A simple question about the new 'agency' model...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

It's simple: Two multi-billion dollar corporations are arguing about the best way to sell books, and neither have the best interests of authors first in mind. Authors are siding against the one that kicked them in the nuts as a negotiating tactic.

Generally true, but at least a few of them have recognized the truth.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Generally true, but at least a few of them have recognized the truth.

If the "truth" has anything to do with Amazon having the authors' interests at heart, I have some five-way waterfront property to sell you: North, South, East, West, and Top.

Amazon and Macmillan are both acting in their own best interests. However, most authors believe that Macmillan's agency model will at the very least not harm them any more over the long term than Amazon's model, and that Amazon's past and current behavior shows they are more than willing to throw them under the bus without hesitation.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

If the "truth" has anything to do with Amazon having the authors' interests at heart, I have some five-way waterfront property to sell you: North, South, East, West, and Top.

Amazon and Macmillan are both acting in their own best interests. However, most authors believe that Macmillan's agency model will at the very least not harm them any more over the long term than Amazon's model, and that Amazon's past and current behavior shows they are more than willing to throw them under the bus without hesitation.

Please provide examples of why you believe Amazon is less willing to work with authors than MacMillian and I will not accept the recent removal of MacMillan titles as an example of negative behavior towards authors as that is not the case it was directed at the publisher not the authors.

Truth is that yes Amazon and MacMillan will both attempt to protect themselves, but the truth is also that the plan from MacMillan is more likely to harm authors (in particular their income) than anything Amazon has done.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

It's simple: Two multi-billion dollar corporations are arguing about the best way to sell books, and neither have the best interests of authors first in mind. Authors are siding against the one that kicked them in the nuts as a negotiating tactic.

In other words, the authors are not siding with either as both companies are screwing the authors.

[Duiker]

This is going to hurt authors even more then the Amazon model, as it drives people to pirate books. When people feel they are being ripped off, right or wrong, its easy to steal something and say "they asked for it". Personally I feel that e-readers are already over-priced, then to go and raise the prices of ebooks? No thanks. The most I will pay for an e-book is around $10 and only if that book is not available cheaper in print. Yes, yes, I know the publishers don't make anything on e-reader sales but it doesn't change the fact that if I spend $300 on a device I expect to save significant money on my books. I wonder what pricing would be like it Macmillan was selling it's own e-reader?

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

It's simple: Two multi-billion dollar corporations are arguing about the best way to sell books, and neither have the best interests of authors first in mind. Authors are siding against the one that kicked them in the nuts as a negotiating tactic.

Bingo.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

In other words, the authors are not siding with either as both companies are screwing the authors.

Not really true. I've seen many authors in support the the MacMillan move and a few against it. I'm less sure about various organizations, but I do know the SFWA - Science Fiction Writers of America is supporting MacMillan.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by starrigger

Bingo.

So are you saying that is how you feel Jeffery? Are you siding with MacMillan on this?

[=X=]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

It's simple: Two multi-billion dollar corporations are arguing about the best way to sell books, and neither have the best interests of authors first in mind. Authors are siding against the one that kicked them in the nuts as a negotiating tactic.

That is a good point, economics have proven that emotions override logic every time.

The way I saw it amazon hurt them short term, due to collateral damage, but MacMillian is hurting them long term.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by =X=

That is a good point, economics have proven that emotions override logic every time.

The way I saw it amazon hurt them short term, due to collateral damage, but MacMillian is hurting them long term.

Amazon hurt them here and now, and more importantly proved that they really don't care at all about the well-being of authors. Macmillan's agency model may hurt authors, but the general consensus is that it will hurt them less in the long run than throwing in with Amazon.

The authors' income is tied to Macmillan's; there is no such connection between the author's income and Amazon's. It's in Macmillan's interest to make authors more money over the long term. It doesn't matter to Amazon one way or another whether authors make money. All that matters to Amazon is that they make money, whether by selling books or Kindles.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by kennyc

but I do know the SFWA - Science Fiction Writers of America is supporting MacMillan.

No, not really. SFWA is objecting to the collateral damage done to its members by Amazon's actions in the dispute.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

No, not really. SFWA is objecting to the collateral damage done to its members by Amazon's actions in the dispute.

Riiiiight. That's what they are saying, but bottom line is they are supporting the MacMillan move to the Agency Model which is more likely to harm (i.e. lower earnings) authors than to help them.

Of course none of this has happened yet, so we won't really know til some time in the future. Personally I'd trust Amazon before I'd trust MacMillan just based on their demonizing of ebooks.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Riiiiight. That's what they are saying, but bottom line is they are supporting the MacMillan move to the Agency Model.

Sorry, I didn't realize you were a member. Can you point me to the official notification to that effect? I must have missed it. I'm simply going by what the officers told us.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Please provide examples of why you believe Amazon is less willing to work with authors than MacMillian and I will not accept the recent removal of MacMillan titles as an example of negative behavior towards authors as that is not the case it was directed at the publisher not the authors.

Truth is that yes Amazon and MacMillan will both attempt to protect themselves, but the truth is also that the plan from MacMillan is more likely to harm authors (in particular their income) than anything Amazon has done.

Amazon is a retailer: It is in their best interest to pay as little as possible for the products they sell. Their own self-publishing contract has been analyzed by several authors and is very lopsided against the author. Among other things Amazon has the ability to reduce the sale price to zero, and the author's cut along with it, at a whim.

Amazon and authors have directly opposed interests.

Authors and Macmillan have aligned interests. Both want to make as much money as possible from selling books to booksellers.

It is very much more in Amazon's economic interest to screw authors than it is Macmillan's.

Also, Amazon has a history of using their market clout as a big hammer to force competitors and suppliers to back down and toe the Amazon line: See the lawsuit against the Amazon Bookstore, the Hachette incident, and the requirement that all POD books go through their own printing facility.

Amazon plays rough and always has.

[fugazied]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

- the publisher decides the price they want to (try to) sell e-books at.
- the publisher tells Amazon '(Try to) sell this e-book for $X'
- in the unlikely event Amazon sells a copy of the e-book, Amazon keep 30% and kick 70% back to the publisher.

I like the wording there. Amazon will TRY and sell e-books at $15, $20 but it will put a significant dent in things. Amazon obviously has data on e-book sales at different prices and know that the volume sold at $9.99 is a lot higher than $15. From their perspective they make a lot more money from selling 100'000 $9.99 books compared to 20'000 $15.99 books.

Publishers simplay wanted control of pricing so they could manipulate it to suit print sales. It's not a good situation.