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

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by vaughnmr

To those authors in this forum who want to support Macmillon and friends, I hope you are in for a ride. I will never support $15 pricing for ebooks, period. I strongly suspect there are a LOT of people who think just like me. You should be trying to work the economic model of "large quantities" not "large prices".

At the beginning of what I see as the current ebook revolution, you are trying to screw your customers, and you ought to think about that one very carefully. You are increasing the cost of bestseller ebooks 50% without any benefits to the customer, no easing of the content sharing with DRM, no changes to the geo location restrictions, no changes to the often terrible format quality. Exactly what are you giving me for the increase in pricing? As a customer, I will pay you in kind for what you deliver.

Michael Vaughn (new to ereading 10/1/09)

No one is saying that all ebooks will suddenly become $15 at the end of March.

What Macmillan and other publishers want to do is introduce the same kind of dynamic pricing that already exists with paper books. Books cost more when first released, and then the price will drop over time.

It may or may not work.

[ondabeach]

[QUOTE=asjogren;779624]I think there is one more process needed for these - an independent "professional" review team. Perhaps the top 3% of sales gets reviewed. And the reviewer puts his real name to the review. And if these reviews can get out to the mainstream media, it could accelerate the transition to a different model.QUOTE]

I think that's a great idea asjogren, but more importantly you do, after all, our site exists for the benefit of people such as yourself and others on MR and around the globe.

There is absolutely no other place on earth where such as a wealth of information, trends, attitudes and opinions on everything eReading can be found than right here on MR. So who better to determine the direction of what is YOUR industry.

I would welcome any MR members who would like to participate or provide input on doing as you suggest.

We would be more than happy to host such a service on our site, though I think it would have much more credibilty and acceptance if it were an entity truly independant of any publisher or eBook seller.

Perhaps a new forum here where eBooks are reviewed along with links to where they can be purchased/downloaded and for how much.

Whether it is hosted on MR, ZuluExpress or a new site entirely I would be more than happy to contribute to the cause.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

That argument might be defensible IF Amazon had limited their action to removing the buy buttons from the Kindle editions which the dispute referred to.

Why? Macmillian is Macmillian, and their authors are their authors. It was Macmillian demanding special treatment for a class of their books. Why should Amazon have tied their hands behind their back by conceding that from the start?

As to whether Macmillan's agency system will work, that's up to the market to decide.

Heh. Realism, please.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Why? Macmillian is Macmillian, and their authors are their authors. It was Macmillian demanding special treatment for a class of their books. Why should Amazon have tied their hands behind their back by conceding that from the start?

That doesn't refute my point that Amazon is responsible for Amazon's actions, not Macmillan.

[vaughnmr]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

No one is saying that all ebooks will suddenly become $15 at the end of March.

What Macmillan and other publishers want to do is introduce the same kind of dynamic pricing that already exists with paper books. Books cost more when first released, and then the price will drop over time.

It may or may not work.

Well, that's not what they are doing now, and you expect me to trust that it will magically change after March? Get a life, my friend, you are dealing with a corporate entity, and they definitely don't have my interests in mind. I seriously doubt they will change pricing as they have described it. You will see an attempt to change the pricing for new releases, but I suspect the existing catalog will not change, or will change slowly over time (in MacMillons terms, in decades). I just don't have a lot of trust in these guys, sorry (look at their history).

Michael

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Amazon removed the buy buttons. That cost the authors money. Macmillan has not made any changes as yet.

Whether Macmillan's agency idea is a good one or not has no bearing on the fact that Amazon's action hurt authors.

The only reason Amazon did what it did was BECAUSE OF MACMILLAN. It wouldn't have happened otherwise. IT IS MACMILLAN that cost its own authors money if any was lost. This is like arguing lost sales due to piracy. And futhermore it will be MACMILLAN that will cost their authors more money in the future by raising prices and increasing piracy.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by kennyc

The only reason Amazon did what it did was BECAUSE OF MACMILLAN. It wouldn't have happened otherwise. IT IS MACMILLAN that cost its own authors money if any was lost. This is like arguing lost sales due to piracy. And futhermore it will be MACMILLAN that will cost their authors more money in the future by raising prices and increasing piracy.

No, Amazon did what it did because Amazon chose that response to Macmillan's actions.

Amazon is responsible for their own actions, not anyone else.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

No, Amazon did what it did because Amazon chose that response to Macmillan's actions.

Amazon is responsible for their own actions, not anyone else.

You are simply wrong. Amazon reacted. As you would call it "negotiations."

It never would have happened except for MacMillan's actions.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by kennyc

You are simply wrong. Amazon reacted. As you would call it "negotiations."

It never would have happened except for MacMillan's actions.

If I call you a name and you knock over my bookshelf onto someone else I'm not responsible for any injury to the other person. You are. You knocked over the bookshelf and you're responsible for your own actions.

Amazon is responsible for its actions.

It does not matter if those actions were justified (as you obviously believe they were) or not; they are responsible.

[GhostHawk]

Why not Mobileread for an independent review site?

All you'd have to do is have a link to a basic review form.
Finish your book, log into MR, jump to the form, put in the Author, title, write a paragraph about likes, dislikes. Give it 1 - 5 stars and submit it.

Granted there would be a bit of behind the scenes work. But a lot of it could be automated.

Results can be filtered by author, genre, most popular, latest, etc.
Making it quick and easy to go find your next book.

With the MR community behind it, it could be a landmark site!

The other thing I see, is I see a niche, for some people to set up an independent editing, proofreading, site to take the work out of publishing an Ebook. Could negotiate for specific services, or offer a package deal for a percentage of the gross for a defined period of time.

Granted like any truly cutting edge company start-up, the first year would probably be pretty lean. Perhaps people from the industry looking to work from home, semi - retire, etc. Just throwing a wild idea out there.

Trick would be to get it setup, then start getting the word out.

[vaughnmr]

Originally Posted by kennyc

You are simply wrong. Amazon reacted. As you would call it "negotiations."

It never would have happened except for MacMillan's actions.

I'm glad it happened. If it were not for Amazon, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The authors can alt least say that, correct? Before, there was no discussion, at least now there is a "one sided discussion". Let the publishers run things for a while, let's see what happens...

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

That doesn't refute my point that Amazon is responsible for Amazon's actions, not Macmillan.

And if not for Macmillan essentially blackmailing Amazon, there would of been no dispute in the first place. When you chose an action, you chose the consequences - Macmillian knew what they were doing was changing the way the market works, and they'd face opposition.

vaughnmr - Again, realism please. They're never going to surrender this control. Indeed, I'd expect them to try and move print books to the same model - and if sales fall, they'll blame everything but their own actions.

[vaughnmr]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

vaughnmr - Again, realism please. They're never going to surrender this control. Indeed, I'd expect them to try and move print books to the same model - and if sales fall, they'll blame everything but their own actions.

Well, if they are not in business in two years or so, we will have learned the lesson.

All jokes aside, I seriously doubt that the ebook sales at the present time will drive the publishers pricing model, due to the small percentage. I DO think that the attitudes of the publishers and authors, at this time, will influence MY buying. You just lost sales that were available before, I won't buy from you now. I'm going to vote with my pocketbook.

Michael

[Seli]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

And if not for Macmillan essentially blackmailing Amazon, there would of been no dispute in the first place. When you chose an action, you chose the consequences - Macmillian knew what they were doing was changing the way the market works, and they'd face opposition.

vaughnmr - Again, realism please. They're never going to surrender this control. Indeed, I'd expect them to try and move print books to the same model - and if sales fall, they'll blame everything but their own actions.

Macmillan is not the one that wants to change the market, Amazon is. That is the reason the pricing fight is this intense in the ebook market as opposed to the paper book market.

In a traditional retail market (such as paper books) there is a level of risk-sharing between manufacturer and retailer. The former has to make an assessment of cost, market etc and has the burden of manufacturing costs. The retailer has storage costs to consider, the risk of inventory being damaged, it has to invest in the inventory, store etc..

In the current (pre-mess) ebookmarket Amazon was moving into a no-risk model. They just have to have the file somewhere on the server and let it show up in the shop. They (probably) do not pay in advance, since no inventory is needed, no expensive stock, hardly any delivery cost etc. And since the store and storage is more or less a sunk cost due to the store already in place selling ebooks costs them nothing.

So Amazon does not carry the burden of the risk (which they still do in paper books) but still want to set the price, increasing the risks for the publishers in the long run.

In this view, and looking coolly, Amazon having a no-risk business should not be in the position to determine the pricing of the product they did in no way invest in.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Seli

Macmillan is not the one that wants to change the market, Amazon is. That is the reason the pricing fight is this intense in the ebook market as opposed to the paper book market.

In a traditional retail market (such as paper books) there is a level of risk-sharing between manufacturer and retailer. The former has to make an assessment of cost, market etc and has the burden of manufacturing costs. The retailer has storage costs to consider, the risk of inventory being damaged, it has to invest in the inventory, store etc..

In the current (pre-mess) ebookmarket Amazon was moving into a no-risk model. They just have to have the file somewhere on the server and let it show up in the shop. They (probably) do not pay in advance, since no inventory is needed, no expensive stock, hardly any delivery cost etc. And since the store and storage is more or less a sunk cost due to the store already in place selling ebooks costs them nothing.

So Amazon does not carry the burden of the risk (which they still do in paper books) but still want to set the price, increasing the risks for the publishers in the long run.

In this view, and looking coolly, Amazon having a no-risk business should not be in the position to determine the pricing of the product they did in no way invest in.

I love how you manage to change word definitions on the fly! Amazon has been using their model for years, even before MacM's "agency' model was a twinkle in their marketing department's eye.

So how is Amazon the 'new kid'? So to speak...

Derek