Macmillan: Hero or Villain?

The title of this post is, for me, a rhetorical question. Despite Amazon and many of its customers crying foul over Macmillan's refusal to meet Amazon's terms on lowering the prices of its e-books, as both a bookseller and a member of a democratic and capitalist society, I am thrilled that Macmillan has stood firm on its pricing policy. Macmillan's stand paves the way for other publishers to do the same, and to assert control over their products and services--something Amazon has been trying to take for themselves in subtle and overt ways.

I've discussed the issue in the past, and during this week, with people outside the bookselling world, and their thinking is often along the lines of, "Well, publishers make plenty of money--they're just being greedy;" and on the subject of Amazon ceasing to sell all Macmillan titles since Friday, "That's Amazon's perogative." The second comment is certainly true--Amazon can choose to sell or not sell any products it wishes. Despite this particular move coming off as a bit of a temper tantrum to some, that fact remains. As for the first comment, the concrete numbers of publishing profits continue to elude me. I am not going to argue one way or the other on that issue--or on the issue of the value of good literature.

For what it's worth, here is my take on the matter.  This conflict with Macmillan (and any other publishers that come to their senses) is all about the online retailer trying to bully publishers into doing business Amazon's way. Amazon is a huge company that, for many publishers, is their biggest account, and this gives the company a huge amount of leverage in any negotiations. At least, that's how it's been up to this point. After all, this isn't the first time Amazon has tried strong-arming a publisher by ceasing to sell its books (perhaps one of Hachette's motivations in joining Macmillan's side in the e-book price war).

However, as The Amazon Kindle Team so misleadingly put it in their "poor us, trying to stick up for the little guy" * letter to customers, publishers do, indeed, have a "monopoly" over their books. That is, if you define "monopoly" as one company owning the rights to the products that it produces and sells. I think most of us would agree that, while the vocabulary might be correct in a literal sense, it in no way corresponds to the typical use of the word.

Macmillan and other publishers need to finally realize that, yes, they do own the books that they sell, and that means that they get to have the final say in how they price and distribute those books. I'm not suggesting that all of the publishers join together in setting prices for their books--that would be getting into monopoly territory, and very illegal--but they each need to determine the appropriate value of their books, in physical or digital format, that will sustain both the publishing house and the larger industry long into the future. If the publishers don't assert themselves now, it will only get harder down the road, and they may find themselves out of business after allowing Amazon to drive them down to unsustainable prices while driving the publisher's other customers (i.e. your friendly neighborhood booksellers) out of business.

More links:

Macmillan's jab at Amazon, in a New York Times ad

Macmillan's latest comment

It's important to remember the other injured party here: the authors whose works are being made unavailable by Amazon. Of course, this works to the advantage of other booksellers (Indiebound!) when authors choose to link to Amazon's competitors.

Author John Scalzi (a Macmillan author) has had a lot to say on the subject

• More here and here

A really wonderful post by a fellow New England bookseller

I'd love to hear from you on this--thoughts, questions, debate. What's your take? Do you feel this affects you one way or another...or not at all?

*Sorry, I don't buy it. It was Amazon's choice to take a loss on e-book sales by pricing them below wholesale. By demanding that publishers make $9.99 (or less) the standard retail price, Amazon is trying to save face with their customers and start making a profit on sales again.

How to Make Money and Alienate Readers

There is an ongoing discussion in the book world about e-books: their effect on reading, how to price and sell them, their effect on printed books and traditional bookstores, etc. I'm still not sure what the eventual impact of e-books will be on myself and, specifically, my job, but I don't have anything against e-books in principle. Personally, I don't enjoy reading large amounts of text on a screen, and I'm your typical book geek, in that I love the feel and smell of books. I like the fact that I will never need to upgrade my favorite paperback copy of Jane Eyre*, that I can loan and borrow books at will, and that I don't worry about damaging a book if it falls in a puddle or gets sand (or bits of sandwich) in its binding.

However, I know that there are people who want the ability to carry a library with them in a small, convenient gadget, and that's great. If someone gave me an e-reader, I'd probably use it, especially since publishers are starting to offer advance copies of books for download. I have no problem with the idea of making books available in a new format (as long as I can still buy my own -- physical, paper and ink -- copy for my bookshelf). That is, I didn't have any problem with the idea until I read this item in Shelf Awareness this morning:

Amazon.com is applying for several patents on ads in e-books, according to Slashdot, which has links to the Patent & Trademark Office (oldfashioned) paperwork. One example: "For instance, if a restaurant is described on page 12, [then the advertising page], either on page 11 or page 13, may include advertisements about restaurants, wine, food, etc., which are related to restaurants and dining."

This just gives me the willies. Imagine reading your digital copy of Gone With the Wind, coming to a section about Scarlett donning her corset, and being greeted by a bright pink VICTORIA'S SECRET SEMI-ANNUAL SALE! BRAS, PANTIES, SWIMSUITS AND MORE, UP TO 70% OFF ORIGINAL PRICES!

Granted, this is not yet a reality, but I can't believe that advertisers won't be jumping all over this. My guess is that advertising might be promoted as a way of subsidizing book production in order to offer lower costs to readers (that, or higher profits to publishers). But is this really a good way to promote the use of e-books? To me, it's a complete deal-breaker. There's no way I'm going to shell out a couple hundred (or even under one hundred) bucks for the privilege of reading a book full of flashy digital advertising. I'll be interested to hear what others have to say about the matter, and to see if the idea takes off or fizzles in the early stages.




*Okay, unless it falls apart. Even then, there's nothing keeping me from patching it back together with some tape. Can you say that for your busted iPod? I didn't think so.

[Edited to add:] You might enjoy this amusing take on e-book advertising from Kenny Brechner at Devaney Doake & Garrett Booksellers.

[Update] Here's a diagram showing the actual ad layout suggested by Amazon's patent. Maybe Kenny ought to patent his idea before the big guys steal it.

And, GalleyCat readers pointed out (way back in January) that this is not such a new idea, after all. (I'm very glad that it didn't catch on the first time and hope that it will meet the same end in digital format.)