Clash of the Titans

[Dana King]

This post may do nothing more than re-assert my ignorance. It won’t be the first time.

I have no dog in the Amazon-Macmillan pissing contest. I’m not published, and I’m not particularly hopeful about the prospects, so it doesn’t have much of an effect on me, other than potentially forcing me to buy books by Macmillan authors elsewhere. I have friends who are potentially effected by this, and I feel for them (John McFetridge must feel like Joe Bftsplk by now), but I have a little objective distance, which leads me to say,

A pox on both their houses.

As several others have noted, this is not about serving customers, and it’s sure as hell not about doing anything for writers. It’s about control. Period. It was brought to a head by Apple’s introduction of the iPad last week, but its roots have grown in the fertile soil of publishing’s inane distribution policies.

Let’s all forget we’re readers and/or writers for a few seconds and put on our MBA hats. (I know, that’s as demeaning as asking Jackson Pollock to paint your house, but bear with me.) No matter how much we treasure books, in the grand scheme of capitalism they’re widgets. Someone makes them, and someone sells them. The manufacturer (in this case, Macmillan) sells the widget (in this case, a book) to a retail outlet (in this case, Amazon) for whatever the traffic will bear. Amazon then sells it to the general public, fixing its price in a similar manner. Both set their prices just high enough to maximize income, but not so high total sales are too adversely affected.

This is as it is for just about everything sold in this country. If Macmillan sets its wholesale price too high, Amazon will but fewer, or no, books. Same deal for Amazon vis-à-vis the public. It should be none of the manufacturer’s business how much the retailer charges its customers for the product; that’s restraint of trade. They can set a manufacturer’s suggested retail price, but that’s about it.

This would necessitate two dramatic changes in publishing. First, advances and royalties would have to be pegged to the wholesale cost of the book, as the publishers have no say in what it can be sold for. Second, and possibly more stressful—because neither side in this dispute really gives a rat’s ass about the writers’ profits*--returns would be forbidden. Imagine ordering 100,000 tires, then telling Goodyear they had to take 50,000 back, at their expense. Right.

I’m sure there’s a hole in this logic somewhere; arguments born of as much ignorance as mine usually have several. “This is the way it’s done,” or, “This is the way we’ve always done it” don’t count. If nothing else, it sure would make bookkeeping a lot easier.

* -- Before someone sticks up for how concerned publishers are with making sure their writers make a good living, ask yourself one question: do you really think your publisher would pay you—at all—if they thought they could get you to give them your rights for free?

[Dana King]

Neil,
You're not going into the same big bookstores I am. Maybe saying they sell "only" bestsellers is a stretch, but midlist authors are hard to come by in Borders and Barnes and Noble around Washington DC. Onlne is okay, but the selection in the stores is puny, at least in crime fiction.

I also agree that it's an overstatement to say "no" new authors can get published, but what happens when their first books come out? Everything I hear is that promotion budgets are small to non-existent, and that the author is pretty much on his or her own. I don't think I'm alone here if I say we don't see much commitment to bringing new writers along. The first book or two gets published, the author does what he or she can to make it successful with minimal support from the people who actually have the resources, and if it doesn't sell, such is life. There's never any shortage of other new writers coming along.

I read a lot of blogs, and there's a lot of frustration out there. Writers see themselves pretty much alone in this. If the publishers can't come up with a better model, they'll have no one to blame but themselves if writers start to go direct to e-books and cut them out of the loop altogether. If it's up to the writer to do more of the non-writing work all the time, more of them will see less need for a middle man..

[Neil Nyren]

Oh, man, B.R., where to start?

First of all, the Big Six can not put forth a "united front," because that's called "colluding," and it's illegal.

Second, there is no way we can tell the chains or any other stores that they must take a certain title. It's their business, they're free to take it or not, and in whatever quantity they want.

Third, all this stuff I keep reading here about bookstores only buying bestselling authors is just nonsense. We all -- every one of us -- sell a full range of books, both big and little, into the stores. All you need to do is go into any B&N and look on the shelves. And it is absolutely not true that "no one is going to be published unless they're a mega talent with a proven track record." Speaking just for my company, we published six first novels last year -- all by people noone would ever have heard of before -- and we're publishing eleven first novels this year -- ditto. Added to that are many, many small to medium books. And we're representative of the rest of the industry.

[B.R.Stateham]

Pepper, I see your point. But on the other hand, if the Big Six put forth a united front and basically told the book chains they need to take the bestseller authors AND up-an-coming writers, I'm fairly sure it'd work.

Otherwise, what other course is available for a writer? If all bookstores are going to do is buy bestselling authors. . . a limited in numbers as they are . . . what need is there for an agent? No one is going to be published unless they're a mega talent with a proven track record. But you can't acquire a proven track record until you are first published. A catch-22 if there ever was one.

[Dana King]

Joe Konrath has some excellent insight on the whole e-book/paper book/pricing issue on his blog, which can be read by clicking here.

Highly recommended.

[Dana King]

Every time I look at a book on Amazon, there's a link that encourages me to buy this book, and a related book, usually for less than the two would cost separately. Maybe the publishers could encourage sellers to spread their purchases around, and start to ease out of the current returns policy, which all seem to agree is not viable. Take X copies of the new Dan Brown, and we'll throw in--at a reduced price--books by developing authors A and B. The catch is, no returns. Find a way to make it in the booksellers best interest to promote some of the other writers, as well.

I thought that up in the amount of time it took to type it, so I'm not advocating it as The Cure. Still, it can't work much worse than the system in place. Publishing houses had better think of something before too long, or they're going to status quo themselves right out of business. As John said below, maybe these multi-nationals are in the wrong line of work. Not all business are made for the "maximum volume-maximum, lowest common denominator" model.

[Jon Loomis]

I think ebooks are the wild card that's really going to bring about change. If you think about what Apple did for/to the music industry with iTunes, that could be about to happen with iBooks. If so, we'll be looking at a world with far fewer print books for sale, far fewer brick and mortar bookstores, but much lower overhead and a more manageable business model for publishers. Also more trees, and less CO2. And a big shift in power from big box retailers to ebook outlets, particularly those that sell in Apple's format. Goodbye Kindle, for all intents and purposes.

[I. J. Parker]

From a reader's point of view, Amazon should be preferable to a book store, because it carries all books (the Macmillan squabble aside for a moment) while book stores carry only bestsellers and a token few other books. They order based on past selling experience and on how much money the publisher promises to spend on promotion of a certain author. That leaves a lot of writers out in the cold. I think publishers are beginning to pay attention to Amazon because it doesn't present the troublesome return problem and because its sales are beginning to be significant. From an author's point of view, the most upsetting thing about publishers has been the way they promote some authors heavily and others not at all. Apparently, the promotional support has gone to those authors who have received the largest advances. A matter of protecting the investment. But the publishing world is changing, to a large extent because of Amazon.

[Neil Nyren]

Right again, Pepper -- accounts choose what they want to carry.

[Pepper Smith]

BR, it's likely Macmillan came out on top of this one only because the new iPad gave them enough leverage to pull it off. There was a British publisher very recently that wound up having to back down in a dispute with Amazon because of not having enough leverage.

Bookstores cannot be compelled to carry stock that they don't want. They buy what they think they can sell.

[B.R.Stateham]

Neil. . . I think there's an error in your statement. If publishers dropped the return policy and decided to begin the process of grooming new writers, would they not be the ones in charge of telling bookstores you must look at new writers AND bestsellers?

If Macmillian can dictate to Amazon what it needs, I find it difficult to believe the Big Six couldn't do the same to national bookstore chains.