It's hard to see this piece as more than a disrupted industry, frankly, whining over their diminished power in the new reality. I'm to believe that it's bad for anyone but publishers that books are cheap? Because people might buy books for the wrong reasons? Oh, humanity. ("it sends a confusing message that good books are worth less, and because it encourages buying based on something other than the quality of the book")<p>This bit is particularly disingenuous: "The hippie, black and women’s movements of the 1960s would not have been so successful in challenging authority without the bookstores, which made their ideas widely available and sympathetic in a way that television, for instance, did not."<p>Seriously? I mean, really, seriously, you just wrote that on a <i>technology</i> (wait for it) BLOG? The analogous movements of today has unprecedented access to spreading their ideas through blogs and websites and social media and petition sites and collaboration services and who knows what else - most of it available instantly and almost or entirely free. I don't think that if the occupy/tea party/anonymous/truther/conspiracy/pick-your-revolution-of-week movements have struggled for five minutes to make their ideas available, it was because of the <i>lack of bookstores</i>.
I feel like this entire argument is less against Amazon and more against modern economics. The author attacks two trademarks of the Amazonian publishing spectrum: algorithmic pricing and a diminished sense of competition.<p>The first, I think, is difficult to make because you're saying "hey, this pricing scheme is arbitrary and capricious" when the current model of publishers setting prices for goods seems equally arbitrary. Books are art with little intrinsic value -- if you were to ask me to value a book in my collection, the answer would range from less than a dollar to thousands of dollars, with little in between. I'm not saying demand is a perfect proxy for value, but I think its better than the other options. (I feel the same way about clothes. Any pricing scheme where there's a systematic understanding that everyone is going to discount the hell out of the base price is, I think, a flawed scheme.)<p>The second, I think is much more valid overall but the same points could be made about Barnes & Noble or Borders, back in the day. (Remember <i>You've Got Mail</i>?)<p>A much bigger and interesting topic of discussion, I think, is what happens ten years from now when eBooks become the du jour method of literary consumption. Personally, I'm looking forward to the Bandcamp of poetry.
<i>“So do you raise the price, knowing they’re going to lower it, so that the price will then appear closer to what you need it to be?"</i><p>So, Amazon is paying the publisher the wholesale price regardless. Amazon's discounts cut into Amazon's profits, not the publishers -- or even result in Amazon taking a loss.<p>I think this publisher quoted has to tell us why he "needs" the price on Amazon to be a certain amount, when it does not effect how much he gets paid per copy -- the initial naive interpretation would be that if Amazon wants to cut their profits, so presumably more copies sell, while the publisher is still making the same amount per copy -- this would be good for the publisher, no?<p>It <i>is</i> a weird market (with Amazon appearing to routinely sell books at a loss), and is dominated by Amazon, which indeed isn't great for a healthy diverse bookselling market.<p>But publishers are saying some weird stuff, without explaining themselves.
If you're interested about the kind of harm Amazon can potentially do to the publishing ecosystem (or good, depending on your position), than definitely check out the Melville House Publisher's blog. They've famously fought Amazon numerous times over their terms and write frequently about Amazon issues.<p><a href="http://www.mhpbooks.com/archive/" rel="nofollow">http://www.mhpbooks.com/archive/</a>
I'm really interested to see how the Google Shopping Express [1] thing will play out. I really like the idea of challenging Amazon's control by enabling local stores rather than just trying to create another behemoth.<p>It seems like it's right up Google's alley, given their experience with long-tail markets in the advertising business. I hope it's a success.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.google.com/shopping/express/about/" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/shopping/express/about/</a>
Publishers probably weren't complaining when Amazon would buy their book at wholesale and take a loss with massive retail discounting.<p>What publishers want is for Amazon to sell at low margin so they get volume and the publishers get each at a decent wholesale price.<p>As a seller on Amazon I have noticed that often people will pay more than the cheapest available, either they don't bother looking elsewhere or Amazon as a brand has grown to the point where people just find it easiest to use them all the time. If this effect holds for books then they no longer have the be the cheapest to drive decent volume.
In Germany we have a law that prohibits rebates on books. The prices are usually printed on the back. Selling books discounted is prohibited and may lead to huge penalties. (Of course there are loopholes, damaged books can be sold for any price and books can be damaged by stamping "DAMAGED" on them.) This eliminates pricing competition and will probably give the local booksellers a few more years to live. However: Amazons margin on books is probably the largest ever realized countrywide. Book wholesalers have the contractual right to get the largest discount granted to any customer. This is why basically no-one gets more than 50%. Except Amazon. They'll buy from wholesale, but the book will need 1-2 additional days to ship. To get 24h shipping, the publishers have to sell directly to Amazon at 50% rebate plus around 15% for handling and advertising. This way they realize lower sourcing costs than anyone else. It's ridiculous, but many agree to it.
This confirms my theory that NYT would write anything as long as Apple pays them enough.<p>The picture painted here ignores the point of view of the customer completely. Whatever Amazon does is okay with me as long as they successfully exposes Apple + Big Four cartel.
Most books sold by Amazon are sold by 3rd party sellers, which are small businesses generally. They use SaaS apps to do repricing. Pricing is not, for the most part, done by a special Amazon algorithm.
<p><pre><code> Steve [Jobs] is in the I win/you win school.
Jeff Bezos is in the I win/you lose school.
</code></pre>
<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/04/26/100426fa_fact_auletta" rel="nofollow">http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/04/26/100426fa_fact_...</a>.