Authors United, allies, demand government intervention

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Their success in renegotiating contracts with agency terms is proof positive that Amazon can't dictate whatever terms it wants.

Proof? That's a little strong here. But, yes, there is evidence in support of your statement. And why is that? Is it because, economically, Amazon couldn't withstand loss of Hachette sales? Or is it more plausible that Amazon was concerned about bad publicity? I lean towards the latter.

The annual Bezos literary retreat is normally in September. Will some of the famous big-five published authors who sent in their regrets last year, during the Hachette fervor, come back this year now that Amazon's behavior has, from my POV, improved? I'd say a few of them should take one for the team*, and go. The Amazon challenge needs to be faced with both sticks and carrots.

___________________________
* I realize that not everyone would consider a free luxury hotel weekend as taking one for the team. The real taking for the team would be if newspapers reported they were there, and then the authors had to explain it to their friends back in Brooklyn.

[murg]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Is it because, economically, Amazon couldn't withstand loss of Hachette sales?

Isn't Hachette something like 2% of Amazon's sales? And Amazon something like 2/3rds for Hachette's sales?

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Or is it more plausible that Amazon was concerned about bad publicity? I lean towards the latter.

What bad publicity?

From Authors United?

From The Usual Suspects (NYT, etc) that have lost their credibility on any Amazon or publishing related subject?

Seriously, these are the 'Let them eat cake' people that the Scarlet Pimpernel had to go rescue...

[darryl]

Amazon's only real negative so far as agency is concerned is lower sales volumes of Cartel books due to the Cartel controlling these prices. And even this is no doubt offset to at least some extent by increased sales of non-cartel books. Amazon likes to optimise its prices so as to maximise its revenue, rather than protecting the paper book market or preserving the erosion of some nebulous concept of "value" which would be killed by lower prices.

Amazon no longer spends its money subsidising Cartel Prices. In allowing Agency contracts, they have given the Cartel a long rope and they are proceeding to hang themselves. I expect that the Cartel will eventually be forced to reduce its prices in the face of an increasing loss of market share. But, of course, under an Agency model, the Cartel will themselves bear the entire cost of doing so.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by darryl

But, of course, under an Agency model, the Cartel will themselves bear the entire cost of doing so.

Not quite.
Their captive authors will bear a good portion of it.

And, to the extent that the BPHs can apply their deep-discount clauses, the authors might even bear most of the losses.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Not quite.
Their captive authors will bear a good portion of it.

And, to the extent that the BPHs can apply their deep-discount clauses, the authors might even bear most of the losses.

But surely the Author's Guild will protect Authors!

More seriously, you are of course correct.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by darryl

But surely the Author's Guild will protect Authors!

More seriously, you are of course correct.

The Authors Guild will fight tooth and nail...
...to protect the interests of the corporate publishing establishment.

Fortunately, they are toothless and manicured.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Proof? That's a little strong here. But, yes, there is evidence in support of your statement.

Nope. I'm sticking with proof positive.
Agency hampers Amazon's ability to find that magic (and constantly fluctuating) price point that maximizes sales while still protecting slim margins. So while agency may "force" them to make more money per BPH sale, they don't make as much money per title in the long run because of lower volumes sold. Amazon's constantly updated algorithms do a much better job of finding that moving, magic target price than the BPH's ever could with their ham-fisted, we-think-THIS-ebook-price-will-protect-our-print-book-sales-'cause-we-clicked-our-heels-together-three-times-and-consulted-our-magic-eight-ball-on-it minimum retail-price restrictions.

If Amazon had the power to deny agency terms in these latest contracts with BPH's they most certainly would have (bad publicity or no--though I believe the "avoiding bad publicity" theory is more of a stretch than my "proof positive" claim). They make more money (per title) with their own pricing algorithms. Funny thing is, those same algorithms would make more money for the BPH's in the long run, too. They're just too busy bemoaning the devaluation of print books to realize it.