The Amazon and Macmillan War

[snurri]

Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.

Don't buy your books from Amazon. You may have noticed that I usually link to Indiebound; they're a good source for local vendors. Or, if you really want to support a big evil corporation, buy from Barnes and Noble. Just as long as you don't buy from Amazon, at least, not right now.

For many links which will explain the situation better than I can, check out Charles Tan's blog and scroll down to the section Amazon vs Pan Macmillan.

Comments

[fengi.livejournal.com]

I'm someone who buys all my books from bricks and mortar indie bookstores, but I don't understand the uproar.

Look at it this way - if some producer tried to force an independent digital distributor to charge more for already overpriced DRM'd digital copies instead of letting the store set their own prices, who's side would you take?

Why not boycott Macmillan for trying to gouge their customers? Amazon had its own motives for rejecting the deal, but as far as I can tell, neither side was in the right.

[snurri.livejournal.com]

I would direct you to this article and this post by a small press publisher for a rebuttal to the idea that e-books are significantly cheaper than physical books, or that publishers make anywhere near the cover price on their products, or that Amazon is the good guy in this. Currently Amazon takes 50% of cover price for books sold on the Kindle; publishers have what's left to pay everyone, including authors. It may appear that Amazon is going to bat for consumers, but they've been using e-books as a loss leader from the beginning; now they're asking publishers and authors to treat them that way as well. If that becomes the norm, even the tiny fraction of authors making a living from their books will be scrambling for smaller advances and royalties. Amazon knows this, they're just pretending it won't be their fault if it happens.

[snurri.livejournal.com]

Or I might just tell you to read what Scott just posted, because it's a good summary of what's been going on.

I should perhaps note that my own novel doesn't fall under Macmillan's aegis, but several of my friends' books were affected by this.

[fengi.livejournal.com]

I accept many of the points of that post. Amazon made a big, stupid desparate bluff - perhaps only symbolic - which it was bound to lose and ended up alienating the wrong target.

I hope Macmillan's actions do end up giving all presses more control over e-pricing, but I doubt it was enlightened. My concern with e-books is it could be a means of even more consolidation and shenanigans by all corporate interests.

Big publishing had a say in letting Amazon use a loss leader scheme for the Kindle. As Scott points out, Macmillan still got their share, perhaps enjoying a sales boost due to the new device and loss leader prices encouraging people to buy more product than usual to justify their toy.

Maybe they were swept up in it. Maybe they realized Amazon would be vulnerable because the Kindle couldn't get iPod dominance. Either way, the acted in their own interest at both moments and Amazon has been strategically useful.

Meanwhile, what big publishing allows sets the terms for all other players - as they did when they helped elevate Amazon and its dubious policies. Corporate publishers ignored the diverse bookselling ecology Scott correctly identifies when it was profitable to favor consolidation of power. Now the entire business is imploding, I'm just hoping libraries survive.