Amazon "capitulates"

[scarlettina]

The Washington Post has it that Amazon has given in on the Macmillan situation. Here's the full text of Amazon's concession and, my goodness, a pissier, whinier, more passive aggressive document has not been seen in years:

------------------------------------
Dear Customers:

Macmillan, one of the "big six" publishers, has clearly communicated to us that, regardless of our viewpoint, they are committed to switching to an agency model and charging $12.99 to $14.99 for e-book versions of bestsellers and most hardcover releases. We have expressed our strong disagreement and the seriousness of our disagreement by temporarily ceasing the sale of all Macmillan titles. We want you to know that ultimately, however, we will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan's terms because Macmillan has a monopoly over their own titles, and we will want to offer them to you even at prices we believe are needlessly high for e-books. Amazon customers will at that point decide for themselves whether they believe it's reasonable to pay $14.99 for a bestselling e-book. We don't believe that all of the major publishers will take the same route as Macmillan. And we know for sure that many independent presses and self-published authors will see this as an opportunity to provide attractively priced e-books as an alternative. Kindle is a business for Amazon, and it is also a mission. We never expected it to be easy!

Thank you for being a customer.
------------------------------------

I'm impressed at the attempts here to manipulate buyers into thinking that poor widdle Amazon has been abused by that Big Bad Publisher! We'll struggle along--this publishing business is a jungle! Our loyal customers will show 'em who's boss, though! Just you wait and see!

The truth is that Jeff Bezos had a hissy fit and Macmillan decided not to indulge a child's tantrum. Bezos will be pouting for quite while yet I suspect.

ETA: Scalzi wraps it up nicely for us.

Comments

[katybeth]

Wow.

[willowgreen.livejournal.com]

ITA that suspending sales of Macmillan's books was a dumb way for Amazon to handle the dispute. Still, it's absolutely true that many Kindle owners have made it a point of principle not to pay more than $9.99 for an e-book. I'll be interested to see how their higher-priced e-books sell in comparison to the $9.99 ones.

[scarlettina.livejournal.com]

Well, Kindle customer may make a point of not paying $9.99 for their e-books. I wonder how long it will take before authors can't afford to keep writing on the income garnered from such sales.

Don't forget, part of the point of the Macmillan situation was that Macmillan wanted to set price points along a range up to $15; they didn't want to sell everything at $15. And I bet that Kindle users will be willing to pay for certain books at that price as the market develops, as the capabilities of e-book readers develop, and as publishers develop special features only available on e-books. I'd bet money that last one's coming. It's only a matter of time.

[malkingrey.livejournal.com]

The ideal price for an e-book is a separate problem, and one still being worked out in the marketplace. (I think, myself, that Baen Books has the right idea -- sell it at a premium price ahead of the hardcover/mass market publication, and at a lower-than-hardcopy price afterward; but this may not work across the board for all genres and all titles.)

The question of whether or not Amazon could (or should) get away with using its position as the biggest player on the block in on-line book sales to employ strong-arm tactics in the course of ordinary business negotiations is something else. (My position here is a) it didn't, and b) it shouldn't.) As is the big looming question of whether or not Amazon's proprietary ebook reader and wireless delivery system should become the industry standard by default. (My position here is something along the lines of "Oh, god, no." I don't want any e-book that I can't back up to my hard drive or external media, where Amazon or whoever I bought it from can't reach down onto my reader and take it away again whenever it pleases them.)

In balance, then, and speaking as both a reader and a writer, my general position is that anything which acts to decrease Amazon's chances of gaining an effective monopoly is a contribution to the greater good, which puts me firmly in Macmillan's camp for this round.

[herself_nyc]

You're right, that is one heck of a badly worded capitulation. Geez.

[seankreynolds.livejournal.com]

I'd put that on every single Macmillan item's page on Amazon.com ... because Macmillan is demanding customers pay more than $10 for (as Robin Laws puts it) "an item that consists of a formatted text file, can’t readily be loaned to others even in your own household, and can’t be sold at a used bookstore after you're done with it."

[scarlettina.livejournal.com]

Once again, I direct my readers to remember that Macmillan wanted to set their own prices anywhere from $5.99 to $15, so there would be many cases where Amazon wanted you to pay far more than the price at which the publisher wanted to sell their product.

And once again, I ask my readers to go read the breakdown of the finances--production, distribution, etc.--in question at Tobias Buckell's blog (http://www.tobiasbuckell.com/2010/01/31/why-my-books-are-no-longer-for-sale-via-amazon/), where the math demonstrates that Macmillan was trying to maintain control of how they price their products (just like Paizo, Ford, or Microsoft--not an unreasonable position to take), and Amazon was trying to do what we in the US call price-fixing. Which, we in the US, tend to disapprove of as a general business practice. Among other things.

Also? Amazon ain't selling you a book--it's licensing you the rights to read it on your device. And they can pull that license any time they want, which they've already done as witnessed by the situation with George Orwell's novel 1984--the irony of which can't possibly escape you.

[seankreynolds.livejournal.com]

Your original post on this yesterday had the following quote:
"Macmillan, like other publishers, has asked Amazon to raise the price of e-books to around $15 from $9.99."

The one at the top of this entry says:
"Macmillan is trying to price their e-books at $15, while Amazon prices e-books at $9.99. Macmillan's CEO John Sargent said that unless Amazon sets the price of new e-books to $15, the publisher will not distribute new books to Amazon when they are released."

So who's doing the price-fixing?

And I know Amazon isn't selling me a book, they're selling a non-transferable license--which is why I don't have an e-reader of any kind.

A manufacturer generally can't tell a retailer what price an item MUST be sold at. That's why items have an MSRP--manufacturer's *suggested* retail price. Should Macmillan be allowed to tell bookstores what prices their books MUST be sold at? Is the store not allowed to sell items at a price it can sell them at? If a bookstore ends up with a stinker book, shouldn't they be able to discount it? Why should this be any different with an e-book? Why spend $15 for a license for a text file of an e-book when you can just spend $8 and actually *own* a transferable print copy forever?

[seankreynolds.livejournal.com]

Basically, if Macmillan wants to control the price of their e-books, they should open their own e-book store and only sell through that. Amazon.com is a retailer, and they should be able to (1) sell items at whatever price they feel is profitable for them, or (2) refuse to sell the products in question.

[ckd]

Which would be a perfectly good reason to stop selling Macmillan ebooks, but has nothing to do with the decision to stop selling Macmillan paper books.

[malkingrey.livejournal.com]

Yeah. That was the point, in my opinion, when Amazon crossed the line from playing hardball to acting like a dick.

[seankreynolds.livejournal.com]

When you're in a dispute with someone, and if you could legally stop sending them money, wouldn't you do so? You don't see a factory continuing to pay its workers when those workers go on strike--the workers would have no incentive to get the dispute wrapped up quickly.

Amazon was playing hardball. "You want to tell us how to run OUR business? Let's see how happy you are when a major retailer stops carrying your products."

[scarlettina.livejournal.com]

...they should be able to (1) sell items at whatever price they feel is profitable for them,

But they're selling Kindle e-books as a loss leader because what they really want to sell is Kindle. It's on the record.

When I made my first post about this, I made a point of saying that I don't usually get involved in these discussions and that I was going to sit back and watch it unfold. I'm going to do that now for a number of reasons, not the least of which is, I like you, Sean, and I'm getting hot under the collar with you about something that's irrelevant to whatever social interaction we have had or may have in the future. If you want to continue discussing this here with others, feel free, but I'm disengaging now. I value pleasant future social interaction far more than I do an argument about the book business.

[seankreynolds.livejournal.com]

Silly, getting hot under the collar in an argument with friends is what makes life INTERESTING. I disagree with most of my friends on one thing or another (let's start with vegetarianism), that doesn't mean I don't love them. I mean, what's the point of debating with people who agree with you? I want to debate with my brilliant friends who disagree with me--they're the only ones with a chance to prove me wrong. ;)

[seankreynolds.livejournal.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suggested_retail_price

[ironymaiden]

when i followed a link to the statement on Amazon last night, the response in comments was all in favor of the retailer rather than the publisher. (obviously, Amazon could be manipulating what appears on the page, in the same way that any comment moderation system can and that may have shaken out by now.)
it gave me a moment of pause. my internet world can be a bit of an echo chamber when it comes to this sort of thing...lots of writers/editors, and i can only think of two who are actual ebook consumers. in the short term Macmillan is going to get the bad PR as consumers fixate on "$15".

[malkingrey.livejournal.com]

.lots of writers/editors, and i can only think of two who are actual ebook consumers.

I'm fairly certain you can now make that three.