The conventional wisdom seems to be that by putting the screws to publishers like Hachette, Amazon is displaying its monopoly powers and ruining the book industry. But it is actually making the market better — not just for book buyers but authors too

As Amazon continues to tighten the screws on book publishers like Hachette — by making its books difficult to find, impossible to pre-order, and so on — the conventional wisdom seems to be that the company is an aggressive and possibly illegal monopoly aimed at killing publishers, and that its behavior is also bad for authors and probably consumers as well. The only problem with this view is that most of it, if not all of it, is completely wrong. What Amazon is doing is not only good for book-loving consumers but arguably good for authors as well — and even for some publishers (although not Hachette and its ilk).

Is Amazon a true monopoly? Not in any meaningful sense of the word — not any more than Walmart has a monopoly on sales of toothpaste. Yes, the electronic retailer has a large share of the ebook retailing market, but this is also a market that it effectively invented, because publishers like Hachette and other members of the traditional “Big Five” cartel (formerly the Big Six, before Random House and Penguin merged) showed no interest in doing so.

And even after the major publishers were dragged kicking and screaming into that market, they have continued to try and keep prices high and their gross profit margins large — to the extent of engaging in illegal collusion in order to do so. To quote Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos: “Your margin is my opportunity.”

Book buyers benefit, and that’s what matters

This isn’t much different from what happened to the music industry when Apple came along: it recognized that the market was changing, and created the iPod to take advantage of it. Eventually, the major labels had to play ball with Apple — which used many of the same negotiating tactics as Amazon has — in order to access that market, because they had failed to do so themselves. And they tried in vain to keep the price of digital music higher and royalties lower, and by doing so dug themselves an even deeper hole. Meanwhile, music buyers benefitted.


Even if Amazon does have a large market share, and is either a monopoly or a “monopsony” (the term for a market in which there are many sellers but only one large buyer), from a legal perspective the primary benchmark for whether a monopoly is illegal is the impact on consumers, not the impact on the large competitors who are being disrupted or having their margins narrowed. And by almost any measure, Amazon’s entrance into the book publishing and distribution market has been nothing but good for consumers — because it has meant both lower prices and more choice — and arguably for many authors as well. As author Barry Eisler put it recently in The Guardian:

“Legacy publishers pay authors only twice a year [and] they generally pay us only 12.5 percent in digital royalties, compared to the 70 percent we get from Amazon. They insist on taking control of our copyright not for a reasonable term, but forever. They’ve done all they can to try to keep the prices of books artificially high, which hurts consumers and costs authors money. They have a record of zero innovation. And they’ve run the industry for decades in a way that has benefited the few while stifling new opportunities for the many.”

It’s true that Amazon has a large ecosystem it has constructed around books, with the Kindle and other devices and services, and that has helped create a form of “lock-in” for book buyers. But even here, traditional publishers like Hachette have been the architects of their own destruction, by requiring that Amazon use punitive DRM restrictions on their books — which author Charlie Stross has argued gave the retailer “a stick with which to beat them.” Unfortunately, as my colleague Laura Owen has pointed out, getting rid of DRM isn’t much of a solution at this point because the horse has not only left the barn but is already in another county.

electronic digital library

At the simplest level, what Amazon is doing with Hachette is no different than what any other retailer does with a supplier: namely, negotiate a better deal when that supplier’s profit margin seems overly fat compared to its costs (Amazon reportedly wants a higher commission than the 30 percent that Hachette has been paying). As Amazon noted in a recent post about its dispute:

“Negotiating with suppliers for equitable terms and making stocking and assortment decisions based on those terms is one of a bookseller’s, or any retailer’s, most important jobs…. a retailer can feature a supplier’s items in its advertising and promotional circulars, ‘stack it high’ in the front of the store, keep small quantities on hand in the back aisle, or not carry the item at all, and bookstores and other retailers do these every day.”

If Amazon is bad, the Big Five are worse

As a number of authors have pointed out, including Hugh Howey, the biggest competitive threat in the book business isn’t the electronic retailer, it’s the Big Five publishers. They’re the ones who have tried desperately to keep book prices high — especially ebook prices — and yet continue to pay their authors a fraction of what Amazon does. As Howey says: “The culture of the Big 5, which was built by gobbling up successful small presses and rolling them into imprints, left the door wide open for Amazon, a company that dared to sell direct to consumers, innovate the way we read, and pay authors a living wage.”

What makes Amazon’s dispute with publishers different from a typical battle between a retailer like Walmart and a supplier, of course, is that books are not toothpaste or toilet paper. They are a cultural artifact that brings all kinds of emotional baggage with it, involving the struggling author, the nature of the creative impulse and other intangibles. And yet, they are also a physical product — one that is going through the same kind of wrenching change that any other kind of content is, from newspapers to music. All we know for sure is that the market cannot remain the same, and the forces that are trying desperately to make it do so are on the wrong side of history and are likely doomed.

Old typewriter

Does this mean that writing will become a low-margin business that fails to attract the kind of creative output it has in the past? Author Charlie Stross argues that the risk of Amazon’s dominance is that it kills publishers and then authors have no intermediary to look out for them, at which point many leave the industry and Amazon reigns supreme. Or as Evan Hughes describes it:

“The Amazon–Hachette dispute is different from a battle over terms between, say, Walmart and Coca-Cola: Diet Coke has a set formula of ingredients, so the actual beverage is not going to get worse if Walmart drives a hard bargain. That’s not necessarily the case with books, each of which is a unique product. If publishers make less money on every book, they are going to pay people less to write and edit them, and talented people will decide to do something else with their time.”

Could this happen? Perhaps. But that vision of the future seems awfully pessimistic to me. I think it’s more likely that small publishers like Martin Shepard — who has defended Amazon as a friend of small businesses when compared with the Big Five — and authors like Barry Eisler and Hugh Howey will not only continue to do well but could potentially do even better in the kind of environment Amazon envisions than they would under the old regime. Publishers like Hachette and the rest of the Big Five could do less well, but that is as much their fault as it is Amazon’s.

Post and thumbnail images courtesy of Shutterstock / Vladimir Melnikov, as well as Thinkstock Vasabii and Thinkstock / Worac

  1. Matthew you do realize that what happened to the music industry has left musicians and songwriters in deep trouble while fans get cheap entertainment and corporate entities make most of the money?

    While consumers may cheer for Amazon and revile the major publishers (who actually care about books and make their income only from selling books, unlike Amazon, which uses books as loss leaders and bait) the end result will be a writing ghetto, and what consumers will get will be a small selection of massively franchised bestsellers atop a heap of self-published authors desperately trying to make enough to cover the costs of their marketing plan.

    The books that require a publishing investment — the high-risk non-fiction titles that take years to research, or the controversial books that require the backing of a legal department — will have far less chance of being published. Amazon won’t be there with a checkbook to fund those books. But yes, consumers will get their 99 cent porn and free self-help books, don’t worry.

    Reply Share
    1. This seems dangerously naive. Publishers are for-profit businesses. They care about their bottom line. People in the industry may love the art and craft of writing, but if and when that conflicts with the interest of the business, profits will and must come first.

      Change here is inevitable. Hitching your wagon to the incumbents is a recipe for disaster and in no one’s long-term interest.

      Reply Share
      1. Rob Kennedy Friday, July 4, 2014

        You hit the nail right on the head Jack.

        Reply Share
    2. I have to agree with Deborah’s comment. Not to mention that we count on publisher’s as curators. Take that out of the mix and its just a free-for-all and I, as a reader, may have to sift through a hundred pieces of trash to find something worth reading. When quality work by quality writers gets lost in the mix, it returns to the notion of writers unable to pay their bills because they’re not making as much money when people aren’t buying as many of their books.

      Certainly there are positive things that can come from Amazon, but you miss the mark if you believe, as this writer sketches out, that Amazon is mostly positive. Cheaper product might be better for the consumer’s wallet, but not necessarily better for the consumer.

      Reply Share
      1. YOU may count on publishers to “curate” content but I don’t, so please don’t use “we”, use “I”. If you have to look at a hundred “pieces of trash” before finding something decent to read you may need to take some remedial computer courses to better help you navigate one of the most consumer friendly websites in existence. I don’t need a cartel of big publishers pushing the latest celebrity dreck down my throat, thank you very much. As a consumer, I also do not need to subsidize wealthy book publisher CEO salaries or real estate costs in the most expensive city on earth, while the average mid-list author could qualify for welfare based on their book earnings..

        As digital book world has reported, the BIG 5 publishers profit has increased over 25% over the last 5 years, largely on the back of Amazon’s innovations in e-books and also logistics – Amazon rarely returns books, unlike typical retailers. Not surprisingly, none of this profit windfall has resulted in increases to standard e-book royalty rates or advances to new authors. In fact, advances have continued to trend down during this period. Don’t blame Amazon for wanting to share in the higher profits that have been derived from their own innovation and investment. You would be better served arguing for improved royalty rates and incomes for authors, not media conglomerate owned publishing houses.

        Reply Share
      2. Josh MLot:

        I don’t know the worldwide figures but I believe something like 100,000 hard copy titles are published in the UK each and every year. Most of that output is dross. If I go to a bookshop, I can waste hours and hours of my time wading through absolute drivel looking for that one book which is worthy of my time.

        Two points occur to me: one, my estimation of worth may not be the same as the next person’s; two, the publishers who churn out 100,000 titles a year are not exactly doing a good job of ensuring that only quality material reaches the shelves.

        Whichever way you look at it, the traditional publishers have acted just like trades union leaders: they are too comfortable with the way things are and will defend to the death their way of life and their way of doing things. They are the same people who would have opposed the teaching of literacy in the middle ages because it would have been an assault on their ability to manipulate and control the information which reached the masses.

        Traditional publishers are not fighting for their readers or their authors, They are fighting to continue doing business in their own self-interest. It is a fight which they are doomed to lose because there is no compelling argument for the rest of the world to accept the old ways any more.

        Reply Share
    3. The changes to the music industry haven’t been universally negative to musicians and songwriters, though. As with any change, you hear most from those most hurt, because they squawk loudest. Those happy with the changes don’t have as much reason to complain, after all. There are quite a few musicians of my acquaintance who are making a lot more money AND who are much more in charge of their destinies in the modern world.

      As for those books that require a publishing investment: those investments are only made when there’s likely payoff, or the modern, cut-throat publishing industry would never make them. If the investments are good, there will be investors. It’s not like the current publishing industry is fronting those costs out of the goodness of their hearts. It’s because they are confident of return on their investments.

      Same with controversial books that require legal defense; publishers take these on because the risks are worth it. Legal risks are part of the cost/benefit equation for a publisher. There are plenty of book ideas that get turned down because the publisher doesn’t think the legal risks are overcome by profit potential, you know.

      Reply Share
      1. Music was always in a better position that writing here because musicians have for decades and decades made most of their money on concerts and merchandise.

        Authors don’t make money on that. No one pays for lit readings. No one buys t-shirts of authors (who are living at least.) The sale of books is the only income authors have.

        Reply Share
        1. But authors could, if seems they do not even try to exploit that revenue stream.


          Reply Share
        2. Tesla:

          Actually, not quite true. How many books have been turned into films or TV series? There is no reason in this modern age why authors who pen the right sort of stories should not turn to merchandising – dolls, figurines, computer games ….

          The fact that few authors are yet thinking of themselves as self-contained businesses and are not thinking in terms of add-ons, licensing deals, sharing platforms with similar-genre authors and so on does not mean these opportunities do not exist … they mean only that most authors lack the imagination or drive to turn interesting ideas into profitable revenue streams.

          The real revolution will come when every author who wishes to make a living through their keyboard starts to think of themselves as businessmen rather than somewhat fey, romantic figures locked away in a garrett for no better reason than that they cannot bear to think of themselves as plying anything so sordid as a trade.

          Reply Share
    4. Robotech_Master Thursday, July 3, 2014

      How many of those are getting published now? Trade publishing is going the way that movies have gone since Jaws debuted in 1975—it’s evolved into a dependence on blockbusters and celebrity authors, and the midlist and less popular titles have suffered. People don’t read as much anymore, and what they do read is predominantly genre fiction. What publisher is going to fund “years of research” unless they can be assured of making that money back? And how are they going to make that money back on a non-fiction title that might sell at a trickle? Why would they pay for a book that would sell at a trickle when they might use the same money for one that could theoretically be a blockbuster?

      You know who publishers are investing in these days? Here’s a hint: Snooki got a huge advance for a book she didn’t even write herself and that totally flopped when it came out.

      We didn’t even have megaconglomerate publishers until the last couple of decades, and somehow we got along just fine without them before. We’ll get along just fine without them again if they go away.

      Reply Share
    5. Robert Gregory Browne Thursday, July 3, 2014

      Sorry, but indie musicians are doing better than ever, just as indie authors are now. The only people hurting are the traditionalists who continue to rely on an old business model that just doesn’t work anymore.

      Reply Share
      1. Robert Gregory Browne Thursday, July 3, 2014

        By the way, the traditional music industry has a HORRIBLE track record when it comes to the way they’ve treated musicians. I wouldn’t be crying over its descent into mediocrity.

        Reply Share
      2. Steve Dallas Thursday, July 3, 2014

        When you are starting at rock bottom, doing better than ever isn’t saying much. How many indie musicians are playing arena tours?

        Reply Share
      3. Indie artists are doing worse than ever. Many are looking to supplement their income, via placement, whether be it commercials or films or television, i.e. Tegan and Sara or Matt and Kim, who, unlike 10 years ago, do not care about ruining their “indie cred” when the van is broke down and the mortgage is due (although some indie artist still work anonymously) . Artists like Adele, don’t count because she has a great contract and is on a label, XL, that is distributed by Sony.

        Reply Share
  2. I’m not sure that rooting for any multi-billion dollar corporation is in anyone’s (sans stockholders) best interest.

    I’m also not sure that Amazon is interested in anything other than long term profitability, but at the same time, throwing support behind complacent and entrenched legacy Publishers is both futile and bad for consumers. It’s especially ill-advised to side with the Publishers, given their track record.

    Consumers should maintain a healthy level of skepticism on all of these issues. These companies are for-profit businesses and you are a potential customer, not a friend.

    To be honest, and this may irk some, but I don’t think it’s particular wise to root for “the author” either. Authors operate as a business and their interest and those of their reader *can be* in dichotic opposition. I support the authors that I like by buying their books or by supporting their side-projects that I value. Treating “authors” as a homogeneous group or heroic seems naive, sentimental, and misguided.

    Reply Share
    1. Good points, Jack — thanks for the comment. Rooting for a multibillion-dollar corporation is not something I feel terribly comfortable doing, but I think on balance Amazon is likely to be better for a majority of authors than the existing publishing system. Only time will tell, I suppose, but I am optimistic about the potential for authors to expand their reach and keep more of the money they make instead of giving it all to the Big Five.

      Reply Share
  3. Actually, it’s definitely not in the authors’ (or publishers’) best interest for Amazon to take a larger share of ebook revenue, which is what the current dispute is about. Publishers Weekly said it better than I could, so see this clip from an article by Michael Cader:

    “On a 30 percent retailer commission and 70 percent publisher split, a standard author agreement allocates the equivalent of 17.5 percent of the consumer price to the author. A 40 percent commission turns that into 15 percent of consumer price (a 14 percent reduction in author share); a 50 percent commission turns that into 12.5 percent of the consumer price — a 28.5 percent drop in author share. And yes, the big publishers ought to have increased their royalties for “hardcover” ebooks long ago — but on a 50 percent commission split, a 35 percent royalty would leave the author standing still, while reducing the publisher’s final net by 38 percent.”

    Amazon is a business first–they’re out for themselves. Their growing contingent of 14 publishing imprints is only the beginning. They want to be the be-all, end-all in the book world. Taking even more revenue from publishers–even the big ones–will eventually get them there. And what will our culture look like when the only books available are the poorly cobbled together books on the Amazon list–the ones that suffer from Amazon taking a bulk of the profits without putting in half the effort that traditional publishers do for every single book? That’s not a world I want to live in.

    Reply Share
    1. Robert Gregory Browne Thursday, July 3, 2014

      You make the assumption that authors must still rely on publishers in order to make a living. Many of us, including former traditionally published authors like myself, are doing quite well publishing on our own—which is only possible thanks to Amazon and Apple and Nook Press.

      Yes, those authors who stick with traditional publishing will be hurt—that’s inevitable considering big publishing’s track record with lowball author royalty shares—but those of us who are taking our careers into our own hands (and keeping control of the work we create) are doing better than we ever have in the past. In fact, the latest authorearnings.com reports show that indie authors are more likely to make a living wage than traditionally published authors.

      Even if Amazon at some point decides to offer us less of the pie for their distribution of our product, it’s still more than what publishers have or ever will offer. There seems to be this universal impression—promoted by publishers—that authors still need them. But thanks to Amazon and others and, of course, technology, that’s no longer true. We still write the same books. But we take them to the readers ourselves, without going through three middlemen.

      Reply Share
    2. Thanks, but all your argument — or the Publishers’ Weekly argument — says is that publishers will rob their authors regardless of how much Amazon or another retailer charges in commission. Those percentages aren’t set in stone. If publishers want to compete then they need to change their royalty structure, among other things.

      Reply Share
  4. There are no longer any bookstores in my town; this is not good for me. I can no longer peruse the well-chosen fiction section of a bookstore; this is not good for me. I can no longer hold the book in hand before I buy it; this is not good for me. I can no longer buy it and read it the same day; this is not good for me. The book review section has disappeared from my local newspaper; this is not good for me.

    I have read many, many very good books published by the major publishers; long may they continue to do what they do. I know people who work in those companies and they publish some books they know will make money and some books they know will not make money. They finance the translation of books from other languages; they advance money to authors to carry out research and then write the book. They nourish projects for years, even decades, like Robert Caro’s magnificent multi-volume biography of Lyndon Johnson. That is an intellectual endeavor of the highest order, and whoever makes that possible, more power to them. This is not an “emotional” attachment–this is culture, and if you cannot see the difference you have an impoverished life for sure.

    Reply Share
    1. Robert Gregory Browne Thursday, July 3, 2014

      Buy a Kindle. It will change your life. It did mine.

      Reply Share
  5. Bryan Leipper Wednesday, July 2, 2014

    Interesting that some think that making a profit has nothing to do with satisfying customer needs. I wonder where they think profits come from … only the government can force people to cough up the dough. Business has to offer something people want one person at a time.

    Amazon serves customers by providing better selection and better prices with better customer interactions. You can choose books by looking at how others rate it or you can take advantage of Amazon’s getting to know your interests and making suggestions based on its developed customer knowledge and insight. That’s in addition to the usual ways that have been and still are in common use (browsing, recommendations from friends, etc)

    As for the music industry, have you read the stories about how some musicians have embraced the new paradigms and increased their profits?

    The change is rapid and there is a lot of opportunity. It can be difficult and sometimes even painful to adapt but the gains are tremendous. Some will fight the change and they will lose. Others take advantage of it and they make a profit and we get wealthier as well in terms of what we have available to us and what we can do.

    Reply Share
  6. “Book buyers benefit, and that’s what matters” But when you “buy” a book from Amazon, you don’t own it, they can take it back at any time, and have.
    “If Amazon is bad, the Big Five are worse” Exactly. A curse on both their houses. Greedy, abusive, power-mad silo-builders. The ebook market is dead because people hate lockin.

    Reply Share
    1. Amazon sell paperbacks as well. Next day delivery on many of them.


      Reply Share
      1. Bookstores sell books as well. Free same day pick-up on all of them. With a smile!

        Reply Share
  7. This ignores a few major points. Publishers do more than just dump content into an e-reader. They do publicity, cover art, editing, copy-editing, printing. Those services have real value. With Amazon, you do all that on your own, which is fine, but it costs money.

    Also, this article rather naively assumes that once Amazon controls everything they would STILL give the authors (some of whom would really give nearly anything to get their book published) a nice chunk of the royalties. If they’re squeezing the Big 5, you really don’t think they’re going to squeeze you, the writer, with absolutely no other options and no legal team behind them?

    The other points about the eventual quality of writing were well made above by Deborah Smith.

    Reply Share
    1. Robotech_Master Thursday, July 3, 2014

      You know, right this very moment, authors can pay out of their own pocket for cover art, editing, and e-book formatting, put their book on Amazon, and earn a 70% share of the cover price. (Or they can have their friends do it, or they can do without. Most free Internet fiction isn’t professionally-edited, but a lot of it is still pretty darned good without.)

      The traditionally-published authors get a paltry 12.5 to 17.5% of cover price, and don’t get any of it until they’ve earned out their advance. They’re often locked into a relationship with publishers by contracts that lawyers have called “unconscionable,” so that even if they do want to break free they can’t without legal help.

      Even if Amazon cut its royalties in half, they’d still be better than what publishers are paying. Why worry about what Amazon might do in the future, when publishers are the ones screwing authors over right now?

      Reply Share
      1. I’m judging that you were not a math, accounting or philosophy major. Try looking at the publishing question through these lenses:
        • How much of the costs of the advance effort does an Amazon published author pay out before seeing the first royalty payment from Amazon? Answer 100%.
        • How much of the ancillary costs, like cover art, editing, book tours, booking appearance on late night talk shows to promote the books, etc) come out of the authors share of an Amazon royalty? Answer 100%.
        • How much of that magical 70% is left at the end of the day? Depends on how good the author is at all those other jobs. As much as they’d get from taking a real publishing houses deal? Kind of iffy, but if they aren’t good enough to get a regular publishers deal, a lot more. (I seem to recall JK Rowling had a very hard time selling the idea for the Harry Potter series to the traditional industry, but she prevailed ).

        There are two ways a blogger makes money. Having something to say worth reading, or mechanically manipulating the system with SEO tricks and whorish headlines. Given your lack of talent for the hard sciences, try to be worthwhile. Your current approach is kind of icky.

        Reply Share
        1. Robotech_Master Thursday, July 3, 2014

          Sure, the self-publisher starts out in the hole, but he gets 70% of each sale to earn out of that hole. Say he spends $500 on his starting effort, prices his e-book at $4.99, and sells 200 copies earning $3.50 per copy. He’s already $200 ahead.

          Say that same author gets a $2,000 advance, his e-book is priced at $14.99, and he gets 25% of the 70% the publisher takes in, or 17.5% of $14.99. If he sells 200 copies, he’s earned about $525 of that advance and has to hope he sells another 600 or so before he even starts earning $2.62 per book over and above that advance. By which point he would have already made a total of $2,300 in profit selling the same quantity self-publishing. Fairly close to the $2,000 advance, of course, but the gap between $3.50 and $2.62 widens with every sale.

          How many paid book tours, appearances on talk shows, or other publicity budget does the average author get if he’s not Stephen King or James Patterson? NADA. These days they’re generally told, “There’s Facebook. There’s Twitter. There’s a blog. Have fun, don’t forget to write!” Which…a self-publishing writer can do just as well, with the exact same publicity budget.

          There are cases of self-publishing writers turning down seven-figure advances to continue self-publishing. Joe Konrath makes over a million a year these days. Not everyone is going to have that kind of success story, but then not everyone would even be accepted by a traditional publisher either. At least with self-publishing, you can have a chance someone will buy it.

          Reply Share
          1. Robotech_Master Thursday, July 3, 2014

            Oh, and also, the author would be a lot likelier to sell those hundreds of books at $4.99 than at $14.99, even if Amazon discounted the publisher’s list price to $10-11ish.

            Reply Share
          2. I may not have a realistic grasp of the anticipated sales of some of these publications. I never knew people spent their time writing books with anticipated sales of less than 1000 copies. You are certainly correct that there is place for the tools for self-publishers that Amazon (and Apple) provide.

            That said, I fail to see why success for self publishers must come at the expense of failure for the traditional publishing industry. They don’t seem to be mutually exclusive. And if the publishing industry should choose to adopt the agency model for selling their books through Amazon, how does that impact the success for self publishing? As I understand it, you get to set your price for your works. What will you do when Amazon starts paying a sliding scale, or requires a maximum price of $1.00 per book for the first 1000 books?

            Failure of the big publishing houses is not salvation for the undiscovered author and rooting for Amazon to punish them to right some perceived wrong seems short sighted. Now that the DoJ and the courts have tied the hands of the big publishers, Amazon is starting to show its true colors. I regard it as a warning sign.

            Reply Share
        2. You seriously think the average mid list author goes on book tours and late night TV? What century are you from? A self-published author can get a good product on Amazon very inexpensively. Here’s a clue: They don’t have to cover the cost to rent office space in Manhattan, they don’t have to pay for a CEO and hundreds of $100k salaried corporate folks, they don’t have to pay for returns of unsold printed books….the list goes on and on. Trade publishing is an inefficient 20th century distribution model with very high overhead that is rapidly being superceded. It’s amazing, that in an age where the average advance from the big 5 is between $15k to $20k for a novel that may have taken years to write and more years to pimp, that you would continue to try to support this model. I guess authors should live on cat food for the good of the Big 5 publishing cartel. Because culture….or something.

          Reply Share
          1. I’m clearly not an author, but I fail to see how the success of self publishing through Amazon (or Apple) must come at the expense of the traditional publishing industry. The only benefit to the less well known author would be the resultant forcing of name authors into the self publishing mode. As a consumer, I don’t see the gain.

            But the tussle between Amazon and the established publishing industry is not about that. It’s about a dominant seller trying to force what he wants to pay for a product on a potential supplier. When that seller decides that you, the independent author will only be allowed to charge $2 for your book, will you be OK with that? Be careful what you wish for.

            All of the modern tools that Amazon can bring to the table are great and should be used by those who need them. Amazon shouldn’t be allowed to force them on publishers who neither need nor want them. If Amazons tools are better, they will prevail without the strong-arm tactics.

            Reply Share
    2. If they’re squeezing the Big 5, you really don’t think they’re going to squeeze you, the writer, with absolutely no other options and no legal team behind them?

      I haven’t exactly had a legal team behind me, but Amazon has *raised* the amount they pay me in 16 different countries over the past three years. Amazon used to pay me 35% of cover price on my sales in Ireland, for example, but they just raised that to 70%.

      (Credit to David Gaughran for pointing that out.)

      I guess Amazon is afraid that I might get a big legal team someday, right?

      Because by your logic, the best motivation for doing something now appears to be the fear that someone else *might* do something else in the future.

      Reply Share
      1. Thanks for that info, Evan.

        Reply Share
      2. Evan Rail:

        I would add to what you have just said. Amazon may be dominant now but they have no god-given right to dominate the planet forever. As authors become more savvy, they may start to form themselves into little internet islands where similar genre authors bad together and sell each other’s stuff as well as their own. All you need is a programmer to handle the back-end management (payment processing, file management, accoun t management) and there is no reason why authors cannot form themselves into co-operatives, partnerships or other legal entities and develop their own internet presence. Why, for example, could readers not learn in time that http://www.scifiauthors,.com (just made it up I think) is THE place to go for the best sci-fi? Why can’t authors take matters into their own hands in time? The price of entry has never been lower; the price of technology has never been lower.

        The reason authors are not yet thinking along these lines is because they still have the mindset that they write the books and someone else makes them wealthy. They do not want to get their hands dirty with anything so sordid as “tarde”.

        I call this the “garrett mentality”. It is exactly the same as the “slum mentality” of late Victorian and early 20th. century times. Those who found themselves in the slums had two options: passively accept their lot or determine to fight their way out. – literally in the case of many who escaped via boxing and other entertainments. For some reason, we admire those who escaped the slums whilst simultaneously admiring those who hide in their garrets without ever realising that both words are just synonyms for “serfdom”.

        Reply Share
    3. Robert Gregory Browne Thursday, July 3, 2014

      All of the things you mention can be done for a fixed cost. And why is doing it on your own a bad thing?

      If you’re a chef who wants to open a restaurant, it’s going to cost you money. If you’re a dancer who wants to run a dance salon, it’s going to cost you rent and other start up costs.

      And just like that chef or dancer, authors have to learn to be business people as well. In fact, they should have been all along. And there’s nothing wrong with investing time and money into your own business.

      Reply Share
    4. Sandra, I agree good publishers do those things — and I think there is still a place for them to do so. I am not advocating that they all be driven out of business, just that the cost and profit structure of the Big Five and much of the mainstream publishing industry is out of whack.

      Reply Share
    5. Greg Verdino Thursday, July 3, 2014

      “This ignores a few major points. Publishers do more than just dump content into an e-reader. They do publicity, cover art, editing, copy-editing, printing. Those services have real value.”

      I think you’re missing an important qualifying phrase: “If you’re Stephen King…” I’m a traditionally published author – a business author, not Big 5 but with a big, highly reputable business publisher (if I gave you two guesses, you’d get it). Yes, they did cover design but it was essentially take it or leave it; I was offered the option of hiring my own designer if I wanted something else, but assured that the reps who service the big bookstores LOVED the design. The publisher did put the book through several rounds of edits, but to my eye introduced more errors than they corrected — and at each step of the way, I had to re-edit my book, as the publisher made it clear that I was ultimately responsible for the accuracy. And the publisher’s publicity plan consisted of asking me what my publicity plan would be. On a $10,000 advance, I spent $40,000 on my own publicist plus paid my own travel to book launch events I coordinated on my own. The first time I booked a speaking gig following the publication of my book – at a small, poorly attended convention known as SXSW Interactive (sarcasm intended) – the publisher “forgot” to provide inventory to the onsite bookseller. All of this despite the fact that my book was a “featured title” in the publisher’s catalog for the quarter in which I was published.

      So if these services have value, I’d argue that value is pretty limited.

      Despite all this, the book somehow sold out its print run (10,000 copies – the average book sells under 500 copies in its lifespan, from what I’ve heard) and is now available in e-book and POD only. I’ve received not a single penny in royalties.

      Reply Share
      1. Robert Gregory Browne Thursday, July 3, 2014

        Every traditionally published author on the face of the either, with the possible exception of the Stephen Kings, has been through what you describe, Greg. From the “make sure you start a blog and get on Facebook” form of marketing by the publisher to the forgotten shipments to bookstores for that all important signing.

        And these are just isolated incidents. It happens time and time again.

        Reply Share
      2. Robert Gregory Browne Thursday, July 3, 2014

        Every traditionally published author on the face of the earth, with the possible exception of the Stephen Kings, has been through what you describe, Greg. From the “make sure you start a blog and get on Facebook” form of marketing by the publisher to the forgotten shipments to bookstores for that all important signing.

        And these are just isolated incidents. It happens time and time again.

        Reply Share
  8. Mike Marchant Wednesday, July 2, 2014

    “If you love books then you should be rooting for Amazon, not Hachette or the Big Five”

    Mathew you are a complete moron. Amazon will just f you over. Publishers do way more than just charge a price for a book.

    If you love the lowest common denominator then you may be right.

    If you would like interesting and inspiring writing then you are just so f’ing wrong.

    OM, why is this rubbish being published here?

    Reply Share
    1. Robert Gregory Browne Thursday, July 3, 2014

      Interesting and inspiring like 50 Shades of Grey, which was merely fan fiction published by the biggest publisher out there? Or Snookie’s latest tome?

      What publishers do is push books that they think will make them money. Period. They are in business to make money, just like any other business. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.

      But don’t fool yourself into thinking that what they do is look for interesting and inspiring writing. That may have been true several decades ago (if it ever was), but it’s not the case today.

      Reply Share
    2. If you love the lowest common denominator then you may be right.

      If you would like interesting and inspiring writing then you are just so f’ing wrong.

      One of Simon & Schuster’s biggest acquisitions so far this year is a piece of erotic fan-fiction about the boy band One Direction, for which the author received six figures.

      Source: http://defamer.gawker.com/young-writer-earns-six-figures-with-erotic-one-directio-1592782576

      How does Simon & Schuster’s acquisition of erotic fan-fiction about a boy band fit with your claim about publishers not pandering to the least common denominator?

      Reply Share
  9. if you love local brick-and-mortar bookstores, and big publishers,
    then you should head out to those brick-and-mortar bookstores
    and buy lots and lots and lots and lots of expensive paper-books.

    because if you don’t (and probably even if you _do_, but certainly
    if you do not), your local bookstores will close, and those publishers
    will find an exit from a marketplace which no longer provides them
    with the obscene profits to which they have become accustomed.

    so go! do it now! stop reading these websites, on your computers,
    and go to your bookstores and buy those expensive paper-books.

    or else it’s all your own fault.


    Reply Share
    1. Robotech_Master Thursday, July 3, 2014

      Oddly enough, as of late 2013 there were 20% more independent bookstores in business than there were in 2009. Seems like one way or another, Amazon’s been good for them.

      Reply Share
      1. amazon _did_ do good for independent bookstores,
        by knocking borders clean off the face of the planet.

        and amazon will do an even _bigger_ favor to those
        independent bookstores when it kills barnes&noble.

        nonetheless, few of those independent bookstores
        will consider amazon to be their friend, nor will they
        stock books being published by amazon’s imprints.

        so, you know, that was a nice _attempt_ at refutation.


        Reply Share
    1. pig21:

      Remember that France is an intensely Socialist country and a great fan of top-down, command and control dirigisme. As far as they are concerned, Government knows best – which is why so much business and creative talent chooses to flee the country.

      Reply Share