Well. Now I have a bad taste in my mouth, and it's really pissing me off.
I'm sure many of you, being readers like me, are following the Amazon/Mcmillan pissing contest. The short version:
Mcmillan: We want you to increase the price of our titles for the Kindle.
Amazon: Fuck off.
*pause while Steve Jobs pokes Mcmillan with an iPad-shaped stick*
Mcmillan: Fuck you, Amazon!
Amazon: No, fuck you, Mcmillan! Our dicks are bigger!
*pause while Amazon pulls Mcmillan titles from the website*
Mcmillan and All Their Friends: Amazon Sucks! Amazon Sucks! Amazon Sucks!
Amazon: No we don't.
Mcmillan and All Their Friends: You do! You do! You do!
Amazon: Okay, we do. We'll kiss and make up.
Except they haven't.
A quick perusal of Amazon indicates they still haven't relisted Mcmillan titles for direct sales, although you can buy them from resellers (thus making sure the authors aren't paid). As you can imagine, this annoys the authors.
I can't believe how incredibly stupid Amazon has been about all this. Aside from the classless way in which they handled the communication surrounding the incident, the entire thing makes me think that Amazon has been taking lessons on corporate governance from that bastion of corporate evil, Wal-Mart. It feels like Amazon was attempting to strong-arm Mcmillan into lowering their profit margin because, well, we're Amazon, and we want you to.
I think it's pretty damn cool that Mcmillan's leadership team told Amazon to get bent and stuck to their guns.
I do expect some savings when I buy a title electronically rather than in book form - after all, there are no raw materials associated with the production of the work. I also don't expect to be able to replicate the file. Some form of DRM is acceptable to me, because I know that even though I would not distribute the file, others don't share my compunction. But Amazon is getting a bit UPPITY about the whole thing.
Make no mistake, Amazon - I won't blink if you continue to act the ass. I'll dump your device like a hot rock and buy a Nook. You've already lost the Smart Man's business as a result of your asinine behavior. You are not ENTITLED to my business. You are not ENTITLED to strong-arm publishers to increase your profit margin at the expense of theirs. Keep it up, you 'tard. See where it gets you.
15 comments:
My Nook showed up a couple of days ago and while I'm really happy with the parts of it I've figured out...I still have a lot of other stuff to figure out.
I'm supposed to be able to download files from other sources (like Baen's Webscriptions) as long as they're in an EPUB or PDF format, but once I do that and transfer it to the Nook, I can't find it on the Nook.
I'll either figure it all out (Fine! Maybe I will read the manual) or just keep feeling like a shnook. (see what I did there? Huh? Huh?) :D
This re-sets my eBook research back to zero. I think I will wait and see what HP comes out with. And then, maybe (in a galaxy far, far away) my library will get eBooks for download! 'Cause I'm thrifty that way.
Which bunch of bastards do you want to hate more? I don't exactly like sticking up for Amazon, but if I were a bookstore and a bookseller told me they were going to cram an agency agreement down my throat, I, too, would tell them to fuck off. Macmillan can make Amazon take a bad deal that potentially hurts customers because Macmillan's one of the biggest publishers in the world and because people have decided that the iPad (with its LCD screen and monthly data plan) is a Kindle killer (what with the Kindle's more eye-friendly e-ink screen and unlimited data plan built into the up-front cost). (And the iPad might be a Kindle killer--I'm just not sure it would be a good thing if it was.)
I haven't checked to see if Macmillan does direct sales to customers. I rather suspect they don't. What they're forcing on Amazon is for Amazon to be a middleman for a kind of direct sales program, using Amazon's distribution network in exchange for Amazon skimming whatever cut Macmillan feels is reasonable. As opposed to a more traditional free-enterprise model of "manufacturer sells to retailer at a reasonable profit and retailer sells to consumer at reasonable profit, all according to what their respective markets will bear." Amazon can reject this deal and go with a traditional way of selling things--if they're willing to sell at a devalued rate, i.e. Macmillan will withhold titles for a time period in which most titles would be remaindered at brick'n'mortars, and sell to Amazon then.
Amazon has a lot of power and clout by virtue of being the largest and dominant seller of books--but they're also in competition with Powell's, Barnes And Noble, and other online retailers (and, electronically, with other retailers, too, such as B&N's Fictionwise). Macmillan, of course, has exclusive deals with the author's it's signed. Amazon is guilty of throwing it's weight around, but which company has a monopolistic position it's trying to expand is, in my opinion, a different matter.
I don't find either corporation's behavior particularly honorable. The people who will suffer are customers--as an aspiring author, I understand where Scalzi and others have a vested interest in preserving their royalty checks, but if the writers benefit (and I frankly doubt they actually will--I expect Macmillan to find ways to increase their profits without, you know, giving money away in the process), it will be at the literal expense of their readers. Sorry. The writers' position isn't exactly noble, either.
But we'll see. I would love to be wrong, and for Macmillan and Amazon's attempts to bully each other to result in a golden age of affordable, accessible books and huge authors' royalties. Yeah. I'd love to be wrong....
Eric, I'd love for you to be wrong, too, although I'm really not holding my breath, not being a fan of hypoxia.
I don't disagree that everyone involved is kind of being a shitbird about the whole thing, including the publishers. Like most consumer issues (and politics), it's a question of doing business with the lesser of two evils. Sort of like I despise big-box stores on general principles, but since I hate Target less than Wal-Mart, then I'll shop at Target if I need to, but never at Wal-Mart. Not exactly a morally defensible position, but a compromise I find I can live with, if that makes sense.
I'm going back and reading some of Scalzi's updates--I saw his post this weekend thanks to Kate, but hadn't followed up. It's a mix of the cogent and maybe-not-so-much, though his "Call For Author Support" is excellent.
There is one point in particular that I think he's missing: Amazon's embargo may have more strategic value than he thinks even if it's going to fail with Macmillan. Here's why: Macmillan's contract, which I think is almost certainly a bad deal for a retailer and its customers, is sure to be emulated by other publishers. Macmillan and its varied imprints is effing huge and can chunk this down a retailer's throat. But other publishers don't have that kind of clout. And when they try to follow Macmillan's lead--and they will--what do you think Amazon's going to say? "Look, we're the crazy motherfuckers who embargoed Macmillan. We scorch-earthed something like one-sixth of our catalogue just to show we could, and who the fuck are you, you're practically a vanity press? Kiss off.
And that will be the end of that. If Amazon is willing to ghost seventeen percent of their offerings for several days, they're sure-as-hell going to be willing to do it to indie houses and small presses. Brutal? Ugly? Sure.
But imagine for just a moment you own a bookstore. Not a virtual bookstore, not a mail order company, not an e-book server farm; imagine that you own that little bookshop you always thought would be "neat." You'd do giveaways and promos and discount cards for regular customers and everyone in the neighborhood would love you and your cool staff of eccentrics. And you could do all that fun stuff with your stock because, y'know, it's your stock, and as long as you can pay the rent and power and employees' salaries, you can charge twenty-five cents or twenty-five bucks, it's your merchandise. Now imagine that, one day, you call the publisher to order a box of the next sure-to-be-this-summer's-bestseller, and instead of quoting a price they say, "Y'know, we're not going to sell you this. Sure, we'll send you a box to sell on our behalf and pay you a commission for doing it, but you're only our agent. If that's not good enough, you can buy a box under the usual terms-and-conditions in February of next year." You were going to give a copy away to your five-hundredth customer, or sell 'em cheap at a small profit during the week school let out, or, hell, double the MSRP and screw your customers when Wal-Mart ran out--your merch, do what you want. Nope. Not your merch. You're just a kiosk for the publisher.
Now, Amazon is hardly the quirky brick (literally brick!) bookstore you fantasized about, which is part of why they look like they're being dicks. And e-books don't really seem like merchandise in the same way a "real" book is. But this is a big part of what this is about, and why the jump-on-Macmillan's bandwagon is a little ill-conceived. I know people are doing that for the writers--but here's where I agree with Scalzi again: this is two behemoths clubbing each other, and they don't care who else gets hurt.
But Amazon's not t3h 3vi1 here, or at least not moreso that Macmillan.
Oh, and there's a great bit by Charlie Stross here that covers a lot of the shortcomings of my analysis here from a different perspective.
Stross' take reminds me of the tagline to the first Aliens v. Predator movie: "No matter who wins, we lose."
Y'know, the first thing I thought when I read Scalzi's Call for Author Support is "This is going to cost me money" -- something I'm not particularly fond of.
Item: I don't have a kindle or any other ebook reader. I still read my books as ink on pages as G-d intended.
Item: I'm an "amazon prime" customer. I pay them $79/year for the privilege of free two-day shipping on everything they directly sell.
In other words, I've prepaid my shipping costs for the year. And I did that as a part of an economic decision -- because I know that amazon carries damn near every book, CD and DVD in print, and that I buy enough of them in a year to make $79 to cover all my shipping an good deal for me.
Taking away a significant portion of its catalog (as part of an ebook price war I really don't have a side on) pisses me off. Amazon is basically saying, "We locked you in as a customer by having you pay shipping in advance, and now we're taking away 17% of our stock. Sorry, little pawn, but it'll be good for you if we make macmillan blink and you ever want to buy a kindle."
I would be rather more generous toward amazon's position if I wasn't a prime customer. I mean, yes, while amazon is the largest online retailer of books, they're not the only one, and customers who aren't locked in to amazon can take their macmillan business elsewhere while amazon and macmillan continue their little pissing contest.
But I'm not at all amused by amazon locking me in as a customer (by taking my money in advance) and then taking away a good portion of the stuff I can buy. That sucks. Will I boycott amazon? No. Will I think twice about renewing my prime membership when it expires? Hell, yes. Because amazon has shown that it cares more about retaining kindle's dominant position in the marketplace than acting in good faith towards ME.
nzforme,
I think that would make a fine complaint letter to Amazon...on paper in an envelope with a stamp on it. Letting them know that their "Prime" category isn't going to rope you in again is worth telling them about.
Having said that, I have to wonder how long Macmillan and Amazon argued this quietly between themselves before they decided to have this ultimately embarrassing public pissing match.
If I understand the whole thing, I have to say I think Macmillan is being the bigger dick in this...which is a little like saying that one woman is "more pregnant" than another.
It's not just Prime customers -- most of the print books embargoed would qualify for Free Shipping on orders of $25 or more. But NOT if they are bought through Amazon 3rd party dealers. So if Amazon thought that they were being nice to let the 3rd party dealers stay up, they aren't being nice to me.
Also, Amazon's version of events manages to miss Macmillan's whole plan. Their ebook price drops with the issuing of the lower priced mass market editions. Amazon would like to charge a flat $9.99 whether new release or backlist. And I have a blog post brewing about that little issue.
Bottom line, I am furious that a Kindle issue affects print editions -- and livid that it will harm debut authors and those with new releases, because initial sales drive so much of the contract price for the next book.
FWIW, I have the Sony eReader -- it was a much better deal than the Kindle/Kindle 2.
Dr. Phil
I think you all are making valid points in terms of how big of dicks Mcmillan is being in this, as well.
But I'll still stick to my guns and say that I think Amazon handled the situation much more stupidly than did Mcmillan.
I see your point, Dr. Phil, but you can get the same free shipping if you spend $25 or more on books at bn.com -- so Scalzi's plan of having everyone go out and buy Macmillan books elsewhere shouldn't, in theory, cost you any more than it would cost you to buy them at amazon. (The "in theory" part is there because I haven't comparison shopped prices between amazon and bn.com.) You should be able to get the same book for the same price with the same free shipping (for a $25 order) from another online retailer.
But to get the same 2-day shipping which I've prepaid at amazon, I've got to pay bn.com something upwards of $10 (depending on order size). I do believe amazon is screwing its prime customers more than other customers with this.
nzforme, we're Prime customers as well, in spite of my Kindle Fan-Girl status. I think you have a good point.
I do not own an e-book reader, mostly because I am commitment-phobic. I really had a hard time deciding on one vs. the other and really hated the idea of having any e-books I own under one DRM system go "poof" if I decide to switch. (see my comment on Eric's site) Tree-based books don't do that. Plus I can sell or give away unwanted books or lend a paper book to a friend (I'm a book pusher, is that a problem?). So I have no vested interest in the Kindle vs. eReader vs. iPad (and goddamn it, I can't stop thinking "maxi or mini-pad") wars.
But nzforme has really made me realize that this whole catfight amongst corporations has affected me, since I, too, am an Amazon Prime member. I love Amazon Prime. I order something and it shows up 2 days later (occasionally the next day even). I'll pay $79/year for that. But if there aren't as many books to choose from, then that does affect my Amazon shopping.
At this point, I'm saying fuck 'em all.
Boy, that was some long rambling comment that really says nothing. Posting it anyway.
Back to work. Hmmm. 9:51 pm, and I'm still working. I must be one of those slacker Federal Gov't employees.
Plus I can sell or give away unwanted books or lend a paper book to a friend (I'm a book pusher, is that a problem?)
It is a problem from the publisher's point-of-view, which is the main reason I'm interested in this. (I'm not an A-Prime member and while I'll continue to use Amazon for convenience, I'll go to Powell's or B&N if Amazon doesn't have what I want.) If Macmillan had a way to legally bind your ownership of the thing called a "book," they would--indeed, if you look at the war publishers are waging on Fair Use doctrine, the scope of copyright act revisions, and even the useless legal boilerplates that've appeared on the first-or-second inside pages of books for decades, publishers have been trying to create some sort of "analog" rights management for a very long time now. The accidental fact that you can loan a book or give it away hurts publishers (and by extension, authors) by giving away the intellectual property between the covers for free.
And libraries? Fucking hell, libraries are an absolute menace. If libraries didn't exist and were invented tomorrow, they'd be called "pirates" and media providers would do their damnedest to sue them out of existence.
We just tend not to think in those terms because we're used to libraries and to the idea of books as things and not mere delivery systems for the licensed use of others' intellectual property. We've had books and libraries in various forms for millenia, and the Renaissance unleashed two mad viruses, one technological and one cultural, upon civilization: efficient movable type and vernacular literacy. It's several hundred years too late for a publisher to come into your home and lockdown your bookshelf.
There is, if you haven't already read it, a brilliant and necessary recent essay by Lawrence Lessig that touches on some of these issues as they relate to the Google Books settlement. (It sounds hyperbolic to say that something should be read by every thinking person, but, dammit, Lessig's essay should be read by every thinking person.) In a lot of ways, I see what's going on with Macmillan, Amazon and Apple as being another front: they're squabbling over how we read and how we own ideas. It's a minor skirmmish given that it involves (right now) two technological platforms and physical media sold by one store, but it'll still be interesting to see who prevails--publishers, with their traditional bottleneck to access, or Amazon, trying to acquire a monopoly on distribution.
I have to say I agree with Eric on this. (Where is John to disagree with us both?)
I've actually been thinking a lot recently about rights of ownership vs creative rights vs production rights and who owes what to whom.
Before, when I have worn out a book, or had it destroyed (what do you MEAN your dog chewed up my books?!) it seemed reasonable to me that I should purchase another copy of that book, because, again, I was paying for paper and ink and work that went into making a physical object.
But e-books are making the issue much less clear.
Why on earth should I have to pay MORE for an e-book than I do for a paperback book? There is no manufacturing involved, there is no paper or ink to use. Why should the intellectual property rights cost more than buying a physical object?
It seems to me that the publishers in this case are doing no more than trying to remain relevant in a situation where they aren't actually even needed.
In theory, an author should be able to sell his or her book directly to a consumer with an e-device, and skip the publisher entirely. After all, what purpose does the publisher play here? They do not have production or shipping costs, and if the customers are not even going into book stores, how much are they actually spending on marketing?
Add to this Eric's point: since when do manufacturers have the right to demand retailers charge a specific price for an item? Sure we have the MSRP, but that is not the same is demanding--nay ordering--an item be sold at a specific price.
I think Amazon has the right of this, and all things considered (and this is speaking as an Amazon Prime member) I think they fact they're making sure the physical books are available from other sellers makes them NOT the dicks in this situation. Yeah, I can't use my Amazon Prime membership to have the books shipped for free immediately, but on the other than, I don't expect this situation to go on indefinitely. And as was pointed out, there are other book sellers that offer free shipping. Of course, I bought a Prime Membership because I ship gifts to other people from Amazon, not so I could get books sooner for myself. Though I really do enjoy that benefit.
Anyway, to sum up, I think McMillen is being the jerk here, and it seems to me that Amazon is doing the best it can NOT to hurt authors, since you can still find the authors, and purchase their books elsewhere--even elsewhere on-line.
Post a Comment