it at close to $8K.
> 
> Has anyone here honestly spent even remotely close to that much money on a single title? His figures strike me as utterly asinine. Am I way off base here?


This guy is bad with money and he should feel bad.

$1000 for cover art? Is he unaware the deviant art is a thing?
$25 for formatting? HTML Schools is still online, right? Sigil is still free right?

And he's counting the audiobook?!

As much as he's correct that Amazon invests absolutely nothing in authors and does nothing for them but provide (free to them) shelf space, he's not making a good showing for himself.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

I signed, tweeted and FB shared. My dh even shared it from my wall--even though he has no clue what it's about. (I tried explaining, but his eyes glazed over--oh well, at least he supports what I'm doing.   )

I then received emails that two more people signed from my tweet/share.


----------



## Mike_Author (Oct 19, 2013)

Signed


----------



## Selina Fenech (Jul 20, 2011)

I get that Amazon is a business and is doing what is right for their business, but I tend to agree that they have the right idea about what is good for their book business- that being looking after readers and authors. All these people shouting "Amazon isn't mother/god! Why the love fest? There are other platforms too!" must be American. Try getting onto all those other platforms if you're outside the US and you'll be more thankful for Amazon again, one of the few who let non-US citizens straight in without needing another middleman. It's "small" details like that for which I'm grateful.


----------



## PiscaPress (Jun 13, 2014)

I'm a bookstore owner, and a small publisher, and I understand your points.  The big houses have a lot to answer for. But I do wish that Amazon wasn't so damaging to bookstores.  They are doing great things for independent authors, things that were never available before, but they are crushing small bookstores, and I think people will be sad when they are gone. (but who knows?)
I get frustrated when people say "you need to be more competitive", because when Amazon sells books for cheaper than I can get them from the publisher, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to do that. Of course, you could blame the publishers for that too. They took the candy when Amazon offered it to them, now they are paying the price.
So anyway, I think it's a lot more complicated than the media has made it out to be, either way you look at it.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Preorders are a perk. One that many of us self publishers have not qualified for, one that artificially drives orders from a whole month or more of ordering to hit all on one day. That _is_ an unfair advantage, one I'd love to have and would accept if it were offered (which) it hasn't been.

As Betsy pointed out, ebooks won't run out, so the only value it has for ebooks is to artificially drive sales to one specific day to boost a book onto best seller lists, so Hachette is complaining about a perk that lets them falsely claim something that hasn't happened. (All those sales at once.)

Instead, what I'll do as I ready _Angel in the Fire, Book 4_ to release is contact all two thousand on my mailing list, and ask them to please order all on the same pre-arranged day, in the hopes the book will make it onto the hot new releases list and other lists. I'll arrange for book bloggers, and others to talk about and promote and hopefully build momentum, with their help.

Publishers are driving the anti Amazon atmosphere, in which case they are biting off their nose to spite their face. I think we need to let readers know, without them and Amazon to provide the suggestions of the books they might like (based on keywords, searches, interests, and purchases they might be stuck with a very limited list of books to chose from and possibly none that fit their tastes.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

mphicks said:


> I've been trying to follow some of the feedback this petition has generated, and I think this blog-post from Brian McClellan has to be the biggest pile of BS I've come across so far. Curious what others' thoughts on it are.
> 
> My initial reaction was WTF?! and nearly did a spit-take as his estimate that it would cost $60K for him to self-publish his own work to the same standards of his publisher, Orbit, a Hachette imprint. Even when he pares it down to his standards, instead of Orbit's, he still ballparks it at close to $8K.
> 
> Has anyone here honestly spent even remotely close to that much money on a single title? His figures strike me as utterly asinine. Am I way off base here?


Wow! And hell no! I spend about $1500 for each release. I do my own formatting. That's for editing/proofing and cover art. And my editor and cover artist also work for NY publishers, so I'm pretty sure the quality is there. #drama


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Selina Fenech said:


> I get that Amazon is a business and is doing what is right for their business, but I tend to agree that they have the right idea about what is good for their book business- that being looking after readers and authors. All these people shouting "Amazon isn't mother/god! Why the love fest? There are other platforms too!" must be American. Try getting onto all those other platforms if you're outside the US and you'll be more thankful for Amazon again, one of the few who let non-US citizens straight in without needing another middleman. It's "small" details like that for which I'm grateful.


Actually in many parts of the world you struggle to buy from Amazon never mind sell through them. The companies with the biggest reach are the ones most apt to get it in the neck from Kindle Boards - Google and Apple. Case in point Amazon have only just announced that sales from customers based in Ireland will now earn author 70% rather than 35% and if someone buys from Amazon across the water from you in Japan an Amazon author only gets 70% if they have pulled their books from everywhere but Kindle. If you think Amazon are a global player you must be Australian


----------



## Selina Fenech (Jul 20, 2011)

Mercia McMahon said:


> If you think Amazon are a global player you must be Australian


LOL! Got me.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Phronk said:


> I have an uncomfortable amount of love for Hugh and everything, but this petition kinda creeps me out. It's not like Amazon is some person who needs emotional support. They'll act in their own best interest, which may align with our own best interests. Or not. The great thing about publishing books independently is that our fates are not completely tied up with Amazon, Hachette, or any other company. We're free. Like birds. And I'm going fly away and focus on writing awesome stuff instead of guessing about what's going on behind closed doors at two giant corporations.


I disagree. We might feel like we're "free," but in fact, our ability to reach readers and generate a decent income is almost wholly dependent on the choices and behavior of some of the biggest tech-age corporations out there -- Amazon, Apple, Google. Ignoring what those companies are doing -- and what their more traditional competitors are doing -- strikes me as unwise.


----------



## LJ (Feb 14, 2014)

Signed. Hugh, thank you for everything.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Prostrating ourselves before them is equally unwise. We should be fighting to make them do business with us on more even terms, not thanking them for taking free money from us while barely paying attention.

Also, we should actually be thanking the readers. You know those people who are actually giving us the money for our work. The people this petition says it's thanking before completely ignoring them in order to sell them on the idea that Amazon is seriously packing in the trouser department.


----------



## Mandy (Dec 27, 2009)

Signed.

Amazon taking away the pre-order option means absolutely nothing to me. Now, instead of pre-ordering and waking up to have the book waiting for me on my Kindle, I'd just have to take 2 minutes to purchase the book on release day. 

Back when I was debating on which ereader to purchase, I eventually settled on Amazon because of their competitive low prices and excellent customer service. Since then, I've gone on to see that Amazon opens doors for indie authors that would have never been possible in the trad-pub world. I've found some fantastic books and made friends along the way. As Amazon continues to stand behind their authors and readers, they've got my full support.


----------



## Michael Buckley (Jun 24, 2013)

Signed.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

PiscaPress said:


> I'm a bookstore owner, and a small publisher, and I understand your points. The big houses have a lot to answer for. But I do wish that Amazon wasn't so damaging to bookstores. They are doing great things for independent authors, things that were never available before, but they are crushing small bookstores, and I think people will be sad when they are gone. (but who knows?)
> I get frustrated when people say "you need to be more competitive", because when Amazon sells books for cheaper than I can get them from the publisher, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to do that. Of course, you could blame the publishers for that too. They took the candy when Amazon offered it to them, now they are paying the price.
> So anyway, I think it's a lot more complicated than the media has made it out to be, either way you look at it.


I'm going to sound unsympathetic (and maybe I am) but for years it was Barnes & Noble that was crushing independent bookshops but then suddenly it was all Amazon's fault. I rather doubt it is the fault of either.

There have huge changes in consumers' buying habits that have hit a lot of types of shops hard. When was the last time you went to a flower shop instead of ordering online? How many people in the US still go to a butcher shop instead of a supermarket? What is important for most of us imo is that books should be available and affordable, not who we happen to buy them from.

Publishers are not 'paying the price'. Their profits are up rather than down. They just want an ever larger slice of the pie and needless to say so does Amazon. Publishers are most definitely not the good guys in this and to be frank Amazon is just looking out for its own interests. But I have no patience with demonising Amazon.


----------



## H. S. St. Ours (Mar 24, 2012)

Signed up and on board. Now where's the galley?


----------



## Steven L. Hawk (Jul 10, 2010)

Signed


----------



## Joseph Turkot (Nov 9, 2012)

Signed.


----------



## 555aaa (Jan 28, 2014)

At the risk of being excommunicated from this board: sorry, I don't agree. 

Godzilla ($74B in sales, of which only 29% is in "media", which includes books, video, etc)  is crushing a flea (Lagardère Publishing - $2.7B who owns Hachette). The terms of negotiation have not been disclosed and are not being disclosed in the petition. My understanding is that Hachette wants to set their own prices for e-books but Amazon wants to be in charge of pricing. But as an author through KDP you are setting your own pricing, which is what Hachette is attempting to do- but you don't want them to - you want Amazon to control their pricing, while you control your own. I don't get it. Did I miss something there? It's just two companies (actually one big company and some small companies) battling for a market.


----------



## Kia Zi Shiru (Feb 7, 2011)

555aaa said:


> At the risk of being excommunicated from this board: sorry, I don't agree.
> 
> Godzilla ($74B in sales, of which only 29% is in "media", which includes books, video, etc) is crushing a flea (Lagardere Publishing - $2.7B who owns Hachette). The terms of negotiation have not been disclosed and are not being disclosed in the petition. My understanding is that Hachette wants to set their own prices for e-books but Amazon wants to be in charge of pricing. But as an author through KDP you are setting your own pricing, which is what Hachette is attempting to do- but you don't want them to - you want Amazon to control their pricing, while you control your own. I don't get it. Did I miss something there? It's just two companies (actually one big company and some small companies) battling for a market.


The problem is that Hachette wants to put their own prices but Amazon then has to discount them to a certain level. Hachette wants to put $15 as the price for ebooks and have Amazon discount for them. That is why so many trad pubbed authors are angry with Amazon, they're "taking away our discounts". Which means that their books are more expensive and are now barely selling at all.
One problem here is that that is not how the industry works. Hachette are a provider of books, like butchers are provider of meats and farmers are providers of fruits and veg. In other industries the provider sets a bulk price, at which price the distributor (Amazon, markets) buys the products, but they are allowed to set their own pricing after that. So if they want to sell at a loss, that is their choice.
Hachette now wants to decide what Amazon has to ask for the books, which is weird. Hachette should only be allowed to control at what price they sell to Amazon (which is their income) because they're a provider. They now want to decide what Amazon sells their books at, they want to have control over the income stream of distributors, companies that aren't even part of their company, but a separate entity.

Amazon has the control to discount our books at will, they have. Read the TOS. They don't do that because 1) we play nicely within their rules of pricing (mostly between $0.99 and $9.99) and 2) because they know that if they would randomly start discounting books they would lose their huge revenue from indies (look at the topics about Google Play discounting books, there is probably one not far under this topic).
Basically, we give them an advise price and they "agree" that it's a good price.

This is different from what Hachette wants. Hachette 1) wants to put inflated prices of ebooks on the website (to protect their print run) 2) that Amazon discounts their books to a reasonable price, but 3) that Amazon is no longer allowed to discount these prices as much as they do, because they want more control over the final pricing. This control over the final pricing is what makes Amazon so interesting for readers, as very few readers will pay $15 for an ebook.

They're not battling for a market. They're battling for control over 1 store. Amazon and Hachette are battling for the control to decide what prices *Amazon* puts the books up for sale. This is AFTER Hachette already gets their share of the book. So, Hachette wants control over how much Amazon can make from a book. Isn't that just a *little bit* weird?


----------



## MartinLake (May 9, 2011)

Just signed.

Yesterday I asked the owner of a bookshop if she sold e-books. She said she never would and, when she found out I was an Indie writer, said that Indies were devaluing literature. 

We had an interesting discussion thereafter.


----------



## Elizabeth Nyte (Oct 24, 2013)

Signed.

Of course I love Hugh so I'd probably sign anything he stuck in front of me    


(Sorry, my fangirl was showing.)


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

MartinLake said:


> Yesterday I asked the owner of a bookshop if she sold e-books. She said she never would and, when she found out I was an Indie writer, said that Indies were devaluing literature.


Yeah, because traditional publishers have only ever put out the finest quality literature.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Kia Zi Shiru said:


> Amazon has the control to discount our books at will, they have. Read the TOS. They don't do that because 1) we play nicely within their rules of pricing (mostly between $0.99 and $9.99) and 2) because they know that if they would randomly start discounting books they would lose their huge revenue from indies (look at the topics about Google Play discounting books, there is probably one not far under this topic).
> Basically, we give them an advise price and they "agree" that it's a good price.


Exactly. We can't really set any price we like, because we'd be fools to set the price at $10.99. Our royalty halves, which means we make less at that price point than we do at $9.99.

In fact, at $14.99, we make a full dollar less than we would at $9.99. I made up a name for this: Incentivized Agency Pricing. Sure, you can set any price you want, but look at how we make it very attractive to set a particular price.

Amazon knows pricing. Look at what they've been trying to do: They've been trying to convince indies to price their books higher. They've been trying to convince big publishers to price their books lower. There's no big conspiracy here, just a retail giant that knows the $4.99 - $8.99 range is probably the ultimate sweet spot for all involved, from the reader to the writer to the publisher.

Hachette isn't motivated by what's good for their writers, their readers, or even themselves. They want to preserve a print world that they were comfortable operating in. They make decisions based on fear. Look at their mentions of DRM and piracy in their last presentation to investors. Even with the incredible margins and low overhead of ebooks, they still aren't in the full adoption phase.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

MartinLake said:


> Just signed.
> 
> Yesterday I asked the owner of a bookshop if she sold e-books. She said she never would and, when she found out I was an Indie writer, said that Indies were devaluing literature.
> 
> We had an interesting discussion thereafter.


I hope that conversation involved removing from her shelves that dreadful indie Virginia Woolf who must have completely ruined literature for all right-thinking bookshop owners.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

PiscaPress said:


> I'm a bookstore owner, and a small publisher, and I understand your points. The big houses have a lot to answer for. <snip>


And bookstore owners are blameless?



MartinLake said:


> Just signed.
> 
> Yesterday I asked the owner of a bookshop if she sold e-books. She said she never would and, *when she found out I was an Indie writer, said that Indies were devaluing literature*.
> 
> We had an interesting discussion thereafter.


Why would I care if that bookstore closes? I don't need yet another would-be gatekeeper who disrespects my readers.


----------



## MatthewBallard (May 21, 2013)

Signed. Thank for all you do Hugh!


----------



## Sapphire (Apr 24, 2012)

Mandy said:


> Signed.
> 
> Amazon taking away the pre-order option means absolutely nothing to me. Now, instead of pre-ordering and waking up to have the book waiting for me on my Kindle, I'd just have to take 2 minutes to purchase the book on release day.
> 
> Back when I was debating on which ereader to purchase, I eventually settled on Amazon because of their competitive low prices and excellent customer service. Since then, I've gone on to see that Amazon opens doors for indie authors that would have never been possible in the trad-pub world. I've found some fantastic books and made friends along the way. As Amazon continues to stand behind their authors and readers, they've got my full support.


^^ +1


----------



## Mandy (Dec 27, 2009)

Hugh Howey said:


> Hachette isn't motivated by what's good for their writers, their readers, or even themselves. They want to preserve a print world that they were comfortable operating in. They make decisions based on fear. Look at their mentions of DRM and piracy in their last presentation to investors. Even with the incredible margins and low overhead of ebooks, they still aren't in the full adoption phase.


So help me understand..the gist of this whole debacle, at least in part, is the traditional publishers wanting to raise the prices of their ebooks in attempt to breathe life back into the paper book industry? Thinking that if I want that new ebook priced at $12.99, I'll opt to buy the paper copy instead? (Though, in my case, if the ebook I want is priced too high, I'll wait for it to hit Overdrive and move on to the thousands of other ebooks.) I just find it fascinating; it's very much like what we saw with the transition from physical CDs to MP3s.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Interesting response to my posting the link on G+ :

"Nice piece. Too bad I've never heard of any of the authors."
There are a lot of people reading (or recognizing) only the big names. We're probably assuming too much interest in indies on the readers' part. 
Not a bad thing - I'd like to see the distinctions disappear entirely. But few names on that list have a massive amount of draw.  Still, it makes a point and it gets information out there.
Agree or disagree, if both sides aren't out there, the side that is out there will be heard.


----------



## No longer seen (Aug 17, 2013)

When James Patterson first wrote -- in an ad he took out in the New York Times, if memory serves -- we need government intervention to save the publishing industry, I pooh-poohed the threat.

I mean, isn't the U.S. government busy facing a few other problems right now? Do the American people really want it to take time away from the issues of immigration, terrorism, Russia and the Ukraine, the economy, etc, to try to save traditional publishers from Amazon (and other platforms as well)?

However, it's now clear traditional publishing seriously intends to seek government intervention. 

As Passive Guy pointed out, the corporate masters of four out of the Big Five are in Europe, where government intervention in the economy in general and to keep book prices high is not unusual.

At the New York Public Library event, one panelist repeatedly mentioned getting the Justice Department of the next administration to punish Amazon for being a monopoly. 

Another panel member repeatedly made criminal accusations against Amazon without proof. A tactic borrowed from Joseph Goebbels and Joseph McCarthy. While he knows if Amazon goes after him for defamation, the media will star him as the poor little victim being persecuted by the big blue meanie Amazon. 

And James Patterson is shooting a commercial portraying Amazon's treatment of Hachette authors as "book burning." A commercial for what? Not the latest Alex Cross novel. What will his call to action be? Boycott Amazon, presumably.

Now that letter of writers asking readers for their support . . . where's that supposed to go?

(As a side issue, it's signed not only by individual authors, but the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America. Any SFWA members here vote for that?)

So, to me, signing Hugh's letter to readers is more about forestalling any possible legal action, by any administration.

In five to ten years, we'll look back and see the historical inevitability of indie publishing becoming the norm. I just feel sorry for the midlist authors who're going to be dragged down with the ship when trad publishing goes under.


----------



## Kia Zi Shiru (Feb 7, 2011)

Woo, Hugh Howey agreed with little me 



Hugh Howey said:


> Hachette isn't motivated by what's good for their writers, their readers, or even themselves. They want to preserve a print world that they were comfortable operating in. They make decisions based on fear. Look at their mentions of DRM and piracy in their last presentation to investors. Even with the incredible margins and low overhead of ebooks, they still aren't in the full adoption phase.


I find the whole "OMG they're taking away the discounts on our books" a very good example of this.
If Hachette would price the books at a reasonable price anyway Amazon wouldn't have to discount the books as much as they have to just to sell them.
Think about that. Hachette wants the money from the higher priced books but they don't want the readers to pay those higher prices. Amazon *has* to discount the books to make them in a good price range.
So... Amazon has to pay (by taking a hit in their profits by discounting) for the greediness of publishers?

Who profits from this arrangement? Publishers mostly and in a way also authors.
Who would profit when Amazon takes away all discounts? no-one. Not Amazon, not publishers, not readers, and certainly not authors. (okay, indies would probably, as this would make their cheaper books more interesting for price sensitive readers)

Publishing is a weird world and especially at the moment. Somehow they worry about artificial things that need very little worrying (DRM, etc.) but they don't care about the changing world around them. They don't care that if they market their ebooks better they would make a LOT more money while keeping the interest of price sensitive readers. Readers they are starting to lose right now because of their bad pricing.

And honestly, I'm a huge ebook fan, but my dad has a printing office. By so many things going digital, a lot of printing offices (especially of paperbacks and advertising printers) are going out of business. This is a reality I see happening, I hear about it a lot. It's sad to see such an amazing field fall to the side because of digitalisation.
Publishers pushing up ebook prices to make print books more attractive is not going to change a thing. These printers aren't suddenly gonna make more money again. Print runs are going down and they have been since before the big ebook boom. Publishers are putting their money in a business that is slowly dying out. Publishers publish stories, their product is the story (in the final stage). They don't publish print books, print books are merely the medium that the story is transferred in. So why their insistence on keeping readers on the print books?



Mandy said:


> So help me understand..the gist of this whole debacle, at least in part, is the traditional publishers wanting to raise the prices of their ebooks in attempt to breathe life back into the paper book industry? Thinking that if I want that new ebook priced at $12.99, I'll opt to buy the paper copy instead? (Though, in my case, if the ebook I want is priced too high, I'll wait for it to hit Overdrive and move on to the thousands of other ebooks.) I just find it fascinating; it's very much like what we saw with the transition from physical CDs to MP3s.


Not just CD to MP3. The music business has been fighting this battle since they went from LP to cassette. Cassettes were already quite easy to copy. Then the CDs came. THEN the mp3 came.
They have been in this battle a bit longer. But the gist is the same.


----------



## P.T. Phronk (Jun 6, 2014)

Kia Zi Shiru said:


> One problem here is that that is not how the industry works. Hachette are a provider of books, like butchers are provider of meats and farmers are providers of fruits and veg. In other industries the provider sets a bulk price, at which price the distributor (Amazon, markets) buys the products, but they are allowed to set their own pricing after that. So if they want to sell at a loss, that is their choice.


Heyyy, now that you mention it, wouldn't it be cool (and logical) if KDP worked like that too?

Can we sign a petition for that?


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Phronk said:


> Heyyy, now that you mention it, wouldn't it be cool (and logical) if KDP worked like that too?
> 
> Can we sign a petition for that?


Only if they stop the price matching. Cause that could get ugly then.


----------



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

MartinLake said:


> Just signed.
> 
> Yesterday I asked the owner of a bookshop if she sold e-books. She said she never would and, when she found out I was an Indie writer, said that Indies were devaluing literature.
> 
> We had an interesting discussion thereafter.


I hope you congratulated her on her imminent retirement. Anyone in business not willing to change or look for ways to move with the times is doomed to lose their livelihood


----------



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

The great aspect of this Hugh you've taken the wind out of their sails by providing the media with a counter argument showing this isn't as clearcut as they are spinning it. Thanks to your efforts the reporting is now showing the opposing viewpoint and you made the Washington Post.

Maybe mr B reads his emails 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/07/03/authors-weigh-in-on-amazon-hachette-dispute/

Guardian as well now:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jul/04/amazon-hachette-self-published-authors-stephen-king-james-patterson


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Richard Stooker said:


> When James Patterson first wrote -- in an ad he took out in the New York Times, if memory serves -- we need government intervention to save the publishing industry, I pooh-poohed the threat.
> 
> I mean, isn't the U.S. government busy facing a few other problems right now? Do the American people really want it to take time away from the issues of immigration, terrorism, Russia and the Ukraine, the economy, etc, to try to save traditional publishers from Amazon (and other platforms as well)?
> 
> ...


I was not going to sign this, but you persuaded me.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Josef Black said:


> The great aspect of this Hugh you've taken the wind out of their sails by providing the media with a counter argument showing this isn't as clearcut as they are spinning it. Thanks to your efforts the reporting is now showing the opposing viewpoint and you made the Washington Post.
> 
> Maybe mr B reads his emails
> 
> ...


.

Wow. Cool. Especially the Guardian article


----------



## CEMartin2 (May 26, 2012)

Signed! Because Hatchette is a bunch of crybabies and poor losers. I don't see them going after anyone else. Just the most successful seller. Amazon FTW.


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> .
> 
> Wow. Cool. Especially the Guardian article


They say never read the comments, but I have to say the comments (so far) on the _Guardian_ article are very encouraging. Not a lot of sympathy for the NY publishing establishment over there!


----------



## Lindy Moone (Oct 19, 2012)

Signed and shared. (Saw it on your facebook post.)
Thanks.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Becca Mills said:


> .
> 
> Wow. Cool. Especially the Guardian article


That's just a blog, at the Washington Post. Reading the Guardian article now.


----------



## Gator (Sep 28, 2012)

Signed it.


----------



## RockyGrede (Apr 19, 2013)

Phronk said:


> ... It's not like Amazon is some person who needs emotional support. They'll act in their own best interest, which may align with our own best interests. Or not. ... And I'm going fly away and focus on writing awesome stuff instead of guessing about what's going on behind closed doors at two giant corporations.


Couldn't agree more with this.

Amazon has been involved in all sorts of underhanded tactics in the past themselves. If you were involved in business, you might know some of the things they have been up to. Just because it isn't in the mainstream news, it doesn't mean it doesn't occur.

At the end of the day, Amazon, Hachette etc are all big businesses. There are there to make a profit. *They offer excellent customer service in order to make a profit*.

I think this petition *may been see* (by some) as using readers as tool to express opinions held by a segment of authors.

As a reader myself, who has read over 300 + books, it is good to know authors appreciate us for reading their work. But with all the good intentions of this petition and thread, I fail to see what the end goal of this will be.


----------



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

RockyGrede said:


> Couldn't agree more with this.
> 
> Amazon has been involved in all sorts of underhanded tactics in the past themselves. If you were involved in business, you might know some of the things they have been up to. Just because it isn't in the mainstream news, it doesn't mean it doesn't occur.
> 
> ...


I'm not qualified to judge end goals, and I don't care if Amazon or Hachette make tons of money out of each other. What I am hoping this letter does is tell the media to report both sides not the one with all the frigging money going into PR campaigns. I want them to remember there are people who don't hate cheap eBook prices and Amazon, but I especially want governments to remember there are voters on both sides and to butt out of stuff that is simply business and shouldn't be political. Does anyone here think that lobbyists WONT get into this if paid enough?


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Mark E. Cooper said:


> What I am hoping this letter does is tell the media to report both sides not the one with all the frigging money going into PR campaigns.


That's both of them. In fact, Amazon has MORE money than them.

There's no underdog here, it's two groups of rich assholes trying to decide who's going to be the catcher this time.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Here's an article a self publisher friend of mine pointed out where trades were treating libraries the way they are Amazon now: 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidvinjamuri/2014/06/06/with-ebooks-still-pricey-illinois-libraries-flex-their-marketing-muscle/


> Quote from article:
> "It's a rare thing in a free market when a customer is refused the ability to buy a company's product and is told its money is no good here."
> 
> - Maureen Sullivan, 9/28/2012 - An Open Letter to America's Publishers
> ...


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Becca Mills said:


> .
> 
> Wow. Cool. Especially the Guardian article


For once, it's not The Guardian's usual "Hachette" job.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Signed.  I don't think it's likely that Amazon will back down. If they cave to Hachette's demands, it will set a precedent for the other publishers when their turn to renegotiate comes up.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Here's an article a self publisher friend of mine pointed out where trades were treating libraries the way they are Amazon now:
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidvinjamuri/2014/06/06/with-ebooks-still-pricey-illinois-libraries-flex-their-marketing-muscle/


I often worry about the future of libraries.

Not everyone can afford an ereader. We need our libraries. They are so much more than a place where there are shelves of books. It's the whole atmosphere. Taking a child in to a library for the first time is a wonderful thing. It's opening up a new world for that child.

There are all the programs they have for encouraging children to read, there are weekly book discussions and club meetings. My library puts together packages for book clubs.

I like to go to the library to work. There are always people sitting in comfortable chairs reading newspapers, students working on projects, and many times, children sitting at a librarian's feet listening to them read.

We'll be opening up a new branch within the next twelve months close to my house. I am so looking forward to it.


----------



## RockyGrede (Apr 19, 2013)

Mark E. Cooper said:


> ... What I am hoping this letter does is tell the media to report both sides not the one with all the frigging money going into PR campaigns. ...


The US media is the most biased in the world. I've never come across anything like it. You can never rely on it to tell the truth, apart from the smaller independent press outlets.

Amazon can handle the assault it is facing. It is a big business with many layers and segments. If Amazon stopped selling Hachetes books, it would still make a profit. Amazon are clearly in the driving seat.


----------



## MarkCoker (Feb 15, 2009)

I'm not in favor of a boycott, but I'm not comfortable with this petition either. This is how wars perpetuate. Pretty soon, there's so much heat an anger and tit for tat that people forget the original spark of the dispute and just fight for fighting's sake. Amazon and Hachette are having a contract dispute, plain and simple. Amazon wants to lower Hachette's percentage on ebooks, as Russ confirmed here - http://online.wsj.com/articles/amazon-defends-its-stance-against-hachette-1404252554?

Amazon's current and past negotiation tactics prompted some to call for a boycott, which causes others (Hugh, Konrath, etc) to start defending Amazon and attacking Hachette. So now we've got a segment of the indie population raising pitchforks against Hachette.

The ironic thing here is that Hachette is fighting for the very same thing that's in the best interest of all indies - the ability to set your own price, the the ability to earn 70% of the list price.

Indies should be rooting for Hachette to prevail. The great thing about agency is that it makes the publisher/author fully accountable to their readers. If Hachette over-prices their books by indie standards, that's their problem and it's great for indies because indie ebooks become more desirable. Yes, Big Publishing underpays authors. Yes, they should pay authors more and have better-aligned interests, but that's irrelevant to the dispute other than the fact that if Hachette was paying its authors more, they'd have more leverage in their negotiation with with Amazon.

I don't support a boycott but I do support Hachette holding the line on agency. Indies would be well-served to recognize these two outcomes need not be in diametric opposition to one another.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

MarkCoker said:


> Amazon's current and past negotiation tactics prompted some to call for a boycott, which causes others (Hugh, Konrath, etc) to start defending Amazon and attacking Hachette. So now we've got a segment of the indie population raising pitchforks against Hachette.


I wouldn't look at it quite as raising pitchforks against Hachette. I've said it before, Hachette is a neutral entity to me. They've neither helped nor harmed me in the past. Instead, I consider this petition to be more of a counter point against some of the fear-mongering and outright untruths being spread as part of what is probably little more than PR campaign by some big name authors to force Amazon's hand. Party A is presenting a case as if they're representing the voice of the author. What we're doing is raising our hands and saying you don't speak for us all.


----------



## gonedark (May 30, 2013)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## Ros_Jackson (Jan 11, 2014)

MarkCoker said:


> Amazon's current and past negotiation tactics prompted some to call for a boycott, which causes others (Hugh, Konrath, etc) to start defending Amazon and attacking Hachette. So now we've got a segment of the indie population raising pitchforks against Hachette.
> 
> The ironic thing here is that Hachette is fighting for the very same thing that's in the best interest of all indies - the ability to set your own price, the the ability to earn 70% of the list price.
> 
> ...


Count me out of the pitchfork battle. But as far as I can see, Hachette is negotiating for Hachette. What they achieve for themselves doubtless won't impact on indie terms and conditions at all.

I'd like to see indies given the ability to price as we see fit without punishment, and the ability to discount at other retailers without it blowing up in our faces, as it has for many who have been involved in Google Play price matching. I'd also like to see the hashtag #hughsunderwear tweeted for this topic. One of those is more likely than the other.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2014)

MarkCoker said:


> The ironic thing here is that Hachette is fighting for the very same thing that's in the best interest of all indies


I'm removing all my books from Smashwords. Good day sir!

_Edited to conform with Forum Decorum. --Betsy_


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

Josef Black said:


> The great aspect of this Hugh you've taken the wind out of their sails by providing the media with a counter argument showing this isn't as clearcut as they are spinning it. Thanks to your efforts the reporting is now showing the opposing viewpoint and you made the Washington Post.
> 
> Maybe mr B reads his emails
> 
> ...


Thanks so much for the links. I am very happy to see articles being posted that show both sides of the argument. To me, that's the best end outcome we could want from this.


----------



## Lilpenguin1972 (Aug 9, 2012)

I'm sorry, but that petition reads like a love letter to Amazon.  If it's about fighting hyperbole with hyperbole, then woohoo, both sides are tied.

I do think Mark Coker brings up an excellent point. If Hachette is fighting to price books as they see fit, which is something Amazon affords self published authors, why is this seen as a bad thing?  If Hachette prices their ebooks too high, then they will not sell.  

No, this is really about Amazon no longer wanting to sell Hachette books without profit.  

As a consumer, I was originally on Amazon's side. Why can't Amazon price products however they see fit?  Now, I see Amazon using the same tactics as Wal-Mart.

Funny, I always thought the indie spirit was about supporting the little guy against the big guy.  I'm not dumb enough to believe that if Hachette wins, then authors will suddenly receive larger royalties. I will say that if Amazon wins, many mid-list authors will see less.  So, yay, win won for the little guy.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

Lilpenguin1972 said:


> No, this is really about Amazon no longer wanting to sell Hachette books without profit.


So businesses shouldn't make a profit?


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

I signed purely because all the names on the original letter were big squazillionaire authors who we've all heard of. I'd like to know if any Hachette authors who aren't meeting their mortgage payments because of their contract terms are quite so vehement on the subject.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Lilpenguin1972 said:


> No, this is really about Amazon no longer wanting to sell Hachette books without profit.


Amazon is a business that makes a relatively small profit from its 74 billion turnover so why would you want it to sell at a loss while making money for a publisher? The key to the actual negotiations is that Hachette wants to price high and get Amazon to discount low, so that readers buy Hachette books because they look such a bargain (like an indie pricing their paperback high to make the Kindle version look a steal). The letter that this petition responds to complains about Amazon NOT discounting authors' books.



MarenHayes said:


> Signed. Because I hate sloppy journalism and cynical spin.


There is no greater sloppy journalism than a Change.org petition. They are happy to rein in the publicity without any fact-checking on petitions including those that allege suicide and blame journalists for that supposed suicide. I better stop there as this is in danger of promoting my next book and Betsy might prod me.


----------



## Lilpenguin1972 (Aug 9, 2012)

Jana DeLeon said:


> So businesses shouldn't make a profit?


Of course they should. But Amazon sold their products at a loss to control the market. Then, once they controlled a major percentage of the market, they now want the publishers to lower their profits.

Let's say I sell lemons for .10 a piece. Now, I pay the pickers .025 a lemon, .045 to the lemonade stand and .020 to overhead, and take a profit of .010 per unit. Now, one lemonade stand decided to sell their lemonade at .045, so no profit but all the buyers came to that one particular lemonade stand, because it is 25% less. Now, that lemonade stand has tripled their orders of lemons they aren't making a profit, but they are priced so low that everybody wants that lemonade.

So, now that the majority of your lemons are going to one vendor, they want a lower price. Well, either the lemon vendor refuses or they make cuts. Trust me, the corporation will survive. They always do. The workers always feel the cut. It's silly to believe that SP authors will come out on top. Amazon and Hachette will come out on top.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

MarkCoker said:


> I'm not in favor of a boycott, but I'm not comfortable with this petition either. This is how wars perpetuate. Pretty soon, there's so much heat an anger and tit for tat that people forget the original spark of the dispute and just fight for fighting's sake. Amazon and Hachette are having a contract dispute, plain and simple. Amazon wants to lower Hachette's percentage on ebooks, as Russ confirmed here - http://online.wsj.com/articles/amazon-defends-its-stance-against-hachette-1404252554?


Respectfully, you are wrong. Read it again. They want lower prices. For all we know, they are offering a higher percentage. It doesn't say. People need to stop seeing what they want to see and stick with the facts as presented.

None of this should be a surprise. Publishers colluded because Amazon wanted a $9.99 cap on e-books. Publishers didn't. We are right back where we started, but with an organized PR campaign rather than collusion (though I wouldn't be surprised if some of that is going on as well).



MarkCoker said:


> Amazon's current and past negotiation tactics prompted some to call for a boycott, which causes others (Hugh, Konrath, etc) to start defending Amazon and attacking Hachette. So now we've got a segment of the indie population raising pitchforks against Hachette.


I'm not defending Amazon. I'm defending readers and writers. Right now, Amazon's interests align with my own. I'll jump ship in a heartbeat if I don't agree. Don't believe me? Go look for my books on Google Play. You won't find them. And I don't miss the 6-figures a year I'm giving up by sticking to my principles.



MarkCoker said:


> The ironic thing here is that Hachette is fighting for the very same thing that's in the best interest of all indies - the ability to set your own price, the the ability to earn 70% of the list price.


Respectfully, again, you are dead wrong. Hachette is fighting for the right to price their e-books HIGH and have Amazon discount and take the hit. Self-published authors can't price their e-books wherever they want. Because a $14.99 price at 35% makes more than a dollar less than a $9.99 price at 70%. What if Amazon is offering Hachette the exact same terms? Hachette could claim that Amazon is asking for more share, but all Amazon is really incentivizing is a better price for consumers. Exactly what they do for indies. In fact, if you want to see what terms Amazon prefers, if people can't negotiate at all, look at a KDP contract.



MarkCoker said:


> Indies should be rooting for Hachette to prevail. The great thing about agency is that it makes the publisher/author fully accountable to their readers. If Hachette over-prices their books by indie standards, that's their problem and it's great for indies because indie ebooks become more desirable. Yes, Big Publishing underpays authors. Yes, they should pay authors more and have better-aligned interests, but that's irrelevant to the dispute other than the fact that if Hachette was paying its authors more, they'd have more leverage in their negotiation with with Amazon.


If you don't care about other people, absolutely. If you don't care about Hachette authors, this is precisely what you would do. Which is why, when people accuse me of being anti-author, I have to laugh. If I didn't care about writers and readers of all stripes, I wouldn't be wasting my time and money engaged in this struggle. This is a good cause, trying to get e-book royalties higher for all writers and prices lower for all readers. What you are arguing for here is not good.



MarkCoker said:


> I don't support a boycott but I do support Hachette holding the line on agency. Indies would be well-served to recognize these two outcomes need not be in diametric opposition to one another.


Agency is fine if you can trust the price-setter to be reasonable. Past history shows us that publishers won't be reasonable. They'll price to protect print sales and bookstores. My publishers have admitted this to me. Mark, you are 100% wrong about every single bit of this. It isn't even close. And I say this out of respect for you and all you do for indies, but you are blinded by your loathing of a competitor (Amazon), so you can't think straight about the topic. Which I understand, but it means pointing out these logical fallacies for the benefit of others.

Still love you. Maybe take a deep breath, go for a walk, and think about what the other side is saying. You're on the wrong side of history right now.


----------



## gonedark (May 30, 2013)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## S. Elliot Brandis (Dec 9, 2013)

I side with Amazon in this debate, and think they've opened up a lit of doors for indie authors, but I don't like the way readers have been dragged into this. I don't really feel this petition is about the readers, and I don't think they should be used as a card in this. It seems disingenuous. As the debate in this thread shows, the argument is between two business entities.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2014)

S. Elliot Brandis said:


> As the debate in this thread shows, the argument is between two business entities.


Not really. A lot of indie authors depend on Amazon's monthly check for their livelihood. So it is personal. How come James Patterson thinks it's OK to damage Amazon and its book selling arm on which many of us depend to pay the bills?


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

Posted on my blog, which should be out to Facebook and Twitter as well.

I'm no cheerleader for Amazon, they're a big corporation and use shady business practices when it suits them, but I've been happy with the terms under which I use their services. That might change in the future, but I'm not going to be frightened into rooting for another corporation that thinks the way they treat authors is right.


----------



## Robert Bidinotto (Mar 3, 2011)

I signed the petition, enthusiastically. The self-publishing option offered by Amazon saved my wife and me from financial ruin, and enabled me to launch a new and successful career writing fiction. I fully support Amazon against the Big Publishing oligopoly, and those house authors who wish to quash competition from indies and jack up ebook prices.


----------



## MarkCoker (Feb 15, 2009)

Hugh Howey said:


> Respectfully, you are wrong. Read it again.


Amazon says it wants to offer customers lower prices. This will be done by Amazon taking a bigger cut so it can discount more, and Hachette taking a lower cut. More margin under Amazon's control, less to Hachette. It's no secret Amazon hates agency and wants wholesale terms. The problem with conventional wholesale terms is that the margin shifts from the the control of the publisher to the retailer.



Hugh Howey said:


> Publishers colluded because Amazon wanted a $9.99 cap on e-books. Publishers didn't. We are right back where we started, but with an organized PR campaign rather than collusion (though I wouldn't be surprised if some of that is going on as well).


You state publishers colluded as if this is fact, but it is not fact. It's an opinion. The publishers did not admit guilt in their settlements. The publishers had strong reason to settle, even if they were innocent. Another opinion is that they were forced to settle with a gun to their heads, otherwise they would have risked treble damages. IOW, a business-threatening outcome. Only Apple has the resources to take on that risk.



Hugh Howey said:


> Respectfully, again, you are dead wrong. Hachette is fighting for the right to price their e-books HIGH and have Amazon discount and take the hit.


That's a big leap you're making. You don't know that Hachette wants to price all their books high. While all the big pubs have a history of pricing high, they've also all been pricing lower the last few years, taking a clue from the success of indies. They're fighting to earn 70% and retain pricing control. If they're earning 70%, it will enable lower prices, if they choose. And if they choose to price too high, customers have other choices.



Hugh Howey said:


> If you don't care about other people, absolutely. If you don't care about Hachette authors, this is precisely what you would do. Which is why, when people accuse me of being anti-author, I have to laugh. If I didn't care about writers and readers of all stripes, I wouldn't be wasting my time and money engaged in this struggle. This is a good cause, trying to get e-book royalties higher for all writers and prices lower for all readers. What you are arguing for here is not good.


Hugh, I care for authors, and I know you do too. That's not in question. If you want higher ebook royalties for authors, you should want indie and publishers to sell under agency. If the big pubs lose 70% terms on ebooks, there's little chance the average trad author will ever see more than 25% net.



Hugh Howey said:


> Agency is fine if you can trust the price-setter to be reasonable. Past history shows us that publishers won't be reasonable.


It's a fallacy to believe that retailers somehow provide a public service by discounting, or that the retailer knows better than the author/publisher where to price the book. The discounts are enabled by retailer's taking bigger margin from the supplier. This transfers margin and pricing control from the publisher/author where it belongs to the retailer. The retailer will always act out of its own self-interest, and their self-interest is not always aligned with that of the supplier. Just because a retailer gets wholesale terms doesn't mean they'll discount. As we saw at Smashwords back when we were doing wholesale in 2009/10, retailers held on to most of the extra margin for their own benefit and didn't pass it to consumers. A few titles were deep discounted, but most were not. I think all publishers and indies should be able to set their own prices, have the freedom to increase or decrease as they see fit, receive 70% of the price, and be held accountable by readers for their decisions. That to me is independence. If authors/publishers get greedy and screw readers, readers have other choices. Over the long term, readers will reward the publishers/authors that treat them fairly, and punish those who do not.



Hugh Howey said:


> And I say this out of respect for you and all you do for indies, but you are blinded by your loathing of a competitor (Amazon), so you can't think straight about the topic. Which I understand, but it means pointing out these logical fallacies for the benefit of others.


I'm so tired of hearing others tell me how I feel about Amazon.  I do not loathe Amazon. I respect and admire them. I don't agree with all their practices just as I don't like all my wife's choice of music, but to say I loathe Amazon is simply not true. I'm against the boycott. Is that loathing? Why must opinions be so polarized? Is this Fox news? I can admire Amazon and wish them well but still root for Hachette to prevail.



Hugh Howey said:


> Still love you. Maybe take a deep breath, go for a walk, and think about what the other side is saying. You're on the wrong side of history right now.


You too. History will tell if the loss of agency (if this comes to pass) is good for authors or not. Like I said before, I think an author can be pro-Amazon but still root for Hachette to maintain pricing control over ebooks. Have a great Independence Day.


----------



## Lilpenguin1972 (Aug 9, 2012)

drno said:


> Not really. A lot of indie authors depend on Amazon's monthly check for their livelihood. So it is personal. How come James Patterson thinks it's OK to damage Amazon and its book selling arm on which many of us depend to pay the bills?


Because most Hachette authors aren't Patterson, just like most self published authors aren't Hugh Howey.

This idea that it is the big guys against the little guys is ludicrous. Amazon doesn't care about the little guy. Amazon cares about Amazon. Jeez, right now, Amazon is thumbing their nose at the FTC regarding safeguards on in-app purchases to minors. They don't care. If Hachette came to Amazon and agreed to their terms, but it meant less money for authors, do you think Amazon would argue?


----------



## S. Elliot Brandis (Dec 9, 2013)

drno said:


> Not really. A lot of indie authors depend on Amazon's monthly check for their livelihood. So it is personal. How come James Patterson thinks it's OK to damage Amazon and its book selling arm on which many of us depend to pay the bills?


Agreed. Authors will likely have a vested interest in one or both of the businesses involved. I have no problem if the petition was titled accurately - e.g. Indie authors in support of Amazon.

Bringing readers into it seems like misdirection and an attempt to bring even more emotion into what *could* be a rational business debate. We don't need to be as bad as Patterson and co.


----------



## sljones (Jun 5, 2014)

Lilpenguin1972 said:


> If Hachette came to Amazon and agreed to their terms, but it meant less money for authors, do you think Amazon would argue?


You're absolutely right, the end result of that would make self-publishing an even more attractive option.

Hugh - a MAJOR thanks to you, J. A. Konrath, Russell Blake, Barry Eisler and company for taking the time away from your writing to keep putting the facts out there. I'm a new writer who never considered going the traditional publishing route because it just didn't make sense for me. As an outsider to the publishing industry, it's incredible to see how a business that is built on creativity is so reluctant to embrace innovation.

I owe you guys some beers for all of the advice you freely share!

sj


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

> You state publishers colluded as if this is fact, but it is not fact. It's an opinion. The publishers did not admit guilt in their settlements. The publishers had strong reason to settle, even if they were innocent. Another opinion is that they were forced to settle with a gun to their heads, otherwise they would have risked treble damages. IOW, a business-threatening outcome. Only Apple has the resources to take on that risk.


Sorry, Mark. You've completely lost me with this. I thought Mr. Howey was being a little harsh when he said your blindness about Amazon was affecting your judgment, but after reading this and the rest of your post, I'm inclined to believe his assessment is spot on.

_Edited to conform with Forum Decorum. --Betsy_


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

MarkCoker said:


> Amazon says it wants to offer customers lower prices. This will be done by Amazon taking a bigger cut so it can discount more, and Hachette taking a lower cut. More margin under Amazon's control, less to Hachette. It's no secret Amazon hates agency and wants wholesale terms. The problem with conventional wholesale terms is that the margin shifts from the the control of the publisher to the retailer.


Stop confusing terms. They want lower prices. Their cut is the percentage they take. They have stated that they want lower prices, but they've never said they want a larger cut.

Hachette has stated they want higher prices. This negotiation is about price, from everything we've seen and heard. It is not about percentages, unless you have some insider information. If not, please stop making stuff up. It calls into question everything else you have to say on this.



MarkCoker said:


> You state publishers colluded as if this is fact, but it is not fact. It's an opinion. The publishers did not admit guilt in their settlements. The publishers had strong reason to settle, even if they were innocent. Another opinion is that they were forced to settle with a gun to their heads, otherwise they would have risked treble damages. IOW, a business-threatening outcome. Only Apple has the resources to take on that risk.


Seriously? Hey Mark, how did Apple collude alone?

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324425204578597453053469898

The publishers settled. Apple was found guilty. Of what? Colluding with themselves?

You are making everything you say suspicious if you cling to this. The two points already make it look like you are incapable of clear thought. It's baffling. Take a deep breath, dude.



MarkCoker said:


> That's a big leap you're making. You don't know that Hachette wants to price all their books high. While all the big pubs have a history of pricing high, they've also all been pricing lower the last few years, taking a clue from the success of indies. They're fighting to earn 70% and retain pricing control. If they're earning 70%, it will enable lower prices, if they choose. And if they choose to price too high, customers have other choices.


You didn't see their slide to investors? They stated this was their intention three weeks ago. You didn't see their letter to Judge Cote? They stated their intentions two years ago. You didn't see how they colluded for higher prices? Mark . . . this is ridiculous. So far, these three points, are about the silliest things I've seen said about this entire debate. And you've got amazing company.



MarkCoker said:


> Hugh, I care for authors, and I know you do too. That's not in question. If you want higher ebook royalties for authors, you should want indie and publishers to sell under agency. If the big pubs lose 70% terms on ebooks, there's little chance the average trad author will ever see more than 25% net.


I'm sure you care for authors. But you hate Amazon more. That clouds your thinking.



MarkCoker said:


> It's a fallacy to believe that retailers somehow provide a public service by discounting, or that the retailer knows better than the author/publisher where to price the book. The discounts are enabled by retailer's taking bigger margin from the supplier. This transfers margin and pricing control from the publisher/author where it belongs to the retailer. The retailer will always act out of its own self-interest, and their self-interest is not always aligned with that of the supplier. Just because a retailer gets wholesale terms doesn't mean they'll discount. As we saw at Smashwords back when we were doing wholesale in 2009/10, retailers held on to most of the extra margin for their own benefit and didn't pass it to consumers. A few titles were deep discounted, but most were not. I think all publishers and indies should be able to set their own prices, have the freedom to increase or decrease as they see fit, receive 70% of the price, and be held accountable by readers for their decisions. That to me is independence. If authors/publishers get greedy and screw readers, readers have other choices. Over the long term, readers will reward the publishers/authors that treat them fairly, and punish those who do not.


I never said that. Amazon wants lower prices so it doesn't have to discount. We know this by every action and statement they've ever made. If people stopped making things up and just listened to the two parties involved, they wouldn't be confused.



MarkCoker said:


> I'm so tired of hearing others tell me how I feel about Amazon.  I do not loathe Amazon. I respect and admire them. I don't agree with all their practices just as I don't like all my wife's choice of music, but to say I loathe Amazon is simply not true. I'm against the boycott. Is that loathing? Why must opinions be so polarized? Is this Fox news? I can admire Amazon and wish them well but still root for Hachette to prevail.


If you are rooting for Hachette, then I have lost a measure of my respect for you, and that saddens me. You are on the wrong side in a very big way. You can't care for authors and root for Hachette. Well, I suppose you can, but you're hoping to harm the people you profess to care about.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

This thread is like watching a zebra cheer on a lion as it fights with a hyena over who gets to eat first.


----------



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

And all the monkeys on the sidelines throwing...um...what monkeys throw.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Hugh Howey said:


> Okay, considering most of my threads are about my man-love for David Adams, that's not saying much. But still, I think this is very important.









Hugh Howey said:


> Some high-profile authors are trying to mount a campaign against Amazon: http://www.thebookseller.com/news/child-grisham-patterson-amazon-protest.html
> 
> A group of us are petitioning fellow authors to instead thank our readers for allowing us to write and publish as we see fit. And we are hoping to dispel many of the myths being thrown about:
> 
> ...


I've been with Joe and the rest of y'all, Hugh, for a long time now, on this issue.

I signed on last night and there was already over 3,000 signatures. Great to see us indies speaking 10x louder than the ill-informed billionaire authors defending Hachette like they are some sort of poorly-treated pauper.

Combat the stupid, Hugh!  Fight the good fight!


----------



## I Give Up (Jan 27, 2014)

I'm really surprised this issue is being debated here, of all places. I don't see why any of us would care about Hachette making more money, unless you have dreams of one day working with them. In all fairness, I'm inherently biased against publishers, but that's another issue altogether. What really boggles my mind here is that anyone would think it's okay to charge upwards of $15+ a single ebook. eBooks should not cost that much. Talk about gatekeeping, how's the average low-income household supporting a reading habit when fiction costs almost twice their hourly wages? Ugh, I could seriously rant on this all night, but I have a book to write, and this issue hurts my brain.


----------



## Chris Baker (Apr 30, 2013)

With regard to the authors who signed the petition, can someone say "Stockholm Syndrome"?

I haven't signed any "abusive" contracts with publishers. During my with self-addressed stamped envelopes back in the early 1990's, I was lucky if I even got response to my queries.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Hi Mark--

Hugh already made many of the points I would have, but I wanted to add a few. As you know, I have utmost respect for you, and I think you're one of the heroes in this industry.



MarkCoker said:


> I'm not in favor of a boycott, but I'm not comfortable with this petition either. This is how wars perpetuate. Pretty soon, there's so much heat an anger and tit for tat that people forget the original spark of the dispute and just fight for fighting's sake.


The petition isn't about heat or anger at all. It's all about defusing what has become a very one-sided and misleading media campaign by Hachette and several bestselling millionaire authors. Many don't understand what the dispute is actually about, so Hugh and I and a few others tried to explain what is actually happening. And because we did, we're getting some media soundbytes, and the other side to the story is actually getting some play.



MarkCoker said:


> Amazon's current and past negotiation tactics prompted some to call for a boycott, which causes others (Hugh, Konrath, etc) to start defending Amazon and attacking Hachette. So now we've got a segment of the indie population raising pitchforks against Hachette.
> 
> The ironic thing here is that Hachette is fighting for the very same thing that's in the best interest of all indies - the ability to set your own price, the the ability to earn 70% of the list price.


I'd actually prefer having a wholesale deal with Amazon, and give them the ability to discount my books. What indie author wouldn't want Amazon to sell their titles as a loss lead? I'd love to experiment with how much I could charge Amazon wholesale, and how low they'd price my work retail.



MarkCoker said:


> Indies should be rooting for Hachette to prevail. The great thing about agency is that it makes the publisher/author fully accountable to their readers. If Hachette over-prices their books by indie standards, that's their problem and it's great for indies because indie ebooks become more desirable. Yes, Big Publishing underpays authors. Yes, they should pay authors more and have better-aligned interests, but that's irrelevant to the dispute other than the fact that if Hachette was paying its authors more, they'd have more leverage in their negotiation with with Amazon.
> 
> I don't support a boycott but I do support Hachette holding the line on agency. Indies would be well-served to recognize these two outcomes need not be in diametric opposition to one another.


Many indies became indies because bloggers like Hugh and I explained how unconscionable legacy publishers are in their treatment of authors.

I care about all authors, including Hachette authors. If we can get a few to realize it is their publisher, not Amazon, who is wrong in this dispute, maybe they won't sign a new deal and be at the mercy of their publisher again.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

MarkCoker said:


> Amazon says it wants to offer customers lower prices. This will be done by Amazon taking a bigger cut so it can discount more, and Hachette taking a lower cut. More margin under Amazon's control, less to Hachette. It's no secret Amazon hates agency and wants wholesale terms. The problem with conventional wholesale terms is that the margin shifts from the the control of the publisher to the retailer.


Amazon doesn't hate agency, Mark. It has agency deals with all of its KDP authors.

Name a retailer who doesn't have control over pricing what they sell, other than Apple. Book publishing is one of the only business where the price is printed on the product. Legacy publishers loved it when retailers discounted their paper books, including Amazon. But when Amazon did it with ebooks, they panicked and colluded to raise prices. This is because publishers have an oligopoly on the paper book market, but no control in the ebook market. It is in no one's best interest, except for publishers, to allow them to control retail pricing.



MarkCoker said:


> It's a fallacy to believe that retailers somehow provide a public service by discounting, or that the retailer knows better than the author/publisher where to price the book. The discounts are enabled by retailer's taking bigger margin from the supplier.


That's not what Amazon did, Mark. Publishers' margins remained the same no matter how much Amazon sold the book for. Prior to the agency model, many publishers had deals with Amazon to sell them ebooks at the wholesale price of half the list of a hardcover. For example, Hyperion sold my ebooks wholesale to Amazon for $12.50--half of a $25.00 hardcover. But Amazon would sell that book at a loss--$9.99 or less--losing money on each sale.

I thought this was awesome. But publishers feared that this would hasten the adoption of ebooks and hurt paper sales. So they tried lots of ways to stop it, ultimately forcing the agency model on Amazon.



MarkCoker said:


> I think all publishers and indies should be able to set their own prices, have the freedom to increase or decrease as they see fit, receive 70% of the price, and be held accountable by readers for their decisions. That to me is independence. If authors/publishers get greedy and screw readers, readers have other choices. Over the long term, readers will reward the publishers/authors that treat them fairly, and punish those who do not.


Amazon has more data about pricing than I do. In fact, I'm in a beta program that suggests prices for ebooks in a very detailed way. I'd be more than happy to sell to Amazon at wholesale and let them price my books as they see fit. Unlike Hachette, it would be low.


----------



## MarkCoker (Feb 15, 2009)

Hugh Howey said:


> This negotiation is about price, from everything we've seen and heard. It is not about percentages, unless you have some insider information. If not, please stop making stuff up. It calls into question everything else you have to say on this.


I'm not alone in interpreting the WSJ interview with Russ G. as evidence Amazon wants a larger cut - http://gigaom.com/2014/07/02/amazon-exec-on-hachette-dispute-its-all-about-ebook-pricing/ If Amazon doesn't want more than 30%, they'd do well to clarify that. Amazon would win the PR battle overnight if they simply said, "We're happy with 30% commission on ebook sales. We just want the ability to discount as we see fit."



Hugh Howey said:


> Seriously? Hey Mark, how did Apple collude alone?


I accept that Judge Cote found Apple guilty of price fixing, but I don't accept the judgement as just or correct. My view is that Apple offered publishers a superior business model and they jumped at it.

If it goes to the Supreme Court and they uphold the judgement against Apple, I'll accept it but I won't like it. If a higher court reverses Judge Cote's decision, will you accept the reversed decision?



Hugh Howey said:


> You didn't see their slide to investors? They stated this was their intention three weeks ago.


There's not a single reference in the investor presentation at 
http://www.lagardere.com/fichiers/fckeditor/File/Relations_investisseurs/Relations%20Investisseurs/Investor_Day/Invest_Day_Lagardere_Lag_Publishing.pdf of Hachette stating any intention to raise prices. They make statements about maintaining control over pricing, but nothing about their intention to raise prices.



Hugh Howey said:


> You didn't see their letter to Judge Cote? They stated their intentions two years ago.


I believe they stated their intention to return to agency, *not* to raise prices. If you can share a link that states otherwise, I will stand corrected.



Hugh Howey said:


> I'm sure you care for authors. But you hate Amazon more. That clouds your thinking.


There you go again. I don't hate Amazon. My thinking is clear. Agency offers publishers 70% list + pricing control which is good for authors, publishers and readers. Wholesale is typically 50% list which is less favorable for authors and publishers, and does not guarantee lower prices to consumers. In some cases, wholesale leads to higher consumer prices if the retailer doesn't discount.

Let's reverse the scenario here. Let's assume B&N, Kobo or Apple were negotiating with Hachette to increase the retailer's cut from 30% list to 40 or 50% list. I'd still root for Hachette to prevail to preserve the 70% publisher cut. If the Big 5 publishers preserve their ability to maintain agency, it'll mean indie authors are more likely to maintain it. If agency is undermined, it could...

[list type=decimal]
1. lead all retailers to abandon the 70/30 split indies now enjoy. Indies would lose control over the prices paid by their readers.

2. favor deep-pocketed retailers for which books can serve as loss-leaders to drive revenue toward other business lines (Apple, Amazon, Google), and disadvantage pure-play retailers such as B&N and Kobo which less able to sustain prolonged price wars

3. salt the earth and discourage the funding, formation and traction of newer ebook retailing startups (agency creates a level playing field that allows smaller retailers to compete against larger retailers)[/list]



Hugh Howey said:


> You can't care for authors and root for Hachette. Well, I suppose you can, but you're hoping to harm the people you profess to care about.


I disagree. How does agency harm Hachette authors? It benefits them. Hachette authors will earn 25% of 70% (17.5%) under agency vs 25% of 50% (12.5%) under wholesale. It'll give the publisher greater control over their pricing and promotions. All the great things every indie takes for granted.

If Hachette capitulates and cedes greater margin to a retailer, how does that benefit Hachette authors?[/list]


----------



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

It's not about Hatchet v's Amazon, it's about the old way of doing business v's the new way of doing business. 

As a representative of the big 5 that have run publishing for several decades, Hatchet sees ebooks as a cash cow to milk while retaining paper books as their main business.  

As a pioneer of the new business model, Amazon wants ebooks to become the norm and for paper books to move to print-on-demand system which eliminates the problems associated with unsold stock of unpopular books.

Giving support to Hatchet is to give tacit approval to the old way of doing business, with the draconian contracts and the marginalization of the two most important elements of the publishing industry - the readers and the writers.

Giving support to Amazon is to give tacit approval to the new way of doing business, which removes many of the obstacles between readers and writers. Using the new way, many authors have been able to find audiences denied them by the old way. Using the new way, many readers have been able to find some wonderful literature denied them by the old way.

I signed the petition.


----------



## MarkCoker (Feb 15, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Hi Mark--
> 
> Hugh already made many of the points I would have, but I wanted to add a few. As you know, I have utmost respect for you, and I think you're one of the heroes in this industry.
> 
> ...


Joe, you know I think you're awesome. I drink your Koolaid on the incredible advantages of indie authorship and share the view that if publishers don't fix their models and treat authors better, they're toast. No disagreement there. Alternative POVs are great in this debate, though from my vantage point I see a lot of vitriol pointed at traditional publishers, and while much of it is well-deserved, it strays from the point of the Amazon/Hachette contract dispute.

Since I'm pro-agency and you're more pro-wholesale, which have different opinions about the best model going forward and you won't share my concern about the implications of a Hachette capitulation on agency.

Question: How do we know that Hachette is wrong in this dispute? And is there really a right or wrong? By all accounts, Amazon wants wholesale and wants to pay less for the books, and Hachette wants pricing control and 70% list. These are different wants, but is either really wrong?

Just to be clear, I want low prices too. One of the reasons I love agency is that it allows indies to earn more at lower prices. It enables lower prices. I don't defend Big publishers' over-pricing, and it's their loss if they use agency to increase prices because it'll only render their books less competitive against indie books.


----------



## Gator (Sep 28, 2012)

MarkCoker said:


> You state publishers colluded as if this is fact, but it is not fact. It's an opinion. The publishers did not admit guilt in their settlements. The publishers had strong reason to settle, even if they were innocent.


Mark, you seem to have missed the double-deleted emails from the top brass at the Price-Fix-Six, including the ones translated from French <*cough*Hachette*cough*>. Where's Bob Kohn? I think he can draw you a picture. 



> It's a fallacy to believe that retailers somehow provide a public service by discounting,


That's an odd choice of words to disparage a very successful marketing tactic in the U.S. and many other countries. Maybe you noticed that Preston et al., complained in their public letter to readers that Amazon was:

"*--Refusing to discount the prices of many of Hachette's authors' books.*"

This statement makes it look as if these authors believe all of Hachette's books are entitled to a discount, and Amazon is just being mean to them. If this is a big deal to these authors, why doesn't Hachette reduce the list price on these books? Without Amazon's discount, the sale price can still be competitive with other books.



> or that the retailer knows better than the author/publisher where to price the book.


If you've been watching Amazon's algorithms for the last decade or so, you'd recognize that Amazon is quite adept at pricing to increase its revenues on its web sites and the revenues of its vendors on Amazon Marketplace. It was reported recently in the news that Amazon.com changes prices an average of 2.5 million times per day.

How successful is Amazon in selling Hachette's books by managing the sale prices? Amazon is now responsible for 40% of Hachette's revenue. No other retailer even comes close. In other words, Hachette is better off with Amazon setting sale prices.



> The discounts are enabled by retailer's taking bigger margin from the supplier.


That's the easiest way for retailers to enable discounts, as long as the supplier complies. Don't forget that Amazon, B&N, big box stores, and Wal-Mart all demand a larger margin (and co-op fees) from publishers than indie bookstores do because they sell at much higher volumes. Amazon, like most successful retailers, has been working on increasing its own efficiencies and often offers better discounts to customers than its competitors do because of this.



> This transfers margin and pricing control from the publisher/author where it belongs to the retailer. The retailer will always act out of its own self-interest, and their self-interest is not always aligned with that of the supplier.


This isn't new or unique to Amazon. This is how retail works in the U.S. with most consumer products. If a manufacturer doesn't like a retailer's business terms, the manufacturer finds other retailers to sell the products or adds to its business model by becoming a retailer itself. Or it goes out of business.



> Just because a retailer gets wholesale terms doesn't mean they'll discount. As we saw at Smashwords back when we were doing wholesale in 2009/10, retailers held on to most of the extra margin for their own benefit and didn't pass it to consumers. A few titles were deep discounted, but most were not.


Was Amazon one of those retailers who refused (or mostly refused) to discount Smashwords eBook titles acquired under wholesale terms in 2009/10?

I have to admit, this sounds out of character for Amazon. Amazon has a pretty L-O-O-O-N-N-G history of discounting books, eBooks, electronics, garden equipment -- you name it.


----------



## MarkCoker (Feb 15, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Amazon doesn't hate agency, Mark. It has agency deals with all of its KDP authors.


Amazon wouldn't call KDP agency, though I agree it's agency-lite.



Jack Kilborn said:


> Name a retailer who doesn't have control over pricing what they sell, other than Apple.


Except for Flipkart, we're agency or agency-like with all our retailers. Our retailers don't discount.



Jack Kilborn said:


> Amazon has more data about pricing than I do. In fact, I'm in a beta program that suggests prices for ebooks in a very detailed way. I'd be more than happy to sell to Amazon at wholesale and let them price my books as they see fit. Unlike Hachette, it would be low.


Sounds really interesting. If they've got tools that can allow indies to make data-driven pricing decisions, that would be super cool.

Although the author benefits from their book being deep discounted, not all books are deep discounted, which means such deep discounting isn't universally available and the timing isn't under the author's control. One benefit of agency is that the author has more control over the timing and the amount.


----------



## Evan J (Feb 3, 2014)

MarkCoker said:


> One benefit of agency is that the author has more control over the timing and the amount.


Don't you mean the "publisher" has more control? I doubt publishers agree to serve as agents for their authors.


----------



## MarkCoker (Feb 15, 2009)

Gator said:


> Was Amazon one of those retailers who refused (or mostly refused) to discount Smashwords eBook titles acquired under wholesale terms in 2009/10?
> 
> I have to admit, this sounds out of character for Amazon. Amazon has a pretty L-O-O-O-N-N-G history of discounting books, eBooks, electronics, garden equipment -- you name it.


We had wholesale agreement with Amazon in 2009 which we announced prematurely (the integration was never completed so books never went onsale). This was prior to the launch of the iBooks (then called the "iBookstore") in 2010. After iBooks launched, Amazon started price-matching direct-uploaded books from DTP (now called KDP) against our other retailers which were all wholesale. Long story made short, we moved all our other retailers to agency by the end of 2010 so our authors could control prices and eliminate the unpleasant consequences of Amazon's price-matching. Amazon refused to give us access to their agency program, and we were unwilling to distribute to them under their wholesale terms. What few titles we do distribute to Amazon are at KDP.


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

Done! Here are my thoughts on this issue, as posted on May 31: http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2014/05/amazon-vs-hachette-i-side-with-amazon.html


----------



## Evan J (Feb 3, 2014)

AngryGames said:


> It come off that way to you, but you are probably the only one in this thread thinks that. The rest of us, while not in the know about the negotiations, know at least there is no 'banning' of books, there never has been, and there never will be. Removing a pre-order button = banning only in a world that makes zero sense.
> 
> As for inconvenience because you can't preorder a book... when did this become a first-world complaint? I've never heard a single reader, friend, family member, enemy, politician, or Martian complain about how hard life is because they can't pre-order a certain book.
> 
> No readers were hurt in the making of this thread, nor in the Amazon - Hachette negotiations. Not a single reader. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nil. If you can find a single reader who is hurt because of this ongoing negotiation (real hurt, not boo hoo I'm sad I can't hit the preorder button hurt), I'll retract every single word. But you won't.


Nice to see diversity of opinion was welcomed in this thread.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

MarkCoker said:


> You state publishers colluded as if this is fact, but it is not fact. It's an opinion.


No, Mark. It is called a judgement of the court.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> No, Mark. It is called a judgement of the court.


+1


----------



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

MarkCoker said:


> The ironic thing here is that Hachette is fighting for the very same thing that's in the best interest of all indies - the ability to set your own price, the the ability to earn 70% of the list price.


I cannot disagree more with this. Amazon are NOT the ones getting their cronies to talk about lobbying and sicking government stooges on to people to prop up a huge business. Can I hear the words whispering in my head... "Hmmm, Hachette is right, they're TOO BIG TO FAIL. It is the duty of this administration to prop them up and protect them."

Where have I heard similar sentiments before?


----------



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

Vaalingrade said:


> That's both of them. In fact, Amazon has MORE money than them.
> 
> There's no underdog here, it's two groups of rich [expletive]s trying to decide who's going to be the catcher this time.


Yeah, but I was trying to say that Amazon is at least keeping the thing close to its chest. It isn't the one using the likes of James Patterson inc etc and his BFFs to launch ads in newspapers, threaten lobbying the government etc. Neither side is innocent or the underdog, but letting one side OWN the media and all coverage isn't good. Amazon's silence begins to look like hiding then. Personally I think that if Patterson and his buds truly believed what they say, they would boycott Amazon and not put the decision on their readers. Insist their books NOT be sold by Amazon, and their readers will go to Barnes. Done deal.


----------



## Frank Zubek (Apr 27, 2010)

Taking a moment here to say *THANK YOU:*
Mr. Konrath and Mr. Howey *for taking valuable time from their writing* for not only tracking this news but also for stopping by here to keep us aware of those developments AND to interact with us on these boards.

Both of them have risen in the indie ranks to the kind of success a number of us hope to achieve and NEITHER of them - at this point- truly NEEDS to be helping us out ( there ARE a handful of writers who would forget all about us and go off and build on their career).............and yet here they are sharing their time.

And an additional *THANK YOU* to the amazing moderators of these boards for making this space on the web available to authors everywhere ( literally from around the globe as well as 24/7). This tiny space on the ever growing internet continues to stay focused on helping confused, worried, interested, hard working writers everywhere and not turn into the standard back stabbing negative drivel far too many other community boards sink to.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

MarkCoker said:


> You state publishers colluded as if this is fact, but it is not fact. It's an opinion.


I'm sorry Mark but this is a little misleading. It's not just a random opinion - this isn't just debate fodder. It's the opinion of the courts.

Have you read Judge Cote's final order/opinion? If you haven't, it's well worth going through. It's 160 pages long but very clear on the publishers' actions in this case: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f299200/299275.pdf



MarkCoker said:


> The publishers did not admit guilt in their settlements.


They didn't have to. The judge's order made it very clear. From the Summary of Findings (Page 9, my emphasis)



> The Plaintiffs have shown that *the Publisher Defendants conspired with each other to eliminate retail price competition in order to raise e-book prices*, and that Apple played a central role in facilitating and executing that conspiracy... *There is, at the end of the day, very little dispute about many of the most material facts in this case.*


One more time to be clear because I don't want this zombie meme gaining new strength from this thread:

*The courts in America have explicitly determined that the publishers were price-fixing. The fact that they settled didn't get them off the hook. The judge's order is extremely clear on the publishers' actions.*

The reason the publishers didn't fight the case is because - as every independent legal expert said at the time, and has said since - it was an open-and-shut case, with a long trail of documentary evidence, and a per se violation of the Sherman Act.

tl:dr Price-fixing happened. Let's not pretend it didn't, no matter what we think about Amazon, Hachette, Agency pricing, or what's best for indies.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

MarkCoker said:


> You state publishers colluded as if this is fact, but it is not fact. It's an opinion. The publishers did not admit guilt in their settlements. The publishers had strong reason to settle, even if they were innocent. Another opinion is that they were forced to settle with a gun to their heads, otherwise they would have risked treble damages. IOW, a business-threatening outcome. Only Apple has the resources to take on that risk.


I feel as if I'm fairly competent to take this on, since (a) I'm a former law professor who wrote about the intersection of antitrust, IP, and contract, and (b) I've taken Hugh Howey to task before on the difference between certainty and uncertainty.

I would call the claim that publishers colluded to fix prices the only reasonable logical inference that can be made from the facts.

I cannot think of any other possible explanation for the factual evidence except "collusion." What else do you call it when Amazon removes Macmillan's buy buttons, and a CEO of another company e-mails every other major publisher and says, "John Sargent needs our help!" What else do you call it when major publishers say "3 agree=OK" on the Apple agency agreement, and write to Apple and refer to the process of getting multiple publishers on board for agency as "herding us cats"?

I don't know how to understand that, and nobody--not the publishers, not a single one of the defenders of the publishers in the media--has even attempted to characterize this as anything other than, "the publishers worked together."

Every single one of the defenses I've read have rested on another point: "The publishers had to work together because Amazon."

That is an admission of guilt, not a denial of one. That's like saying, "Yes, I killed my wife, but after all the debt she ran up, I really needed the insurance money."

No matter how true the statements are, as a legal matter, the defenses offered were irrelevant. You don't get to fix prices just because your main vendor is acting in an anticompetitive manner. If Amazon is acting legally in an anticompetitive manner, well, antitrust is a civil complaint that can be brought by any affected party. The German publishers have started an investigation into Amazon's actions in Germany. Nothing is stopping the US publishers from doing the same here. Literally nothing.

And saying publishers were afraid of treble damages basically admits that there was a strong possibility that they'd be found liable. (Although I note that the publishers would likely have done what Apple did--that is, they would have settled the damages portion of the trial after adjudicating the question of guilt.)

It may be that you are right, Mark, and that agency is the best business choice for publishers. That doesn't mean we are allowed to demand it by illegal methods.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

All good points Courtney.  Since Hachette is trying to win in the court of public opinion and how they help readers and authors maybe transparency would show us what is really going on. Cancel the NDA and we will see who the real villain is.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Let's also not forget this:

Amazon removing Macmillan's Buy buttons in 2010 is held up as *the* classic example of Amazon's purported bullying. When you review that episode after disclosures of the price-fixing trial, it changes _everything_.


----------



## jackiegp (May 18, 2013)

I just read the open letter penned by the (alleged) SP side of the debate. I saw a discrepancy in it that I wonder if any other SP authors have noticed lately. Regarding this statement...

" You may not realize this, but when Amazon discounts books, authors (and Hachette) still get paid the full amount. Discounted Amazon books do not hurt authors or publishers at all. In fact, discounted Amazon books help authors and publishers sell in higher volume while earning publishers and authors the same per-unit amount."

I find this no longer to be true. It used to be that if Amazon discounted my book, I still got 70% of the price I had listed on my home page. Lately, I've noticed on my statements, that when my book is discounted by Amazon, I am receiving 70% of Amazon's discounted price, NOT the price I've chosen to list it at. This change took place approximately last month. Any one else experiencing this, or should I be contacting Amazon?


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

jackiegp said:


> I just read the open letter penned by the (alleged) SP side of the debate. I saw a discrepancy in it that I wonder if any other SP authors have noticed lately. Regarding this statement...
> 
> " You may not realize this, but when Amazon discounts books, authors (and Hachette) still get paid the full amount. Discounted Amazon books do not hurt authors or publishers at all. In fact, discounted Amazon books help authors and publishers sell in higher volume while earning publishers and authors the same per-unit amount."
> 
> I find this no longer to be true. It used to be that if Amazon discounted my book, I still got 70% of the price I had listed on my home page. Lately, I've noticed on my statements, that when my book is discounted by Amazon, I am receiving 70% of Amazon's discounted price, NOT the price I've chosen to list it at. This change took place approximately last month. Any one else experiencing this, or should I be contacting Amazon?


But you're an indie -- that's the agreement we ALWAYS had with Amazon if you opt for the 70 percent royalty. If you want the fixed guarantee, you go for the 35 percent option.

It's the big publishers that have the non-agency deal where they get paid the full amount (particularly on paper books, which is one of the things they are screaming about) when Amazon discounts. This has been a nonsensical bone of contention with the big publishers from the start. (And, strangely, they are also complaining that, during the dispute, Amazon isn't discounting the books that they say they don't want discounted!)

Camille


----------



## P.T. Phronk (Jun 6, 2014)

You know what I'd like to see?

A simple table explaining all this. It'd have two columns: The model Hachette is fighting for, and the model Amazon is fighting for.

Then 4 rows: publishers, vendors, authors, and readers.

In each cell, put the consequences of each model on each group affected. For example, which percentage of which price they receive, the most likely effect on prices for readers, who has freedom to set prices, etc.

Personally I no longer know how that would be filled in, with all these people I respect disagreeing over it and throwing out numbers that may support one argument but ignore another.

What I'd do is look at the rows that affect me - authors and readers - and see which model benefits me the most. Then I'd know who to "root" for, if that even matters. Acting in self interest is what all involved are really doing here anyway (and there's nothing wrong with that, within reason).

In fact, here, I've started a spreadsheet to help collect all the info in this thread and others: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wDaW2yUEkuGgWc3jKota5HEdAQFbRdjqqg4c1-KtNAk/edit?usp=sharing

If anyone wants to contribute and help dummies like me better understand what's going on here, it should be editable.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Phronk said:


> You know what I'd like to see?
> 
> A simple table explaining all this. It'd have two columns: The model Hachette is fighting for, and the model Amazon is fighting for.
> 
> ...


I think it would need three columns: What Hachette wants, what Amazon wants, and how it's being portrayed in the media.

Part of the problem is: When an author signs a contract with a publisher, they generally get X amount if the book is sold full price. If the book is *discounted* the author gets less. 
This is part of the reason Hachette is insisting *Amazon* discount for what Hachette wants, instead of themselves. It makes Amazon look like the bad guys to their authors. If on the other hand, trade authors realized the publisher _never_ had any intention of selling their book for the *nondiscounted* price, this might raise a few author hackles.

Another point. Hachette agrees to sell a book to Amazon for say $4. Amazon in turn turns around and sells the book for 99 cents. This is none of Hachette's business. They all ready sold the book to Amazon for the agreed upon price of $4.

Amazon may be using that book as a loss leader for any number of reasons. They may notice a trend of buyers who go on to buy more of that author's work or even other authors' works, where they more than make up for offering the loss leader.

Grocery stores and other retail environments have been doing loss leaders _forever_. Shoot, car dealers offer free hotdogs and Cokes to get people into their showrooms. Do you hear the hot dog manufacturers screaming that their hotdogs are being given away, and they should be able to set the price? 
Once a book is read, readers want another one. Readers are consumers of stories. There is always a new one they want to consume.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Part of the problem is: When an author signs a contract with a publisher, they generally get X amount if the book is sold full price.
> 
> If the book is *discounted* the author gets less.
> 
> ...


Hear this! Hear this!


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

Sorry, Mark Coker. I don't think I can do business with you or your website any longer. I enjoyed using Smashwords, but I can't, in good conscience, continue to support a man who cannot see the facts for what they are: Apple and the Big 5/6 colluded.

They proved it beyond a reasonable doubt with their internal communications. They proved it beyond a reasonable doubt by the fact that Apple was found guilty and the judge wrote a brief that is so airtight there's no room for appeal (Apple will appeal because it has the war chest to pay out $200 million+ in legal costs without blinking, but they won't win, thanks to all of the evidence against them and the publishers).

They proved it beyond a reasonable doubt by settling instead of losing in a trial.

Pulling the few books I have left from your site and moving to D2D / direct (at this point, I'd be willing to buy a used Mac just to upload direct to iTunes so I don't ever have to use your service/website again).

_Edited by moderator to conform with Forum Decorum. --Betsy_


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

AngryGames said:


> I'd be willing to buy a used Mac just to upload direct to iTunes so I don't ever have to use your service/website again.


For the record you can still get the software from Apple for old PPC Macs which you could probably pick up for $50. I upload my ibooks on an iBook G4 that I had given away to a friend and swapped back again for a not quite so old Linux netbook.

As to Mark Coker well there is a big difference between Apple working with publishers to offer them what Amazon is declining to offer and collusion (and I will argue that against a law professor after all people try to argue philosophy against me all the time). By settling out of court the publishers admitted nothing - that is the whole point of settling out of court. Establishing active collusion in a court of law is a whole different matter and the only ones to benefit from such a trial would have been the law firms.

Leaving Smashwords over a complex point of law seems to me over the top, but I thoroughly recommend going direct to all that you can go direct to.

Amazon is already losing court battles in European countries and may face an EU-wide suit, but it has nothing to do with agency vs wholesale it is about Most Favoured Nation clauses and their aggressive price matching.

I am baffled why authors on both sides want to weigh in for or against warring multinationals. The negotiation will be settled between them and indie authors will adjust their cloth depending on the outcome. Meanwhile Hachette authors vie with each other to show their paymasters who deserves the biggest slice of next year's marketing budget.


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Here's an article a self publisher friend of mine pointed out where trades were treating libraries the way they are Amazon now:
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidvinjamuri/2014/06/06/with-ebooks-still-pricey-illinois-libraries-flex-their-marketing-muscle/


Lisa, that article was mind-boggling. I'm amazed millionaire authors like Patterson aren't more up in arms over how their big publishers like Hatchette are gauging public libraries (if they even let them have their books). And Donna Tartt (who signed Preston's pro-Hatchette petition) had her Kindle ebook which sells on Amazon for $7.50 bilk the Colorado Library $90 for that same ebook.

And as public libraries are tax-payer funded, I don't see a difference between Hatchette screwing over tax payers by charging $90 for a book that is sold for $7.50, and defense contractors charging $640 for toilet seats and $500 for hammers.


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

Mercia, thanks for the tip about Apple. I'll check it out, or find someone with an iMac or Macbook or such if it doesn't work out.

As for "Amazon losing in Europe," there's a significant difference between US law and EU law, so that's not comparable at all.

As for publishers not admitting = not guilty... I don't buy it. They settled so they wouldn't lose. Apple lost. The publishers would have lost. There's no argument there other than semantics. Companies in USA settle all the time without admitting guilt... this does NOT make the company "not guilty" in any way other than in words... The evidence was overwhelming, which is why they settled and Apple lost the case.

It's okay to spin it that these publishers weren't guilty simply because they settled, but it doesn't make it the truth. Leaving Smashwords isn't over the top. I can't trust [Mark Coker] or his company to make good, sound decisions for me as an author if he can't even clear his head long enough to see the truth). I appreciate that the man gave authors a site to upload to many vendors, but his interests no longer follow mine.



> am baffled why authors on both sides want to weigh in for or against warring multinationals.


I'm not baffled at all. It concerns my livelihood. It concerns the livelihood of all authors. If you want to know why authors are taking sides, read Konrath, Eisler, Howey, the comments at TPV, and many other places. It's not baffling unless you truly don't understand what the argument is about.

_Edited to conform with Forum Decorum. --Betsy_


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Just a quick call for us to all keep level heads here. Mark, Hugh, Joe, and countless others have done a ton to help further the indie cause. We don't need to agree on everything to respect that and each other.  At the end of the day, nobody is here arguing for puppy sacrifices. 

When this is all over, no matter the outcome, I expect most (hopefully all) of us will get back to what's important: writing awesome stories and trying to reach an audience for them. Eyes on the prize, folks.


----------



## Sapphire (Apr 24, 2012)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Just a quick call for us to all keep level heads here. Mark, Hugh, Joe, and countless others have done a ton to help further the indie cause. We don't need to agree on everything to respect that and each other. At the end of the day, nobody is here arguing for puppy sacrifices.
> 
> When this is all over, no matter the outcome, I expect most (hopefully all) of us will get back to what's important: writing awesome stories and trying to reach an audience for them. Eyes on the prize, folks.


+1


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Alan Petersen said:


> Lisa, that article was mind-boggling. I'm amazed millionaire authors like Patterson aren't more up in arms over how their big publishers like Hatchette are gauging public libraries (if they even let them have their books). And Donna Tartt (who signed Preston's pro-Hatchette petition) had her Kindle ebook which sells on Amazon for $7.50 bilk the Colorado Library $90 for that same ebook.
> 
> And as public libraries are tax-payer funded, I don't see a difference between Hatchette screwing over tax payers by charging $90 for a book that is sold for $7.50, and defense contractors charging $640 for toilet seats and $500 for hammers.


I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more publicity as it shows the head of the ALA is on our side, and sees how the publishers go after libraries too.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,

I want to keep this thread open.  Personal attacks will not be allowed and will be and have been removed.  Let me be clear.  Calling someone delusional is a personal attack.    If I have to, I'll put people who have difficulty following this rule on a watch list so that their posts have to be approved.

I appreciate that this is an important issue and people have strong feelings.  That's fine--you can disagree vehemently without personal attacks.  And indeed, most have been able to so, which I appreciate.

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

AngryGames said:


> I'm not baffled at all. It concerns my livelihood. It concerns the livelihood of all authors. If you want to know why authors are taking sides, read Konrath, Eisler, Howey, the comments at TPV, and many other places. It's not baffling unless you truly don't understand what the argument is about.


Yes I am baffled as everyone should be. This is a battle over hints and guesses leaks from a confidential business negotiation. Everyone should be baffled. Of course it is great marketing for Amazon (who get people talking about how important they are to book retail) and Hachette (previously most people would have responded Hack Who?).

It does not, however, impact on an indie author's livelihood as neither Amazon nor any regulatory bodies will be swayed by what a few authors say in response to being asked by Hachette to show that they are committed to their special status contracts. My point about Amazon and the EU courts is that this is something that impinges much more on indie users of KDP in that it may curtail KDP's aggressive price-matching especially that caused by Google's aggressive application of the non-agency model. Although the EU Competition Authority are watching Hachette's role in these negotiations, but admit that they do not know what the negotiations involve so they are watching Amazon as well.

PS I have little love for Smashwords, the only reason I do not go elsewhere for my Scribd is feeling obligated because they got me a 1 year free subscription and I go direct anywhere I can. For me I do not think that Mark Coker's pro-agency viewpoint is sufficient reason to leave them, but I can think of lots of other reasons to leave Smashwords and a small number of reasons to stay.


----------



## MarkCoker (Feb 15, 2009)

AngryGames said:


> Sorry, Mark Coker. You have just outed yourself as suffering from *Amazon Derangement Syndrome* and I don't think I can do business with you or your website any longer. I enjoyed using Smashwords, but I can't, in good conscience, continue to support a blind, deluded man who cannot see the facts for what they are: Apple and the Big 5/6 colluded.


Sorry to see you go, Travis. I respect anyone with the guts to stand behind their beliefs, even if I think their beliefs will lead them down a counterproductive path. No worries, I'm confident Darwin will set us both straight in the end. I think you're the second person in recent memory to call me delusional. The first was Don Maass - http://blog.smashwords.com/2012/12/mark-cokers-2013-book-publishing.html - so you're in good company.

It's unfortunate that my views on the contract dispute are seen by some as Anti-Amazon. There's more to my view than a trite label. I see more nuance and color. I'd much prefer this was a battle between B&N and Hachette because then some might pay closer attention to what's at stake. Surely, no one would falsely accuse me of being anti-B&N. As mentioned earlier, my primary concern is about agency, and I've maintained that concern ever since the DoJ case was announced (see link at bottom on how indies used agency to lower prices). I believe the two combatants here - Amazon and Hachette - are fighting a fight that will shape the future of agency, and this in turn will help determine the future of big publishers because if they lose their 70% ebook margin, it'll hobble their ability to do the right thing which is to give their authors a higher royalty. It'll threaten their survivability long term, and weaken their hands. If Big Pubs fail to pay authors more, more authors will abandon them as the readers continue their transition to ebooks where indies have greater competitive and earnings advantage (more authors going indie is good for my business but bad for Big pubs). I have no great love for the Big 5 publishers - they are among my many competitors (and hey, come to think of it, they all rejected my novel 10 years ago!) - but in my delusional mind I believe that the culture of books over the long term is better served when writers enjoy a spectrum of viable publishing options from DIY Smashwords on one end to full-serve Big 5 publishers on the other end. I like that there are thousands of book-loving professionals who wake up every morning and go to work in Manhattan or London and elsewhere to do their best to help writers publish better books. Some of their efforts will succeed and add value, and some won't, but I think the world is better for their effort even if we can all agree there are serious limitations to their business model. If agency is undermined, it'll harm big publishers first and, for many nuanced reasons, harm authors next. I blogged about the potential implications for publishers at http://blog.smashwords.com/2014/05/amazons-hachette-dispute-foreshadows.html

On the conspiracy front, I think Mercia did a much better job than I did of articulating my position. But really, whether publishers deliberately colluded or not, and whether Apple was deliberate participant in said collusion is irrelevant to the the Amazon/Hachette contract dispute except that the court-mandated restrictions on agency are soon to expire. Publishers want control over the price of their ebooks. If they retain agency and if they're smart, they'll use agency to lower prices which is exactly what indie authors did when given agency. http://blog.smashwords.com/2012/03/does-agency-pricing-lead-to-higher-book.html


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

MarkCoker said:


> If they retain agency and if they're smart, they'll use agency to lower prices which is exactly what indie authors did when given agency. http://blog.smashwords.com/2012/03/does-agency-pricing-lead-to-higher-book.html


The problem is that Amazon can't give in on agency, because Apple has a court-ordered ability to discount the major publishers for several years yet. Amazon isn't going to allow a situation where Apple can discount and they can't.

Quite frankly, I think we would all be better off if publishers bought from us at wholesale--that is, we got a guaranteed cut from every publisher--and then they could price the book however they wanted, and our cut wouldn't change.

The existence of agency-lite at Amazon is what forces agency for everyone else. If we could just wholesale it, it'd all be good.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

MarkCoker said:


> Sorry to see you go, Travis. I respect anyone with the guts to stand behind their beliefs, even if I think their beliefs will lead them down a counterproductive path. No worries, I'm confident Darwin will set us both straight in the end. I think you're the second person in recent memory to call me delusional. The first was Don Maass - http://blog.smashwords.com/2012/12/mark-cokers-2013-book-publishing.html - so you're in good company.
> 
> It's unfortunate that my views on the contract dispute are seen by some as Anti-Amazon. There's more to my view than a trite label. I see more nuance and color. I'd much prefer this was a battle between B&N and Hachette because then some might pay closer attention to what's at stake. Surely, no one would falsely accuse me of being anti-B&N. As mentioned earlier, my primary concern is about agency, and I've maintained that concern ever since the DoJ case was announced (see link at bottom on how indies used agency to lower prices). I believe the two combatants here - Amazon and Hachette - are fighting a fight that will shape the future of agency, and this in turn will help determine the future of big publishers because if they lose their 70% ebook margin, it'll hobble their ability to do the right thing which is to give their authors a higher royalty. It'll threaten their survivability long term, and weaken their hands. If Big Pubs fail to pay authors more, more authors will abandon them as the readers continue their transition to ebooks where indies have greater competitive and earnings advantage (more authors going indie is good for my business but bad for Big pubs). I have no great love for the Big 5 publishers - they are among my many competitors (and hey, come to think of it, they all rejected my novel 10 years ago!) - but in my delusional mind I believe that the culture of books over the long term is better served when writers enjoy a spectrum of viable publishing options from DIY Smashwords on one end to full-serve Big 5 publishers on the other end. I like that there are thousands of book-loving professionals who wake up every morning and go to work in Manhattan or London and elsewhere to do their best to help writers publish better books. Some of their efforts will succeed and add value, and some won't, but I think the world is better for their effort even if we can all agree there are serious limitations to their business model. If agency is undermined, it'll harm big publishers first and, for many nuanced reasons, harm authors next. I blogged about the potential implications for publishers at http://blog.smashwords.com/2014/05/amazons-hachette-dispute-foreshadows.html
> 
> On the conspiracy front, I think Mercia did a much better job than I did of articulating my position. But really, whether publishers deliberately colluded or not, and whether Apple was deliberate participant in said collusion is irrelevant to the the Amazon/Hachette contract dispute except that the court-mandated restrictions on agency are soon to expire. Publishers want control over the price of their ebooks. If they retain agency and if they're smart, they'll use agency to lower prices which is exactly what indie authors did when given agency. http://blog.smashwords.com/2012/03/does-agency-pricing-lead-to-higher-book.html


So the judge was imagining it when she found Apple guilty of collusion with 5 of the big 6 to fix prices. Really? Or maybe Apple managed to collude with them without their knowing it? Is that what you're proposing?

There IS no 'whether or not'. It was proven in court.

There is no reason on earth why publishers should have control of ebook prices. Suppliers (and that's all publishers are) rarely control the prices that retailers put on their goods. The idea if frankly rather silly and will only hurt authors all the way around, not that that has ever influenced publishers. The good of authors has never exactly been high on publishers' list of priorities. And why don't retailers agree to suppliers setting prices? Because it hobbles them from competing with other retailers. Amazon would be nuts to agree to this.

As far as having any confidence that publishers would be 'smart' and lower ebook prices, what was the point of that collusion you try so hard to deny happened? Oh, yes. Keeping ebook prices artificially high, so...nope. I wouldn't hold my breath for that one.

ETA: I am sorry that most authors have allowed publishers to force them into bad contracts, but it is twisted thinking to believe that this is Amazon's fault or that Amazon is going to pay the price for it.


----------



## MarkCoker (Feb 15, 2009)

JRTomlin said:


> So the judge was imagining it when she found Apple guilty of collusion with 5 of the big 6 to fix prices. Really?
> 
> There IS no 'whether or not'. It was proven in court.
> 
> There is no reason on earth why publishers should have control of ebook prices. Suppliers don't control the prices that retailers put on their goods. The idea if frankly rather silly and will only hurt authors all the way around, not that that has ever influenced publishers.


Courts and judges make mistakes all the time. Sometimes they condemn innocent people to death. Can we entertain the notion that Judge Cote might have been wrong? I realize many here disagree with me based on their interpretation of the evidence. I think she was wrong. Many might argue that the Supreme Court made a mistake with Hobby Lobby, or with Citizens United. And others will argue these were brilliant decisions.

Why shouldn't a creator of a product or service be able to set the price? If I'm a barber, I get to set the price of my haircut service. The marketplace will decide if I'm pricing too high or too low. Why is it a bad thing that an author or publisher be able to determine the price at which their product is provided to a reader? If I want to offer my book for free, or for $12.99, I should have that right. Of course, the retailer has every right to determine if they want to participate in that transaction. If Amazon says, "No, Hachette, we will not give you the terms you want," I respect Amazon's decision.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> At the end of the day, nobody is here arguing for puppy sacrifices.


Oooh, no one? Does that mean I can?

Because, y'know, I'm a horror writer and all, and puppy sacrifices sound pretty... umm... horrifying.


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

To put this in yet another way:  Amazon has been disruptive in a good way to traditional patterns of selling books from the get-go.  The disruptive notion of selling books on the web rather than in a brick-and-mortar bookstore put Border's out of business and set Barnes & Noble on its heels (just as the super stores B&N and Borders had earlier put many a small bookstore out of business).  But the result of what Amazon did in the early days served readers as well as authors immensely well.  And the Kindle is now the spearhead of this.

Now Amazon is disrupting traditional publishing patterns in another way.  Hachette and the biggies are resisting this.  But, as Hugh Howey and many other authors have pointed out, Amazon serves most authors quite well (and, in my case, better in almost all ways than traditional publishers).

What's at stake now, just as it was with Amazon vs. the in-person super book store, is the 21st versus the 20th century.  It should be pretty clear, I'd think, that the 21st century will win.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

MarkCoker said:


> Courts and judges make mistakes all the time. Sometimes they condemn innocent people to death. Can we entertain the notion that Judge Cote might have been wrong? I realize many here disagree with me based on their interpretation of the evidence. I think she was wrong. Many might argue that the Supreme Court made a mistake with Hobby Lobby, or with Citizens United. And others will argue these were brilliant decisions.
> 
> Why shouldn't a creator of a product or service be able to set the price? If I'm a barber, I get to set the price of my haircut service. The marketplace will decide if I'm pricing too high or too low. Why is it a bad thing that an author or publisher be able to determine the price at which their product is provided to a reader? If I want to offer my book for free, or for $12.99, I should have that right. Of course, the retailer has every right to determine if they want to participate in that transaction. If Amazon says, "No, Hachette, we will not give you the terms you want," I respect Amazon's decision.


The barber is doing direct business. Retailers buy from manufacturers, and they can use the MSRP or discount as inventory and demand allow.

Bookstores do this for the physical product, so publishers are used to this. Publishers did this with Amazon and others from the beginning. It was Apple who created this mess with Agency as a promise to the publishers to take market share from them. It was a way to guarantee that Amazon couldn't compete on price.

I think there are too many basic things to explain here that we could never get up to the complexities of what is taking place. There are very strong opinions from people who don't understand what is going on.

And everyone who has looked at the evidence has said the collusion case was airtight. There isn't any wiggle room. Your wanting Cote to be wrong is more evidence (though none was needed after this thread) that you see Amazon as something they aren't.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

JRTomlin said:


> So the judge was imagining it when she found Apple guilty of collusion with 5 of the big 6 to fix prices. Really? Or maybe Apple managed to collude with them without their knowing it? Is that what you're proposing?
> There IS no 'whether or not'. It was proven in court.


I am afraid for those who want to make this Amazon vs Apple it is not going to work, it remains Amazon vs Hachette.

The court only proved that Apple colluded with publishers and that they inserted Most Favoured Nation clauses (beloved of Amazon) that led to the publishers each renegotiating with Amazon for agency pricing. This led to an increase of prices which the court ruled was evidence that Apple's practices raised consumer prices. The court did not investigate any collusion among the publishers and so the court did not prove that - it merely proved that Apple colluded with the individual publishers. Hachette (along with Simon & Schuster and HarperCollins) settled as soon as charged and Penguin and Macmillan settled after a few months of arguing. You might conjecture that the publishers worked as a cartel, but the court did not prove that as the court was not placing the publishers on trial. Since the publishers settled the average price has not come down, which raises a serious question mark against the court's original judgement that raised prices proved illegal activity.

We do not know that Hachette are trying to restore agency terms now that the embargo on them is about to run out, because, Hachette leaks and Hachette author hatchet jobs notwithstanding, this remains a confidential business negotiation. The Amazon vs Hachette dispute could be about the dividing of spoils under a wholesale agreement.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

MarkCoker said:


> Courts and judges make mistakes all the time. Sometimes they condemn innocent people to death. Can we entertain the notion that Judge Cote might have been wrong? I realize many here disagree with me based on their interpretation of the evidence. I think she was wrong.


Mark, are you going to be the first person in the entire world to explain to me why the publishers were not colluding to fix prices?

Please, I'm begging you. Explain to me how the publishers were NOT working together. Give me YOUR interpretation of the evidence that amounts to a legal defense.

I would love to be able to admit there's another legal interpretation. And I am extremely good at looking for alternate legal interpretations. It was my job for years to second-guess lower-court decisions; I haven't lost the skill or the inclination.

I have not yet seen a single person advance a viable interpretation of the evidence that says the publishers weren't fixing prices. Not one.

And when you say things like this...



> Why shouldn't a creator of a product or service be able to set the price? If I'm a barber, I get to set the price of my haircut service. The marketplace will decide if I'm pricing too high or too low. Why is it a bad thing that an author or publisher be able to determine the price at which their product is provided to a reader? If I want to offer my book for free, or for $12.99, I should have that right. Of course, the retailer has every right to determine if they want to participate in that transaction. If Amazon says, "No, Hachette, we will not give you the terms you want," I respect Amazon's decision.


...I suspect you're still not going to be that person, because this is not what the publishers were smacked down for doing.

Of course every barber can decide how they want to price a haircut. What they CANNOT do is go to all the other barbers in town and say, "Guys, we need to stop undercutting each other. Let's all charge $10 for a haircut."

An appeal to the former says nothing about the substantive case--and frankly, Mark, it suggests to me that you don't understand what the publishers were punished for doing.


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

CraigInOregon said:


> Oooh, no one? Does that mean I can?
> 
> Because, y'know, I'm a horror writer and all, and puppy sacrifices sound pretty... umm... horrifying.


Dramatic Rodent reacts to your post


----------



## Gennita Low (Dec 13, 2012)

Courtney Milan, as always, remains my Queen of Awesome Sauce when it comes to succinct explanation of all things legal .


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

MarkCoker said:


> Courts and judges make mistakes all the time. Sometimes they condemn innocent people to death. Can we entertain the notion that Judge Cote might have been wrong? I realize many here disagree with me based on their interpretation of the evidence. I think she was wrong. Many might argue that the Supreme Court made a mistake with Hobby Lobby, or with Citizens United. And others will argue these were brilliant decisions.
> 
> Why shouldn't a creator of a product or service be able to set the price? If I'm a barber, I get to set the price of my haircut service. The marketplace will decide if I'm pricing too high or too low. Why is it a bad thing that an author or publisher be able to determine the price at which their product is provided to a reader? If I want to offer my book for free, or for $12.99, I should have that right. Of course, the retailer has every right to determine if they want to participate in that transaction. If Amazon says, "No, Hachette, we will not give you the terms you want," I respect Amazon's decision.


Sorry but I'm not falling for your Hobby Lobby strawman diversionary tactic. No resemblance between the two court cases. I will assume the court was right in the decision unless someone comes up with evidence otherwise. So far neither you nor anyone else I have seen has come even close. Their main defence has been that Amazon is a big meanie, so they should be able to break the law--hardly a convincing argument as the judge rather strongly pointed out.

A 'barber' doesn't set his own prices if he works in a salon owned by Great Clips. Of course he can set his own prices in his own shop. If publishers want to run their own stores, as some do, they can certainly set their own prices there, too. They don't own Amazon so in that store, Amazon sets the prices.

Might something else be negotiated? Of course, but let's not pretend that Hachette has some moral right to set prices on Amazon. They don't.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

MarkCoker said:


> I believe the two combatants here - Amazon and Hachette - are fighting a fight that will shape the future of agency, and this in turn will help determine the future of big publishers because if they lose their 70% ebook margin, it'll hobble their ability to do the right thing which is to give their authors a higher royalty.


Why do you think they'll give authors a higher royalty? They've had agency pricing and they didn't raise royalties--why would they suddenly become generous? There was nothing "hobbling" Hachette in 2011, and yet, unless I missed it, there was no increase in royalties. What were they waiting for?


----------



## Guest (Jul 6, 2014)

Quote:

_"There is no reason on earth why publishers should have control of ebook prices. Suppliers (and that's all publishers are) rarely control the prices that retailers put on their goods."_

This is a statement I can't agree with.

Suppliers set the wholesale prices of their merchandise. Authors should be able to do the same.
It is true that suppliers rarely control the prices that retailers put on their goods. But the reason suppliers don't have a problem with this is because they have already been paid their wholesale price. If the retailer wants to discount the merchandise, or go it away, then the supplier is not affected.

This is not the case with ebook authors and Amazon.
Authors with printed books can set their wholesale price, and Amazon will pay it. Then Amazon can discount the printed book without hurting the author. It's no big step for Amazon to do the same for ebook authors.

Why some folks are trying to turn this into rocket science is beyond me. Suppliers do get to set wholesale prices for their merchandise.
Authors are suppliers. Except perhaps in the case of ebooks.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

JeanneM said:


> Dramatic Rodent reacts to your post


Too cute!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

Glad you liked it.  I thought a little levity would be a nice break for the thread which is getting pretty contentious.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Okey Dokey said:


> Quote:
> 
> _"There is no reason on earth why publishers should have control of ebook prices. Suppliers (and that's all publishers are) rarely control the prices that retailers put on their goods."_
> 
> ...


You are clearly misunderstanding. The publishers *do* set the price that Amazon must pay them. Amazon pays it. Then Amazon sets the price to the reader higher, or lower, whatever suits them best.

Let's say you're a car dealer. You buy hotdogs. You pay for them, then you decide to give them away free to anyone who comes to the car lot. Does the hot dog vendor come screaming at the car dealer, "You can't give my hotdogs away free! You have to charge $2.00 each!"

"Pffft," goes the car dealer.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

I think there is some significant confusion about what is legal, and what the publishers have done.

1. The legal status of Agency agreements

Agency agreements are essentially a version of resale price maintenance agreements--where a supplier gives a product to a reseller under the agreement that the reseller will price it at a certain level. Resale price maintenance agreements were per se illegal (meaning that they were considered illegal, and you couldn't argue that they gave consumers benefits) in this country until 2008, when the Supreme Court--after repeated prodding by economists--overruled a century-old precedent. They are still illegal in other parts of the world.

Agency agreements are allowed, but are still evaluated under what is called the Rule of Reason--meaning that the person proposing them has to demonstrate they serve competition in the marketplace.

2. Conspiracies to fix prices

Conspiracies to fix prices occur when competitors agree to set prices of their goods together, rather than allowing the marketplace to fix their prices. 

Courts have taken a very dim view on what counts as price fixing. Competitors are not allowed to fix minimum prices together. They are not allowed to fix maximum prices together. Pretty much everyone in antitrust agrees that if you talk to your competitor about pricing, you are taking some serious risks.

The only relation that agency has to a conspiracy to fix prices is this: Agency pricing was the mechanism that the publishers used to collude with one another. The mechanism isn't illegal in and of itself. Hammers aren't illegal. Smashing someone over the head with a hammer is illegal.

Having found that the publishers smashed someone over the head with a hammer, the consent decree in this case stated that they were not allowed to use hammers for two years. 

Two years has now passed, and the publishers want to use hammers with Amazon again. There are two problems with this.

1. Amazon doesn't like agency as it is, and 
2. Apple is still bound by a 2013 ruling that says that it may not enter into contracts that disallow discounting for somewhere between 2-4 years. That may change as the litigation follows on, but right now, agency at Apple is apparently not something publishers can argue for until 2015.

This is why a publisher pushing Amazon to agency is going to have a hell of a hard time winning. Even if Amazon would be willing to accept agency if agency were the name of the game in the entire marketplace, Amazon is not going to accept a contract where it cannot discount, and Apple can.

That's the legal outline here. Publishers can and are allowed to push for agency with Amazon, but not every party in the marketplace is legally capable of agreeing to agency pricing at this time, and Amazon is not going to accept worse terms than other parties get.

It may be as simple as "this dispute will continue until Hachette can finally negotiate with Apple under the DOJ's timeline."


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> You are clearly misunderstanding. The publishers *do* set the price that Amazon must pay them. Amazon pays it. Then Amazon sets the price to the reader higher, or lower, whatever suits them best.
> 
> Let's say you're a car dealer. You buy hotdogs. You pay for them, then you decide to give them away free to anyone who comes to the car lot. Does the hot dog vendor come screaming at the car dealer, "You can't give my hotdogs away free! You have to charge $2.00 each!"
> 
> "Pffft," goes the car dealer.


I believe I was the one who said what you quoted and I misunderstood nothing. Of course they set a price. What they can't keep Amazon from doing is *discounting* that price. I believe that was perfectly clear in my comments.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> I believe I was the one who said what you quoted and I misunderstood nothing. Of course they set a price. What they can't keep Amazon from doing is *discounting* that price. I believe that was perfectly clear in my comments.


JRT - I think Lisa was responding to OkeyDokey (who was responding to you).


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Courtney Milan said:


> I think there is some significant confusion about what is legal, and what the publishers have done.
> 
> 1. The legal status of Agency agreements
> 
> ...


This is the most super-genius-post-of-awesome ever.

I'll add that what is likely at issue here is the very low margin Amazon makes by having to discount ridiculous publisher prices down to something palatable. The Big 5 love the current system. They have no reason to negotiate any change. They price high, get 70%, and Amazon takes probably less than 5% in order to keep customers from revolting.

Amazon would be happy with agency if publishers could stop being idiots with their pricing. If you want to see what kind of a contract Amazon offers when there is no one negotiating on the other side, pull up your KDP agreement. There you go. Incentivized Agency. If we are idiots and price at $14.99, Amazon can discount to $9.99. We make 50 cents more to screw our readers an extra 30%. Not quite the "freedom to set your own price," is it? It's someone smarter than you slapping your wrist when you act up.

Amazon has stated their position this week, and it's that they are fighting over price. Hachette says they're fighting over margin. Both are right, but only from the perspective of their pricing philosophies. Hachette sees Amazon asking for lower prices (or demanding them) as a move on their margin. Amazon sees it as the BOTH of them giving up a little to serve the reader. This fits with Amazon's customer-centric philosophy and also the history Hachette has of saying "screw the reader."


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Walmart sets the retail price on items in their stores and online, so does Target, and so do most stores--it is their store. And Walmart will crush the vendor if they disagree. Period. Why should Amazon be any different? 

ETA: yeah HH--Pubs just want HIGH prices.


----------



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

The latest bookstats indicates that, in the USA, ebook revenue stayed the same while ebook sales rose by 10%, which adds a little color to the Amazon v Hatchet battle. The author of this article makes some very interesting conclusions.

From the article:

'As always with publishing market reports, however, we need to look beyond the headlines to get to the more interesting parts of the story. While the AAP reported that eBook revenues fell very slightly between 2012 and 2013, it stated the total number of eBooks sold grew by 10.1% to an estimated 512.7 million. This seems to indicate that while the overall demand for digital books among consumers grows, publishers are no longer able to sell them for the prices they could command in 2011.

This is no big surprise, given that the period of steepest revenue growth for eBooks also coincided with widespread adoption of the agency model for eBook pricing. Ever since the successful DoJ action against Apple and five of the largest eBook publishers, however, there has been a swing away from agency pricing towards the wholesale model. The effect has been significant downward pressure on eBook prices...'

When all the crap is trimmed away, the argument looks like this:
Big 5 want agency pricing because it leads to higher trad. published ebook prices. Big 5 authors equate higher ebook prices with extra $$$, and so support agency.

Amazon doesn't want agency pricing because it leads to higher ebook prices, which they believe should not be over $9.99.

Mark from Smashwords wants agency for the big 5 because it leads to higher ebook prices for trad published ebooks, which give indies a competitive advantage.

In a way, it's better for indies if Hatchet wins the armwrestle, at least in the short run. Mark is right, indies have a competitive advantage wrt price and that will grow if Amazon allows agency.

In the long term, however, I'm not so sure it's a good thing for writers and readers. The best thing for the publishing industry right now is evolution and if they're making money, they may well resist change until it's too late.


----------



## BillSmithBooksDotCom (Nov 4, 2012)

I really wish Amazon would just give in to Hachette, with one caveat -- here's the agreement I wish Amazon would promise:

1) "We agree to pay you your set wholesale price for each book. We agree to sell at the price you select provided no one else sells for less than that price. If another vendor lowers the price, we have the right to match that price and we are allowed to reduce your wholesale payment by a matching amount." (So Hachette gets agency and the only time their price gets meddled with is if B&N, Kobo, Apple, Google, Feedbooks or some other vendor drop their price.)

Hachette gets what it wants, Amazon has access to all of their books ...

Hachette can buy add-ons like prebuy buttons, promos on the Amazon website, etc. 

And then Amazon can simply start promoting the hell out of the lower-priced indie books that readers will end up buying in droves when they abandon Hachette's $15-20 ebooks.

Hachette gets what it thinks it wants...and then gets to come back to Amazon with its tail between its legs after it realizes how badly it has screwed up.


----------



## Sapphire (Apr 24, 2012)

Courtney Milan's post at the bottom of page 11 makes the issue crystal clear to even a non-legal mind.

ETA: Courtney's post was #249. Sorry, I should have noted that.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

I debated about signing Hugh's petition for some time, not really certain how the outcome of the Hachette vs. Amazon battle was going to affect me and my business as an indie publisher.

I still don't know exactly which outcome (or some compromise?) will favor me more, so it's hard to choose sides.

What about the readers? If we take their position to the extreme, we end up with "All literature is free all of the time" and that puts me out of business. I try to treat readers fairly by selling my books for less than $5 and by not copy-protecting them. If five bucks is really too much, go in with a friend or two until the price gets down to what you can afford and share the file. I think that's a pretty reasonable accommodation.

What about big authors on the level of James Patterson and Scott Turow? I can't get all weepy for them if their incomes notch down in a changing business that doesn't favor them as much as it once did. I'm sure they'll do just fine, regardless.

What about smaller trad-published authors? It's kind of like watching footage of the people who live in garbage dumps, scraping out a meager existence from the leavings of others. My heart breaks for them but I don't know what to do about a system that so clearly divides people into haves and have-nots. How will the Hachette vs. Amazon battle's outcome affect them? Will they get marginally better or worse garbage to sift through?

What about bookstores going out of business? Well, I love bookstores, but they're a niche market and have been since the chain stores arrived. Amazon's arrival doesn't alter that fact. Indie bookstores became endangered when a larger predator (chain stores) entered the forest, and then that predator became endangered when an even larger predator (Amazon) came in. Now the large predator and the larger predator are battling (I still like my King Kong vs. T-Rex analogy) and I don't see how the indie bookstores have a stake in the battle. Does a mouse care if it's eaten by a hawk or by an owl?

What about traditional publishers? I care about the people who work for traditional publishers, but I don't really have an emotional stake in any business. Businesses come and go. The photo film industry has all but come and gone. The Big Three TV networks have seen their influence wane. The entire typewriter industry has virtually vanished. Change happens. I'm sorry that people are displaced (I am one of those displaced persons myself), but you can't stop the world from changing. It's "adapt now and die later" or "don't adapt and die now."

But I did sign Hugh's petition, and here's why: Without it, all the media would report would be Hachette's side. Now they have another pork chop to wrangle.

I apologize if I seem not to be taking this issue more to heart, but it's like the Gods wrangling with the Titans in the clouds over my head and I'm just hoping not to get hit by a stray bolt of lightning.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Sapphire said:


> Courtney Milan's post at the bottom of page 11 makes the issue crystal clear to even a non-legal mind.


As I read the board, your post is at the bottom of page 11. Well, now mine is. Maybe quote it for clarification, or at least reference the reply number. (Though that would change if someone subsequently deleted an older post.)


----------



## chris56 (Jun 8, 2013)

Courtney Milan said:


> I think there is some significant confusion about what is legal, and what the publishers have done.
> 
> 1. The legal status of Agency agreements
> 
> ...


This, along with Courtney's other posts have been the most educational for me. You gotta love a sharp legal mind to put things into perspective.


----------



## Frank Zubek (Apr 27, 2010)

Hey is it okay if I post that jeans cover on my face book as a kind of "coming son" preview peek as a Fall release?
I can call it a rough
But this way we can start creating buzz

Andrew? How about it can I do that or would you rather it wait a month or two?


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

MarkCoker said:


> Question: How do we know that Hachette is wrong in this dispute? And is there really a right or wrong? By all accounts, Amazon wants wholesale and wants to pay less for the books, and Hachette wants pricing control and 70% list. These are different wants, but is either really wrong?


Tell you what. If it turns out Amazon is wrong on this--however you want to define "wrong"--dinner is on me next time we're in the same town.

If I'm right, I'll still buy you dinner, but I'll gloat the whole time.

Now, speaking strictly from a hypothetical, unprovable in a court of law position, there have been perhaps instances in the past where I was right about an issue for reasons other than my innate ability to predict the future. It is purely speculative, of course, what those reasons might be, and I'd deny them, even though I had no knowledge of what I was actually denying.

But it will be me gloating during dinner. 

Always great to read your POV.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

MarkCoker said:


> Although the author benefits from their book being deep discounted, not all books are deep discounted, which means such deep discounting isn't universally available and the timing isn't under the author's control. One benefit of agency is that the author has more control over the timing and the amount.


I agree. Unless there was a wholesale system in place where Amazon agreed to price wholesale books at a specific retail amount--or less- depending on the wholesale price the supplier set.

So if I sell an ebook to Amazon fore $2.70, they'd agree to retail it for $3.99, all the way down to free, and I'd still get me $2.70 a copy. But if I wanted to put a book on sale, I could give it to Amazon for $0.70, and they'd sell it for $0.99 or less.

I'd still have control over sales prices, but they'd potentially net me more money because Amazon likes to discount.


----------



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

Jack Kilborn said:


> I agree. Unless there was a wholesale system in place where Amazon agreed to price wholesale books at a specific retail amount--or less- depending on the wholesale price the supplier set.
> 
> So if I sell an ebook to Amazon fore $2.70, they'd agree to retail it for $3.99, all the way down to free, and I'd still get me $2.70 a copy. But if I wanted to put a book on sale, I could give it to Amazon for $0.70, and they'd sell it for $0.99 or less.
> 
> I'd still have control over sales prices, but they'd potentially net me more money because Amazon likes to discount.


Amazon clearly don't have a problem with the original wholesale agreements.

If you distribute through Ingram's ebook service to Amazon then its done on a traditional wholesale model. You set your RRP and you get 40 percent of RRP. Ingram are probably taking either a 5 or 10 percent cut (based on their usual wholesaler cuts for print) and the retailer gets 50-55 percent margin to play with. Ingram represent a lot of smaller trad houses so we can reasonably assume this was the sort of deal they had before all the agency business blew up. On that deal why should we care what Amazon retails for?

If we take Hugh's earlier point, price the ebook at 50 percent of hardback on new release, for ease of math 15 USD versus 30 USD and the retailer has a wholesaler deal as above at 50 percent on both hardback AND ebook then you get 7.50 per ebook sold and 15 for the hardback. You get that regardless of what Amazon, B&N, Target, whoever prices your book at. If the retailer wants to discount your ebook to 10 USD and they paid you your wholesale price why would you care if they lose 5 dollars? they are helping shift you more books.

Agency is a very different ballgame. If you have agency on ebooks and wholesale on print you've got two competing business models, one that allows discounting below cost and one that doesn't - who gets it in the neck? the retailer. Customers blame AMAZON not Hachette. Is its amazons fault they have to price hardbacks below cost? No, the big box retailers like Wal Mart have been using paper books as loss leaders for years. If Wal Mart are selling Lee Child's HB at 12 USD against a RRP of 30, and the ebook is 15 USD, what is Amazon supposed to do? if it prices the hardback higher than Walmart then it loses paper sales, if it price matches it kills kindle sales and gets it in the neck off customers who don't understand the different models.

We can assume to solve the problem Amazon have rightly said that if you want to price agency, you do 2.99 - 9.99 at 70 percent and 35 outside that. They have priced that KNOWING the physical cost of the hardbacks means that Walmart can take a new release HB down to about 13 USD, so that keeps the most expensive ebook at least 20 percent below print cost (a proviso they apply to KDP terms as well).

Now Amazon isn't likely forcing the publishers into Agency, they would no doubt be happy to go back to wholesale where they agree a 50 percent off list and charge what they want.

I read this whole situation as Amazon trying to solve the anomaly that Apple created where they can discount and sell paper at a loss, but are stuck with high ebook prices that kill the kindle market.

We can't entirely point the finger at Amazon for creating this mess - if the publishers really wanted to prop up ebook prices they should cut the discounts on paper, raise paper wholesale prices or turn the supply screws on Walmart, Target and other loss-leading big boxes (I can get most front list HB books at 9 GBP in Walmart owned Asda, cheaper than the 12.99 and up ebook versions, that isn't sustainable for Amazon yet why is nobody screaming at Walmart taking a loss on hardbacks?)

I honestly think Mark is on the wrong end of the stick and Hugh & Joe are right. The only reason pub's are happy to continue to support huge discounting on paper and no discounting / price fixing/ price control on ebooks is to slow/strangle ebook growth and preserve their paper cartel. If this is about preserving author revenues or stopping Amazon discounting / loss leading small bookstores then why are they not shouting as loudly at walmart?

Could it be that Patterson has a nice phat chunk of shelf space and he knows he doesn't have to compete so hard in Walmart against others? perhaps?

Who loses in that deal? Patterson no doubt has a volume based sweet heart deal. He sells X million copies even at huge discounts thru big box paper outlets and still gets his kings ransom. The midlisters who get put in the dollar bins get hit with the 'high discount / royalty zero / slashed / remaindered books clauses.

Yet zero is being said about paper discounting destroying authors incomes, small bookstores who can't afford to subsidise 12 USD hardback new releases with razor blades and nappies.

I'm sorry Mark, you can't have fixed ebook agency pricing alongside 50-60 percent discounted paper, the entire setup of that market isn't designed to give the consumer choice of format its simply designed to discourage ebook purchasing, and if the big six got their way, fixed ebook pricing and Walmart et al continue to put out hardbacks below cost all that happens is (read the Amazon customer forums) then everyone abandons ebooks, and if they can't get big named authors in Kindle and go back to Paper then they aren't going to be in the market for indie ebooks either - that's the publishers goal. Reverse the tide of indie growth and close the gates.

You need to recognise that they would rather make less money on paper but preserve their market dominance. I suggest you read the Hachette investors report. Everything in it is about preserving their stranglehold not about readers or authors.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Building somewhat on Hugh's most recent post, here's what some people, most of whom side with Hachette, are missing:

1. As Hugh pointed out, our indie KDP agreement is the template for the sort of agreement Amazon wants with all publishers. To wit:

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

Now, that's what WE get. Is it a punishment from Amazon? An impingement on our "freedom to price as we see fit?" No.

What it IS, is an incentive-driven pricing structure.

Amazon would prefer to see eBooks priced between $2.99 to $9.99, rather than lower or higher than that range, so they offer double the share on books priced in that range.

One can still price a book at $0.99 or $14.99. But you'll earn less, if you do. (Although 35% is still about three times more than trad-pubs pay trad-authors.)

The reason Amazon does this? To keep eBooks in a reasonable price range for customers. And, probably, because books sell better at that price range. I'm sure Amazon did plenty of surveys and studies before establishing that range.

Point is, no one from Amazon prevents you from choosing $0.99 or $14.99 or even $999,999.99. You'll simply earn 35 percent instead of 70 percent, if you make that choice. It's still your choice, as the person offering a book up for sale. No guns are being pressed to temples of foreheads.

That much understood? Good.

Here's the conundrum:

Hachette and other Big 5 publishers want to price well above $9.99 and NOT get the same penalty we do. They want a pricing structure with Amazon that goes like this:

$0.99 to infinity = 70%

Now, sure, that might SOUND good. But not for consumers. Not for readers. Not for people who buy books. Because then there's no incentive to keep book prices reasonable.

And if that were ALL it was about, as popular media coverage suggests, then one could assume Hachette's fight was about freedom to price as one sees fit, and about a change to the pricing structure that would benefit everyone, including indies. Certainly, that's what Hachette wants the public to believe.

Also, a bit of trivia to keep in mind:

At $9.99, your payment at 70% is $6.99, minus a usually-minor delivery fee. (Mine are usually around $0.07 or less.)

At $10.00, your payment at 35% is $3.50, no delivery fee.

That's the incentive.

It means that to make MORE than $6.99 off a book sale, if you price higher than $9.99, you'd have to go all the way up to $20.00 (at 35 percent with no delivery fee, that'd be $7.00.)

This is where Hachette draws its argument that "Amazon wants higher prices." But what Hachette really means is, "to make more money, we'd need to charge you $29.99 instead of $14.99, because once we go above $9.99 we'd make half the royalty, and we're intent on making $10.49 per copy, so make Amazon pay us 70 percent at all prices, so we can overcharge you at $14.99 instead of charging $29.99 to make our $10.49."

But, as with many things in life, it's not that simple.

Frankly, I believe that most book publishers probably already have achieved the "70 percent no matter what we price it at" bone of contention. I can't point you to hard evidence, but it seems likely.

So, ALREADY, Big 5 publishers get a benefit we indies do not get via KDP. They are ALREADY at an advantage. So, there's nothing "pro-indie" about siding with a company like Hachette that already has advantages we lack.

And anyone who believes Hachette is "negotiating" to change KDP terms for indies? Take your meds. As with any other company, they negotiate for themselves and no one else (except the rest of the Big 5, as proven by the legal case they lost).

The real issues, I believe, are buried in the details. Such as:

2. Hachette and the rest of the Big 5 are interested in eliminating discounting.

That might sound good to some people, but it's not. Least of all for the reader.

How often have you bought a book you were on the fence about it at it's normal price, but then Amazon did a "299 Sizzling Summer Reads at $2.99 each!" and you decided ... sure, that's a lot less, I'll buy it now.

Amazon does lots of promotions like that... and they spur sales. Sales that benefit readers who might keep that $14.99 or $7.99 book on their wishlist a LOT longer if not for such a sale.

Well, Hachette and the rest of the Big 5 HATE that. They want that list price of $14.99 and not a penny less, until THEY decide it should be less.

Frankly, only videogame companies ever have THAT much control over price. (Don't believe me? Try to find a new PS4 for less than $399.99 or an Xbox One for less than $499.99.)

It's certainly not standard in the world of book-selling.

So, what's the customer benefit, the reader benefit, of eliminating discounting? Zero. Zip. Nada.

And the Big 5 don't care.

As for indies? We GO WILD when Amazon includes us in on a discounting special like that, because even if our books are marked down from $4.99 to $2.99, an Amazon-initiated special like that can take a book with moribund sales back up to relevancy on the sales-rankings.

And since Amazon is where most of us get the bulk of our sales, we don't mind when Amazon discounts, because even if Apple or Google or someone else price-matches them, who cares? It's not hurting our biggest revenue stream.

Conclusion: If you're an indie or a reader, discounting is good. Only Big 5 publishers disagree.

3. Hachette and other Big 5 publishers also want ANOTHER advantage indies don't get, and that's the so-called "most-favored-nation" status in Also-Bought algorithms.

It's basically like buying up digital floor space, the way publishers always have in brick-n-mortar stores.

What it means is, they want their books to be the first "also-boughts" you see, not any indie or small-press titles. Even if their books are less-related to a book you've already bought.

So, if you buy David McAfee's 33 AD, they want you to see Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter BEFORE you see Amanda Hocking's My Blood Approves or even 61 AD by David McAfee.

Algorithm advantages that favor Big 5 books over indie books? That's back to the days of "enter a brick-n-mortar and all you see as you enter are Patterson and King."

Do indie authors REALLY think there's an advantage in that for us?

I'm sure there are a lot of other intricacies and details to these negotiations that the public (us) has no clue about. These are known issues that are involved.

I see no rational reason for indie writers/publisher OR readers to hope "Hachette wins" even if these are the only three issues being debated. And it's almost certainly NOT. 

(Oh, and that thing about Hachette's "preorder" buttons disappearing? That's another thing we don't get as indies, and once books are actually released, there IS an "order" button on most, if not all, of Hachette's titles. (I'd say all, but I'm sure someone would then find an exception and try to devalue my entire post by one detail... so I'll just say "most, if not all."))

Getting a pre-order button is a nice advantage. One I wish we indies had. But since we don't, why should we care if Hachette gets an advantage they have over us temporarily taken away? There's no reason we should.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Craig gets a cookie.

You nailed it. I bet that's what's being offered. It's completely reasonable, and publishers are balking.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Hugh Howey said:


> Craig gets a cookie.
> 
> You nailed it. I bet that's what's being offered. It's completely reasonable, and publishers are balking.


Ooh! Can it be a Girl Scout Thin Mint? I love those...


----------



## fallswriter (Sep 11, 2012)

CraigInOregon said:


> Ooh! Can it be a Girl Scout Thin Mint? I love those...


You shall get the leftover Tagalongs and like them!!!!!! hahaha @Hugh, you're gonna make Craig feel too special, and then he won't want to talk to me anymore!!!!!


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

CraigInOregon said:


> Ooh! Can it be a Girl Scout Thin Mint? I love those...


Made with real Girl Scouts!


----------



## Donna White Glaser (Jan 12, 2011)

CraigInOregon said:


> Ooh! Can it be a Girl Scout Thin Mint? I love those...


Best cookie EVER. And I feel really dumb because that's the only thing I could come up with on this thread. So grateful for Kboards and the opportunity to hang with better minds.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Hugh Howey said:


> Made with real Girl Scouts!


Ahh... you obviously recognized I'm a horror author... LOL


----------



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

I WANT HUGHS UNDERPANTS.

just saying. keep your cookies. i got a box already. nom nom nom.

If i ever got invited to Hachette, i'd go just to eat their pastries, tell them I'm wearing Hugh Howey's underpants and then offer to let them publish my books for ten percent royalty but only on every third tuesday on a month with a full moon. YOU WANT ARCHAIC ANGLO-SAXON CONTRACTS? I'LL GIVE YOU ARCHAIC ANGLO-SAXON CONTRACTS! Here take my money witch dunking pagan press owners!


----------

