Why should I provide my email address?

Start saving money today with our FREE daily newsletter packed with the best FREE and bargain Kindle book deals. We will never share your email address!
Sign Up Now!

Publetariat Dispatch: Price Wars and Book Industry Illegal Activities

Publetariat: For People Who Publish!
In today’s Publetariat Dispatch, independent bookstore owner Bob Spear shares some insight into how book pricing works.

This has been a huge issue lately. To better understand it, let me  describe a couple of different pricing models or customs which are at  the heart of this controversy.

Wholesale Model: The publisher establishes a book’s  recommended price and sells it to the booksellers for a percentage off  that price. The bookseller can then sell the book for whatever price  (sometimes higher) that he wants to.

Agency Model: The publisher sets a price for the  book and then discounts it 30% to the reseller, who must agree to sell  the book at the price the publisher establishes and cannot discount. The  result has been for the publishers to push up the prices of their books  because they can.

Impact on E-books: This has pushed up the price of  E-books and has resulted in a major conflict between some of the major  publishers and Amazon, who wants to keep the prices low for their Kindle  market. In their efforts to control the situation in their favor, the  major publishers began allegedly sneaking around in a variety of  price-fixing activities. Ooops, they got caught at those and the  following cover-up attempts. This brought the Federal Department of  Justice into the fray with an anti-trust suit against five publishers  and Apple. In the meanwhile, E-book distributor Mark Coker of SmashWords  has come on record that he prefers the Agency Model because it allows  the authors and the publishers to control the prices. This levels the  playing field for smaller book retailers and preventing large retailers  from loss-leadering their small competitors to death.

All these recent activities are pushing down E-book prices and tying  the hands of the major publishers, which may hasten their demise.

Bottom Line: The forces of greed and control battles  point to the obvious solution of self-publishing. Once a pariah in the  book industry, self-publishing is becoming acceptable, as long as the  author does a professional job of publishing his books. The legal fight  has an indirect impact on self-publishers in terms of common price  ranges. It all points to a much different business model.
This is a cross-posting from Bob Spear‘s Book Trends blog.


Publetariat Dispatch: Apple / Agency 5 Antitrust Suit: Settlement News From the Trenches

Publetariat: For People Who Publish!In today’s Publetariat Dispatch, Publetariat shares a roundup of news about the United States’ Justice Department’s antitrust lawsuit against Apple and five large publishers.

It was announced today that the U.S. Justice Department is filing its long-anticipated antitrust lawsuit against Apple, Inc. and the “Agency 5” publishers who are charged with colluding with Apple to fix prices on ebooks. Three of the five publishers immediately moved to settle out of court, though Penguin, Macmillan and Apple itself are digging in their heels and maintaining they are innocent of the charges.

Bloomberg News is reporting  that when the U.S. Justice Department officially moved to file suit  against Apple and the “Agency 5″, all but Apple and one of the  publishers named in the suit negotiated a settlement. From Bloomberg:

The U.S. sued Apple Inc. (AAPL), Hachette SA, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin and Simon & Schuster in New York district court, claiming the publishers colluded to fix eBook prices.

CBS Corp. (CBS)’s Simon & Schuster, Lagardère SCA’s Hachette Book Group and News Corp. (NWSA)’s HarperCollins settled their suits today, two people familiar with the cases said…

Apple and Macmillan, which have refused to engage in settlement talks with the Justice Department,  deny they colluded to raise prices for digital books, according to  people familiar with the matter. They will argue that pricing agreements  between Apple and publishers enhanced competition in the e-book  industry, which was dominated by Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN)

 

You can read the full Bloomberg report here. A report on Fox Business offers some settlement details:

If the settlement reached with the other three publishers  is approved, retailers such as Amazon and Barnes & Noble could once  again set the price of books sold via their outlets. The settlement  also requires the publishers to terminate their anticompetitive  most-favored-nation agreements with Apple and other e-books retailers,  Holder said.

“In addition, the companies will be prohibited for two years from  placing constraints on retailers’ ability to offer discounts to  consumers.  They will also be prohibited from conspiring or sharing  competitively sensitive information with their competitors for five  years,” the statement reads.

 

Over on Slate, no less than three news and opinion pieces have been posted in the wake of today’s news. In If Apple and Publishers Plotted, They Didn’t Need to, Reynolds Holding argues:

If Apple and a clutch of publishers plotted together, they didn’t need  to. U.S. trustbusters say the iPad maker and five electronic book  producers conspired to raise download prices. But the model they came up  with makes sense even without collusion, giving the publishers perhaps  their best chance of survival.

The book business has changed radically in recent years. The old model  of selling wholesale and letting retailers set prices worked fine in the  world of printed books and bricks-and-mortar stores. But the arrival of  digital tomes allowed Amazon, for one, to slice prices to $9.99 per  e-book, providing relatively cheap content that helped make its Kindle  e-reader gadgets popular. Prices like that ate into publishers’ profit  margins.

But Holding is mistaken. Amazon’s pre-Agency deal with publishers had Amazon paying publishers’ their usual wholesale cut, which was based on publishers’ suggested retail prices. When Amazon slashed prices on mainstream bestselling Kindle books to $9.99 or less, it meant no less profit for publishers, but that Amazon had to take a loss on almost every one of those sales. Amazon is no stranger to the loss-leader strategy of obtaining market dominance however, so it was prepared to take the hit—for years, if need be.
This is partly why consumers and consumer watchdogs have been crying, “Foul!” over the claims of publishers and their supporters that Amazon’s pre-Agency ability to set its own pricing was in some way harming the publishers.

Publetariat Dispatch: The Hunger Games, Hype and Adults Reading YA

Publetariat: For People Who Publish!In today’s Publetariat Dispatch, author and small publisher Alan Baxter talks about adults reading what’s officially termed ‘Young Adult’ fiction. Warning: strong language.

Like so many people, I’ve just read The Hunger Games. I read  it because I wanted to know what all the hype was about. The books on  their own were a big success, then big budget movie moguls took them on  and the production company engaged in a massive online hype campaign.  Also, a friend suggested I read them, as he thought they were pretty  good. So I did. Meh.

I probably won’t go to see the movie, but, in case I did, I wanted to  read the book first. The book is always better than the film, after  all. And so many people have waxed lyrical about The Hunger Games,  I thought it must be worth a try. In all honesty, I was underwhelmed at  first. The book drags interminably with an unnecessary amount of  worldbuilding and backstory. It’s called The Hunger Games, for  fuck’s sake – the games really should start before I’m halfway through  the book. They do, just, at around the 40% mark or so, but that’s way  too late. I was moaning online about it and one person said, and I  paraphrase, “Yeah, I read that book. I’m sure there’s a pretty good  novella in there somewhere.”

That was a fairly accurate comment. However, when the games got  underway, and kids were running around trying to survive and kill each  other, my interest was hooked. In case you’re wondering what the hell  I’m on about, The Hunger Games is the story of a  post-apocalyptic kind of future where the masses are entertained every  year with one boy and one girl from each of twelve districts dumped into  a wilderness arena where they have to hunt and kill each other for  televisual shits and giggles. There can be only one and so on. Also, if  you haven’t heard about The Hunger Games, how’s that rock you’re living under?

So, as I said, the games themselves were good. It was interesting  stuff, exciting in its own way and I finally found myself enjoying the  story. I could understand what some of the fuss was about. It wasn’t  brilliant, certainly not worth the level of hype, but it was pretty  good. That first 40% of the book, however, should really have been, at  most, 10%. The whole thing would have been much better. And as a book  for young adults, it doesn’t need to be a huge tome.

So I could kind of understand where the affection for the books came  from. Whether I’ll bother with parts two and three remains to be seen.  While I ended up enjoying the last half of the book on a very  superficial level, it didn’t take away from the many, many flaws. The  vast majority of the worldbuilding and the concepts on which the entire  story is built are very contrived. There’s a lot of forced convenience  in the telling. But this is okay when you’re just having a casual read.  It’s not claiming to be anything else.

The dicussion on Facebook also raised another point, when someone  said, essentially, “You’re reading a book for children, so you should be  bored”.

I was astounded at that. There’s a vast chasm between  writing/storytelling that is simpler and less sophisticated than adult  fiction and writing/storytelling that is boring. Kids get bored too. To  suggest a book for teens should bore an adult is asinine. It would bore a  child too. A story aimed at a teen/YA audience certainly won’t have the  depth and complexity of an adult novel, but should still be an engaging  and entertaining story. When you read something like Harry Potter or His Dark Materials, there’s nothing boring about those. Except the last Harry Potter book, which should have been called Harry Potter And The Interminable Emo Camping*. Seriously, that book should have been half the size and it would have been great. But that’s a whole other rant.

The Harry Potter stories and the Dark Materials books are not boring,  even though they’re aimed at a YA audience. They’re interesting and  well-paced throughout, and they deal with subjects which challenge the  thinking of their YA audience, just like YA fiction should. We should  never write down to young people – they’re smarter than you might think.  The Hunger Games deals with themes which should challenge YA  readers too – kids as young as 12 running around killing other kids as  young as 12 for sport, for instance. The whole premise of the book seems  well outside a YA purview. Perhaps that very fact alone is what’s made The Hunger Games so popular. And that story, contrived and flawed though it may be, isn’t boring. The first 40% of the book is boring, however, and it shouldn’t be. To suggest we ought to find it boring as adults reading YA is ridiculous.

It should simply have been a shorter book, with all that  worldbuilding and backstory tightened right up so that we got into the  excitement of the Games themselves sooner. At least, that’s my opinion.  And you all know how much I like to share an opinion.

SPOILER AHEAD!

One more thing before I go – I have one MAJOR issue with this story.  I’ve saved this for the end, because it’s a real spoiler if you haven’t  read the book. So, if you want to read it, maybe you should skip this  last bit. I mean, the whole story is utterly predictable from the  outset. That’s the lack of sophistication I was talking about earlier,  which doesn’t have to be boring in a well-written story. But…

We know damn well that Katniss is going to survive. We know almost  certainly that Peeta will survive too, somehow, or die doing something  to ensure Katniss survives. From the very opening scenes, we know how  this thing is going to play out, but we’re happy to go along for the  ride.

There are several problems with it, which I really can’t be bothered  to go into now any more than I have already and, in truth, it doesn’t  matter. I still enjoyed the book and I’m glad it’s popular and getting  young people reading. Top work.

But, right towards the end, there’s a surprise twist thrown in that’s  just fucking mental. What the holy god-dancing shit is that thing with  the dead tributes all coming back as werewolves? Or something.  Seriously, what the shit, Suzanne Collins? All these kids had been  killed in various ways. Many of them we don’t know how they died, but  they did. Then they’re suddenly all werewolves come out to screw around  with the final battle between our heroes and the one surviving tribute.  It’s utterly bizarre. Why are they werewolves? How are they werewolves?  What the fuck is the point in suddenly throwing that in at the end?

Sure, if you wanted some extra excitement, throw in some random  attacker to mess with the balance of things. Even a pack of genetically  modified wolves or something. But why the dead kids from before? Dead,  remember? No longer freaking living.

And, just as a matter of detail, if Katniss, Peeta and Cato hadn’t  managed to get onto the Cornucopia and have their last little scrap up  there, that pack of wolfchildren would have torn all three of them to  pieces and there would have been no victor, so letting those werekids  out at all makes no sense.

Anyway, I’ll stop ranting now.

* I can’t take credit for that title. I can’t remember where I heard it, but it’s perfect.

 

This is a reprint from Alan Baxter‘s The Word.

 

Publetariat Dispatch: Konrath v. Turow, RE: Amazon

Publetariat: For People Who Publish!In today’s Publetariat Dispatch, we share some recent volleys from both sides in the Department of Justice’s ongoing antitrust suit against Apple and five large publishers.

On March 9, Authors Guild President Scott Turow posted an open letter on the Authors Guild site, calling the announcement that the U.S. Justice Department was near to filing an antitrust lawsuit against Apple and five large publishers (often referred to as The Agency 5, as these are the publishers who immediately signed on for Apple’s agency pricing scheme) “grim news”.

Author J.A. Konrath offered a fairly scathing blog post in counterpoint on March 16, calling Turow out for supporting publishers over the interests of authors—even the very authors whose interests Turow is supposed to be protecting and furthering in his role as President of the AG.

Here’s just one thread of Konrath’s post, in which he addresses Turow’s contention that allowing Amazon to become the dominant player in the ebook market would be somehow disastrous:

——————————————————————————————–

 

Scott  said: “Look, if what they’re into is maximizing profits, then if they  were to have a monopoly there’d be no rationale not to use the monopoly  power to increase prices to consumers. That  is historically what monopolies do. There is plenty of precedent for  that. It’s only rational to fear what they’re going to do with this  accumulation of power.”
 
That’s historically what monopolies do? Okay, so show me the precedent.
 
Microsoft  has pretty much dominated the market with Windows. Has Windows become  more expensive since it first launched because MS has a monopoly on  operating systems?
 
It launched in 1985 for $99.00. In today’s dollars that equals $212.00
 
The latest version of Windows is $179.00.
 
But Amazon must have a track record for doing this, right?
 
When  the Kindle was released in 2007, it was $399. Now that is has an  overwhelming market share, how much did Amazon jack up the price?
 
The Kindle Fire is $199. The bare-bones Kindle is $79.
 
Hmm…
 
I’m  old enough to remember Ma Bell having a true monopoly on telephones.  You had no choice. You couldn’t even own your own phone–you had to rent  from them.
 
Am I off base, or did prices seem to get higher once the Department of Justice broke them up?
 
Monsanto  owns 98% of the US soybean market, and 79% of the corn market. Last I  checked, both corn and soy were still pretty cheap.
 
Where  is all this precedent? Can’t Turow offer a single example? Just one to  show the bad things that happen when a single company controls an  industry?
 
Certainly  OPEC is an example, but that’s a cartel, not a single company. They all  agree on the price of oil, and we’ve seen how crazy oil prices have  become. We’re hitting $4.00 for a gallon of gas in Chicago right now.  All because they collude to fix prices.
 
I mean, four bucks for gas is outrageous. It’s almost as bad as paying $14.99 for an ebook.
 
Hmm. That’s sort of ironic, isn’t it? Because the Big 6 also fit the definition of a cartel, and they’re being investigated for collusion.
 
Seems  like cartels want to keep prices high, when Amazon wants to lower them.  That’s the reason the Big 6 colluded, remember? Amazon was selling  ebooks for less than the cartel wanted them to be sold for. So the Big 6  forced Amazon to take the agency deal, resulting in LESS MONEY FOR  AUTHORS.
 
I  put that in caps because Turow and the Authors Guild support the agency  model, when authors make less money from the agency model. And the  rationale behind it is so funny it hurts:
The  Big 6 wanted to control ebook pricing so they could keep the prices  high, because they were afraid of Amazon becoming a monopoly which might  raise the price of ebooks.
 
 
Read the full post on JA Konrath’s blog, A Newbie’s Guide to Publishing. Seriously, read the whole thing, and then make up your own mind as to whether or not Turow is on the right side of this argument.

Publetariat Dispatch: Review Honestly And Often

Publetariat: For People Who Publish!In today’s Publetariat Dispatch, author and small publisher Alan Baxter urges authors and readers alike to post reviews.

One of the best things about the modern world of publishing is that  there is more good stuff available, and it’s easier to get hold of, than  ever before. Small press and boutique publishers are springing up  everywhere and, along with indie and self-publishers, they’re giving the  “big six” more of a run for their money than ever before.

[Publetariat Editor’s note: strong language follows]

I think this  is great, as it really does give an outlet for pretty much anything.  There are still gatekeepers in the form of all the hard-working editors  at those small and boutique presses. Hopefully there’s still control in  content from the self-publishers, as they should be employing editors  and proof-readers and cover designers to make their work the best it can  be. Of course, a lot aren’t and, whether indie, small press or big six,  there’s an awful lot of shit out there.

So, this is where everyone else steps in. That’s you and me, the readers and consumers. I’ve blogged before about readers as gatekeepers  and this post is an expansion of that. In part, this is simply a  reminder of that post – you’re a reader, so you have the power to share  the good stuff by reviewing and/or rating it on Amazon, Goodreads, your  blog and so on. Keep doing that.

But the expansion is this – do your reviews regularly and honestly.  If you see a book on Amazon and it has ten five star reviews and nothing  else, it’s altogether possible that it’s really that good. Or it’s  equally possible that ten friends and family of the author posted a  review and nothing more. A lot of value is added to a book when there’s a  variety of reviews and ratings. A book with ten reviews that are a mix  between three, four and five star reviews is a lot more likely to be  something reviewed by a variety of people who actually read the book.  You can read their comments and get a real feel for the book that way  and decide if it’s going to work for you. That’s kind of thing is far  better for authors.

I can understand not wanting to give a bad review. That’s fair  enough, and if you really hate something you can just choose not to  review it. If you feel you want to review and mark it poorly with only  one or two stars and explain why, then that’s great  too. If you’re clear about what you didn’t like, others can get value  from that. What pissed you off might actually attract another reader  with different sensibilities. The honesty of a range of reviews from a  variety of readers is far better for an author than just a few dollops  of glowing praise that won’t really move anyone reading them.

So please, don’t forget to review. It takes hardly any time, it’s  incredibly easy with places like Amazon and Goodreads, and it’s  invaluable for authors. If you enjoy their work, think how much time and  effort was involved in making it and spend a few of your own precious  minutes clicking a star rating and typing a few words of opinion. It  doesn’t have to be much at all, just a couple of comments about why you  did or didn’t like the book and the author will love you for it. Be  honest. If I get a three star review and, “I liked this book and would  recommend it. Not the greatest thing I ever read, but worth your time”  then I’m as happy as Larry. (Who is Larry, anyway?)

Of course, I much prefer four and five star reviews, because I love  it when people enjoy my work enough to praise it that highly. But any  review is helping me out one way or another.

Review everything. Review honestly. Be a pal to all the authors.

 

This is a reprint from Alan Baxter‘s The Word.

Publetariat Dispatch: Take A Break

Publetariat: For People Who Publish!In today’s Publetariat Dispatch, author Virginia Ripple stresses the importance of taking breaks from taxing work, whether physical or mental.

It’s good advice for anyone who’s Type A, a perfectionist, or tends toward overwork.


I’m getting ready to re-vision my blog. By that I mean I’m going to  take a short break to brainstorm some great ideas for future posts. I  want to make this a place you can stop by to pick up handy tips and  inspirational messages to help you in your day-to-day life, as well as  catch a weekly laugh.

That being said, I don’t want to just leave you high and dry while I  work up a new plan, so I’ll be re-posting some of the best from the last  year. Enjoy!

Maybe it’s just a “man thing,” but both my husband and my father will  run themselves into the ground to get a project completed. Given half  the chance they’ll drag anyone helping them down, too.

Case in point: the guys chose a very hot day to put posts under our  front porch roof to keep it from sagging, figuring the job would only  take about 2 hours. It took most of the morning and the entire  afternoon. Getting them to stop, even for a few moments to take a drink,  meant needing to become an overbearing, stubborn commander with a voice  that would ring across a parade ground.

Not a happy experience for any of us.

The reason I was given for driving themselves like that was they  “wanted to get the job done.” Not an unreasonable response, but it  wasn’t a very wise decision.

What’s the real problem?

It’s a combination between wanting to achieve a goal and having  little respect for yourself and your body — that thing called a temple  in the Bible.*

Accomplishing something you’ve set out to do is a great high.  Finishing a goal takes away, at least for a time, those feelings of  inadequacy, of fear, of anything that holds us back from being happy.  It’s something like a “runner’s high” where endorphins are released.

The problem shows up in not respecting the body’s needs. Just like an  athlete on a “runner’s high” can injure themselves, anyone driven to  achieve a goal can harm themselves by ignoring the need to rest.

That goes as much for mental labor as physical labor  because staying up late to complete a task, like meeting your daily  writing quota (guilty!), when you know you can’t sleep in is as bad as  pushing through physical exhaustion to finish building a porch.

Taking a break is not a sign of weakness. It is a sign of wisdom.

Breaks do prolong the time it takes to accomplish a task. There’s no  getting around that. However, not taking a break risks injury.

In the case of my husband and father, it meant possible dehydration  and heat stroke. For that sleepy writer it might mean making poor  decisions at the day job or saying something to a loved one that you’ll  regret later.

A better solution is to plan ahead. Make sure you add in time to take  a few breaks. Expect whatever you’re about to do to take at least twice  the time you think it should. If necessary, break it up over several  days. There is nothing wrong with taking your time.

If you have a deadline, planning far enough ahead means no need to  “pull an all nighter.” The other positive outcome is that you might come  in ahead of your deadline. That feels even better because, not only are  you ahead of schedule, but you’re not too tired to enjoy it.

 

This is a reprint from Virginia Ripple‘s blog.

 

jdsakf;l

Publetariat Dispatch: Can We Stop Calling Amazon A Bully?

Publetariat: For People Who Publish!

In today’s Publetariat Dispatch, author LJ Sellers rebuts the publishing establishment’s position that Amazon is the enemy.

This post, by LJ Sellers, originally appeared on the Crime Fiction Collective site and is reprinted here in its entirety with that site’s permission.

Amazon is a company. Granted, a retailer with aggressive tactics meant  to support long-term growth. But it is not an oversized kid (or childish  adult) with personality problems who deliberately picks on weaker  people for sport. And when people call Amazon a bully, they dilute the  term’s meaning and diminish the experience of human beings who have been  personally victimized, bruised, and emotionally scarred by such human  behavior.

Amazon functions much like other companies, only more successfully than  its competitors. Its tactics, as far as I know, are legal. (The tax  issues are still being debated but that’s another subject.) Some people  would argue that its tactics are not fair, but what does that mean? Does the word fair apply in business? Again, we’re not dealing with children. The concept of one for me and one for you is not how capitalism works.

Some businesses are content to coast along, partner with others, and not  worry about the future. Other businesses are more ambitious. They have  long-term goals, and they work aggressively to meet those goals, even if  it means putting competitors out of business. Barnes & Noble was  once that kind of business. It bought up competitors, closed many retail  outlets, and forced hundreds of indie bookstores to fold. People called  it a bully too. But it was just business, capitalism in action.

Now the same people who denounced B&N (small bookstore owners, small  publishers, and writers clinging to the old model) are crying foul on  Amazon and worrying that B&N, now the underdog, will not survive the  competition for customers.

I too worry a little that Amazon will dominate the publishing industry,  at least for a while, and that customer choice will begin to be limited.  But Amazon won’t get to that point by being a bully, just a savvy, fast-growing company with an eye on the long-term future.

And yes, this blog was inspired in response to the struggle between Amazon and Independent Publishers Group, which I blogged about yesterday in more detail. A struggle in which Amazon held firm on its terms and lost the right to publish all of IPG’s ebooks. I saw Amazon called a bully over and over yesterday, but I think the word is misused.

I don’t mean to imply that the human owners of indie publishers and  bookstores aren’t feeling emotional about what’s happening in the  publishing industry as a result of Amazon’s success. I’m sure they are  and rightfully so. But Amazon’s success is not a vendetta, and there’s  no point in taking it personally. Those emotions will just keep people  from making rational business decisions.

What do you think?