‘Amazon Derangement Syndrome’ characterizes dispute between Amazon and Hachette
From Chris Meadows at TeleRead:
I’ll grant that ADS might not be the best term to go around using if you want to engage in serious discourse, given that the sort of people who toss it around are likely to be just as opinionated in favor of Amazon as the alleged ADS “sufferers” are against it. All the same, it’s kind of telling that there’s enough of this kind of sentiment going around that people have actually coined a cutesy term for it.
Regardless of your opinions on the matter, it really is interesting to watch people start going off on Amazon in regard to the contract dispute with Hachette.
. . . .
It’s entirely understandable that some people, especially the authors getting caught in the middle of the dispute, would be inclined to blame Amazon rather than their publisher. After all, their publisher is the one who’s directly paying them money. And they want to think their publisher has a stake in the success of their books, since those are the way the publishers make their money, too.
But on the other hand, we have agents and authors contending that Hachette had been delaying shipments of books to Amazon as early as November, or as recently as April.
. . . .
Both Amazon and Hachette are invested in getting Hachette books to customers, because that’s how they both make their money. And anything that either one of them does that keeps Hachette books from getting to customers hurts them both and they both know it. If Amazon loses Hachette books, it’s just lost a big chunk of what customers go there for, and if Hachette loses Amazon distribution it’s just lost 20% of its paper sales and at least 60% of its e-book sales. It just comes down to how much money each of them should make.
And when you’ve got two parties fighting over slices of the same pie, the only means either one has of putting pressure on the other is going to hurt them both. So what these negotiations come down to is a big old game of chicken, with each side seeing just how far the other is willing to let them go.
You don’t just get Amazon throwing its weight around to try to hurt Hachette, you get Hachette throwing its weight around to try to hurt Amazon, too.
. . . .
Of course, publishers are the proverbial men who buy ink by the barrel that you’re not supposed to pick a fight with. The Big Five are all part of media conglomerates that have their own news divisions, in addition to having a whole bunch of authors (many of whom blog) in their pockets. So invariably, the narrative we end up seeing all over the place is that, if Amazon takes a hard line, Amazon is evil. If Hachette takes a hard line, and does something that will adversely affect its authors, like delaying shipments, it’s because the evil intractable Amazon made Hachette do it. Heads I win, tails you lose.
. . . .
Any time you see a narrative that puts all the blame on Amazon without recognizing Hachette has to be pushing things from its side, too, you ought to be at least a little suspicious. You don’t get to blame Amazon for everything just because it’s big. Hachette is pretty darned big, too, but like all the major publishers, it just loves playing the victim card when it doesn’t get its way.
Link to the rest at TeleRead
PG suggests that Hachette needs Amazon far more than Amazon needs Hachette.
Chris estimates that Amazon sells 60% of Hachette’s ebooks (the most profitable books any pubisher sells). In the comments on another Amazon/Hachette post, someone calculated that Hachette sales represent less than two-tenths of one percent of Amazon’s business.
As PG mentioned in a much earlier post, higher prices for BigPub books and the lack of availability of BigPub books help the sales of indie authors more than anyone else.
, Amazon will pay Passive Guy a small affiliate commission on any of your purchases. 
PG, was it you that coined “ADS”?
I think I heard it somewhere else, but I can’t remember where or when, Veronica.
The first time I heard the phrase was when people were talking about BDS. Bush Derangement Syndrome. That was probably 2002? 2003? Maybe as early as 2000 after the election.
PG: That’s a good point. Apple’s e-book store was able to get by without Random House (the biggest Big Six publisher at the time, while Hachette is now the smallest) for a year. If necessary, Amazon might be able to do without Hachette for a while.
It would almost be amusing to see that happen, for Amazon to go right past removing buy buttons and simply delisting all Hachette books en masse from its store. “Oh, we’re not playing games, we’ve just decided we don’t want to carry your books anymore. Don’t let the screen door hit your bum on the way out.”
It’s almost too bad it probably won’t go that far.
I want Amazon to delist Hachette so bad, but only for a short time. Say from December 1st through the 26th.
A mass return similar to what Random House did to TSR would likely hurt Hatchette badly depending how much inventory Amazon keeps on hand of the large range of titles.
Near as I can tell, Hachette ebooks are still available on Amazon without delay.
Well, the only time you’ll see Hachette’s ebooks being delayed is when Hachette is windowing them.
The hysteria over this is fascinating. All these impassioned op-eds don’t seem to understand that B&N did this last year, and the Hachette books I’ve checked ARE available on Amazon.
But facts be damned.
I think Hachette hates money. How much money would they lose if Amazon refuses to list their books?
Is there an Amazon/Hachett posting marathon this holiday weekend or something?
I guess a lot of people are riled-up about this. Any bets on how long it takes to forget about it? Two weeks, Three? What will be the big story next week to take its place?
I wonder in a way about ‘interference of business advantage’ by amz toward H. By treating them ‘differently’ than other ‘vendors’ … in any way… could be actionable.
Too, I wonder about damming any author or company. First amendment ideal is that if one begins to outlaw x, soon outlawing u, and w , and z will occur. I wonder if it’s such a good idea to howl for removal of H’s inventory from Amz for a period of time or forever. SEems there is much more at stake here as was true re McMillan and others. The question I wonder about is, how far is amz going to go with anyone, any co small or large, any author who doesnt please in whatever way. We’ve already seen amz censorship. AMz removal of sale buttons from McM for a period. It seems somehow, so juvenile, like publicly punishing a child. Now more global? I do wonder; with great power comes great responsibility or is it Absolute power absolutely corrupts.
Could be.
One possible outcome is the DOJ or FTC subpoenas the documents of both sides.
But Amazon seems to have good lawyers. And I suspect an audit of Hachette would produce more…interesting…results.
After all, all they are doing is “not helping” Hachette rather than actively hindering, as the Hachette acolytes claim.
Amazon treats Indies differently than trad pub.
No lawsuits yet…
I see your point Felix. Id like to see the paper insights/accounts of both sides, but you know that is unlikely from amz, unless as y ou say, doj got involved.
Incidentally, u hav a great memorable ‘literary’ name, Felix. When I was a child, there was this shy boy also named Felix, who waited each day at the rural bus stop with me– yet the true meaning of his name, Felix, glowed from inside him. It’s a great name. Torres, also. ["And the great Felix Torres, once a golden gloves middleweight champion, wows the NYT list again with his latest read.... and the crowd goes wild, chanting FE-lix, FE-lix, FE-lix....!!] My name by contrast is so not … concise. Or chantable. lol
Thanks.
There was a major league third baseman by that name in the 60′s. And there’s a world class ceramic pottery artist in Paraguay. Neither related to me.
That and a 10 second appearance on CBS news is as close as I’ve ever gotten to fame. (They did take me out of context, though.)
All my name got me growing up was singalong teases of the theme song from the cartoon.
I do get a minor bit of pleasure from knowing one of the top pitchers of this era is a Felix.
Felix, Old Latin: to be blessed with happiness, to bless others with happiness. A cool name to live up to. And yeah, I know, in school, hardly anyone knew the true meaning of names or words, lol
Commented there:
I admit, I’m no fan of the “ADS” shorthand (me, I’d prefer something like AAA–anti-Amazon agenda–or AAB–anti-Amazon bias), but what’s truly unfortunate is that “Amazon Derangement Syndrome” actually fits right into the rhetoric, given the use of stuff like the “self-publishing s*** volcano” and “freight-class” fiction.
Unfortunately, none of the rhetoric seems to really want to take things head on. All the authors and agents and publishing “analysts” seem to want to paint Amazon as the bully. It’s easy–not least of all because given that Amazon’s revenue from Hachette is such a minuscule percentage of its revenue in general, Amazon is likely too busy innovating and publishing and shipping and basically printing money that it doesn’t have to be too concerned with Hachette.
But what it neglects is that Amazon is a business who continues at every step of the way to put customers–readers–first. I’ve seen authors and agents claim that this runs counter to that, but really it doesn’t. Amazon doesn’t want to list ebooks as more expensive than their print equivalents. Amazon doesn’t want to be beholden to publishers when it’s setting its prices for readers.
I’m not even sure the fault is on Amazon. I’ve never been, in these situations. Many claim that “Amazon removed ‘buy’ buttons from Macmillan books” a couple years back, but I’m not convinced that, due to protracted negotiations, Amazon didn’t temporarily lose the right to sell Macmillan books. From what I’ve heard in this case, Hachette might well have delayed fulfilling Amazon’s orders of books as far back as November; is it possible that because of their negotiations, Amazon simply no longer has the right to list books for pre-order? I mean, honestly, if it’s dire enough, isn’t there a chance that in six weeks, because their negotiations have failed, Amazon won’t be able to sell Hachette books anymore? In which case, are they simply supposed to refund all those preorders? Isn’t it simpler to just not accept pre-orders in the first place of books it’s not convinced it will be able to sell?
I don’t know. I don’t know any of it, because I’m not a Hachette exec or an Amazon exec.
All I know is that, as a reader, author, and publisher, Amazon has done nothing besides go out of its way to ensure that I’m satisfied at every level possible. As a customer, Amazon offers the very best experience possible (even when it goes wrong, for whatever reason, Amazon’s return process is legit amazing. It’s awesome).
I would imagine this might be why Amazon wouldn’t push toward de-listing Hachette books in a hurry. If a customer wants a particular Hachette title, Amazon wants to deliver it.
Consumers decide for themselves if they are harmed. They don’t need authors, agents, or publishers to figure it out for them. If they don’t notice Hachette is gone, then they really don’t care about those authors, agents, and publisher. They just move onto others.
And if Amazon artificially suppresses titles from Hachette–and they do–then how is that fair to either Hachette or the consumers that would’ve liked to have bought Hachette titles.
Fair? There is no standard of fairness. Book retailers don’t owe Hachette anything. Book retailers have always carried only a subset of available books. Doesn’t matter if it is a local independent bookstore, B&N, or Amazon. They all pick and choose.
No different than widgets.
Bell Telephone… Standard Oil… fairness DOES matter in American business practices.
Fairness matters when one has an obligation to perform or behave in a certain manner. Unless there is a contract, Amazon has no obligation to Hachette to do anything. Neither does B&N or the local independent bookstore. Neither do I.
Likewise, Hachette has no obligations to Amazon. They have no obligation to sell their books through Amazon.
Amazon is not a government service or public utility.
Aren’t megalomerates like News Corp and Holtzbrinck et al. more akin to Standard Oil and Bell than Amazon is?
I think what we’re neglecting is that, being a private business, Amazon doesn’t have to sell Hachette books. They want to, because they’re a retailer (which means they’re not really in competition with Hachette), but they don’t have to.
And as I said, I’m still not convinced Amazon is really the one at fault here.
Unlike cable TV, there are no must-carry laws in retail.
Publishers must rely on the kindness of strangers and lately none of them are feeling too kind.
I still remember, years ago, a friend of mine who figured that it counted as censorship if a bookstore chose not to carry a book. Whereas in fact, a lot of retailing (until Amazon) was about figuring out which products your store should carry, and which would only lose money for you.
Amazon doesn’t have to do business with Hachette or anybody else, if they think there’s no money in it.
They don’t even have to do business with specific consumers, which is why serial returners get banned, or any specific manufacturer, vendor, or affiliate.
That is where big retailers get their power, they make themselves necessary.
It is up to the supplier not to make themselves dependent on just two or three retailers.
I had some extra galleys of my books (I decided to print them on a different kind of paper and make some cosmetic mods after I got the first ones) that just for giggles I took to the local HPB and sold. When I went back two weeks later, they were all gone.
Obviously, if the local B&N doesn’t want to stock my books, CENSORSHIP. Since they are proven sellers.
Amazon puts customers first–unless they want certain Hachette titles, or course. Then they put them in an artificial “waiting line” that could last weeks.
I’m not “anti-Amazon”, I’m “anti-Huge Corporation bullying smaller corporation.” I would’ve thought that was something PG could get behind as well.
Uh, dude…Hachette is the biggest publishing company in the world. And Hachette initiated the late shipping. Facts are important!
Except that every news story I’ve read says AMAZON is delaying the shipping, putting aggressive messages promoting other publisher’s books on multiple Hachette books’ pages, etc.
Except those news stories are based off of nothing but what Hachette says. Again, an agent who reps some Hachette authors says Hachette is doing it.
So now it’s a big conspiracy by the media as well to support some kind of agenda? Gotcha.
Conspiracy? Nope. They’re just lazy and go for the easy, sensational headlines.
Right. Every reporter who has written about this is just lazy. You should’ve went with the conspiracy angle.
They’re just repeating other reports which are based off of nothing but Hachette’s statements.
Show. Me. Any. Proof.
You don’t accept news reports from unbiased journalists, so what exactly WOULD you accept as “proof”?
THEIR “REPORTING” CONSISTS OF, “HERE’S WHAT HACHETTE SAID.”
Jesus.
Again, what would you accept, since you’ve declined to accept any news reports? What would be “proof” in your mind?
There can be no proof. Only the parties negotiating know what the truth is. And putting stock in reporters or whether or not their sources are valid is foolish. History has shown time and time again that reporters often get it wrong, especially in the Internet age.
This whole thing is obviously a PR campaign being waged to put pressure on the negotiations. Believe nothing you read about it. Nothing.
The media tows the “traditional” line. The corporate stuff. Has been for ages.
I don’t think it’s a conspiracy, necessarily. Not like the collusion to raise prices–in which Hachette participated, for the record–was.
I do think agenda is close, though. Me, I’ve begun to think it’s rooted in the corporate publishing industry’s privilege. A lot of people bash Amazon as just another corporation against which the corporate publishers are scrappy start-ups, but Amazon, as a corporation, has made the mechanisms of digital distribution accessible. That’s something the corporate publishing system and those associated with it (and that includes agents, editors, authors, and many journalists) don’t love, because of ideas like “curation” and validation and “gatekeeping” and etc.
Manjoo’s NYT article, e.g., didn’t really feature anything in the way of credible sources. When he discussed the “backstory,” in a single paragraph, there was no mention of a source or other authority, and the backstory provided was basically just what Hachette has been shoveling out.
That the size of the corporation seems to be your deciding factor in whether to be for them or against them during business negotiations seems problematic.
Right now, in this particular dispute, one huge corporation has settled on charges that it, along with four other corporations, colluded to bully a retailer and thereby raise ebook prices. That huge corporation is not Amazon.
“The media tows the “traditional” line. The corporate stuff. Has been for ages.”
Every journalist, in the back of their heads, has a dream of writing a book and being on the Sunday morning talk shows and so forth. (They’d like the book to sell well and make them rich, too, but what they really want is to be on the talk shows and have The Important People talking about their book.)
Since that is much more likely to happen in Tradpub, they support Tradpub like few others. Even Megan McArdle, who understands economics, has a large online readership and has written enough on publishing and Amazon to know she’d probably make a lot more money self-pubbing, published her new book Tradpub.
Here’s a Hachette author who was told last month by Amazon customer service that Amazon had placed orders but Hachette was delaying shipping them.
Now, the obvious rejoinder is that this is a customer service rep working from a script. But on the other hand, if we decline to take anything a representative of Amazon says at face value, why should we necessarily believe anything Hachette says either?
Interesting. What do you think H’s motive would be to delay shipping? It hurts THEIR bottom line.
*headdesk*
Well, as some guy said in the article that’s quoted/linked at the top of this discussion thread:
Oh, wait, that wasn’t “some guy,” that was me.
As someone else said elsewhere in the thread, when Amazon can’t fulfill an order promptly, people’s first inclination is to blame, not the publisher, but Amazon. Indeed, any time anything the publisher does (such as implement agency pricing) is unpopular with consumers, their first impulse is to blame Amazon, since they’re the one they’re ordering from and most people don’t know or care whether the book was legacy published or self-published or by whom. (There’s a reason Amazon had to slap that “The price for this e-book was set by the publisher” notice on agency-priced e-books, after all.)
It doesn’t make any sense that Amazon would give Hachette more ammunition to get its customers to beat it over the head with.
In the end, I suppose, we’re left with Hachette blaming Amazon, Amazon (through a customer service rep) blaming Hachette, and nobody being quite sure who to believe.
My apologies. Didn’t notice the attribution before the long quote preceding the article. So your belief is that the shipping delays are a Hachette tactic. That feels like them cutting off their nose to spite their face, but I guess it’s possible. So, do you think, then, that Amazon’s aggressive pushing of non-H titles on H book pages is just their way of retaliating?
Or it could just be that somebody in the shipping department at Hachette screwed up, told a bad lie, somebody in Hachette marketing with ADS got hold of it, and it escaped into the wild, breeding like mad.
It would have to be. I mean, it would be a pretty poor contract dispute if it was entirely one-sided. If Hachette couldn’t pressure Amazon, what leverage would it have in the negotiation?
When you get down to it, what else is there that Hachette can do to put pressure on Amazon? (Apart from rile up the media and its authors.) Hachette has just one thing Amazon wants, and that’s its books.
In the end, we really just have a lot of guesswork based on scanty evidence and imputed motivations. But I think it’s telling that Hachette is the one who’s been making all the noise while Amazon’s just sat there not saying a word. If this were a game of poker in a western movie, Amazon would be the quiet gambler with a face of stone, and Hachette would be the nervous, sweating schmuck with shaking hands who probably ends up trying to pull a gun.
See, to me, I think Amazon holds almost all the cards,and they’re applying pressure with BOTH pricing AND push-marketing other publishers’ titles on Hachette book pages to get H to agree to their terms. But I certainly CAN see where you’re coming from. I’d just say this: if it ever comes out that it WAS Hachette delaying shipping, there will be major blowback for them, particularly in the media.
Maybe there’s truth on both sides. Maybe Amazon is reducing its inventory and placing more orders as needed. (Even from a standpoint not involving pressuring the publisher, that would make sense for during a contract negotiation. The fewer they order, the fewer they have to send back if negotiations break down to the point that they can’t sell Hachette books anymore.)
But three weeks to fill those orders? Hachette could have someone walk down to the warehouse, box them up, and carry them up the street to the FedEx Office or UPS Store and they’d only be a few days to get there.
We live in the era of just-in-time shipping where entire supply chains are built on the principle of parts arriving at the factory exactly when they’re needed so there’s no need for on-site storage, and Hachette can’t fill an order in less than three weeks? Smells fishy to me.
The thing is, I read your last two grafs and think, “that seems to indicate that it’s probably Amazon applying pressure.” I just don’t see H’s endgame if THEY are the ones doing it. It will only end poorly for them.
Dean, you make the assumption that publishing houses actually know what they’re doing.
Try incompetence.
You ever special-ordered a book? It takes them weeks to ship a book to “favored son” B&N.
Normally, nobody notices because Amazon orders books by the ton and warehouses them themselves, at *their* expense until they sell. Even if it takes years.
Now, as Hachette themselves point out, Amazon is placing smaller orders and making Hachette pay for the warehousing.
Instead of acting like a big corporation, Amazon is acting like a “plucky indie”: almost no discounts, reduced stocking, no added promotion… They stopped doing a lot of the things for which they’re villified…and they’re still villified.
If it were false, Hachette could have pretty easily smacked that down. And didn’t. Hmmmmm.
This comment is ridiculous on several levels.
1) Stop acting like Hachette is this scrappy little startup.
2) The only evidence we have of Amazon delaying shipment is Hachette saying they are. However, one of Hachette’s own authors is saying that Hachette’s doing the delaying. And, as has been pointed out previously, Amazon has literally nothing to gain by delaying shipments.
3) Since when does size dictate right and wrong? Were you firmly in Amazon’s corner when Apple (and Hachette) was “bullying” them?
4) The “For shame, PG!” scolding was just dumb.
1) Never claimed they were. I said they were smaller than Amazon. They are. By a lot.
2) Multiple news stories have cited AUTHORS saying they are. I’ve yet to read a report citing Hachette author’s blaming Hachette.
3) Like I said, this isn’t an anti-Amazon thing.
4) Apparently any dissenting opinions on PG’s blog are “just dumb.”
1) So “smaller (though still huge)” = “defenseless.”
2) Show me any sources that show any proof that Amazon is delaying. Proof means evidence, not what Hachette is saying.
3) Answer my question.
4) Trying to bolster your argument by implying that the host should think as you do is dumb.
Also, if you want a link showing that Hachette might be the one, you could, I dunno, read the article you’re commenting on.
1) I also never claimed this.
2) It seems the only thing you’ll accept as “proof” is a leaked Amazon memo or something. There have been screen grabs that showed how aggressively Amazon was marketing other books on Hachette book pages, as well as the delays.
3) I did. You didn’t like my answer.
4) In a discussion/debate amongst adults, one often contends that those who disagree with them should view things differently.
1) You said they were bullied. Might want to bone up on what that means.
2) When were we talking about Amazon’s marketing? We were talking about delayed shipments.
3) No, I asked you a simple yes/no question, and you replied by saying ” … isn’t an anti-Amazon thing.” Try that on a written test and see if it’s an acceptable answer.
4) True, but an adult with a strong argument doesn’t resort to a guilt trip.
Still haven’t gone to the link, I see.
They likely have to, and can’t, respectively.
I’m not sure many authors have much knowledge of what’s going on, even if their books are with Hachette. Hachette doesn’t deal with authors–it employs editors who deal with agents. I doubt those editors have knowledge of vendor relations (that’s where this dispute would fall). I don’t think any literary agents would, either (again, not their job). But in the end for the authors it’s all whisper down the lane; in the corporate publishing world, authors are generally the ones least knowledgable about the business of corporate publishing. That’s why they sign contracts that tie up their rights such that they get transferred hither and thither when mergers and acquisitions occur, and usually do so for a small advance and 25% royalties they rarely see anyway because the only thing that actually turns profit less often than corporate titles is Hollywood movies.
Further, though, the authors I’ve seen comment on corporate publishing matters all note that they want to sell future books to them, so they need to agree with their publishers for fear of being sent packing. Lilith Saintcrow noted as such in her blog, and Charles Stross alluded to the same fear in a recent post wherein he discussed his publisher’s decision not to include its ebooks in the Hugo voters packet.
And funny, Stross’ publisher happens to be Orbit, who’s also the publisher Saintcrow wants to sell her books, to–who happens to be
wait for it
a division of Hachette Livre.
I’m curious and have a question for those with a legal background: How far would Hachette have to go for their actions to violate the “no retaliation against retailers” aspect of the DOJ settlement?
Of course Amazon seems far less interested in playing the victim card in front of the public but it seems they’d have an argument for that at least as legitimate as Hachette’s “Oh poor us, we are a giant soul-sucking corporation being bullied by a ginormous corporation”
Au contraire. TPV is one of the few places online where dissenting opinions are given respect and dignity, if not agreement. Perhaps it was your shooting of the messenger that ruffled Dan’s feathers.
During shedding season, to boot!
I’m admittedly an intermittent reader–probably once a week or so, when something pops on Twitter. I don’t know that I’ve commented much, if at all. Frankly, I was pretty surprised to see the inflammatory ADS used by this blog.
ADS is pure snark and this is snark central.
You should see how often “nurture” pops up.
Is the term “ADS” inflammatory? Well, yes, absolutely. The problem with calling that fact out as some sort of negative here is that we tend to both be snarky and knowledgeable. A few issues:
1. Experience: Many regular commenters here are well versed in the warehousing and logistics industry, and at least a few of us tend to get vocal any time the seemly monthly “look at how unsafe/hot/sweaty/painful it is to work at an Amazon Warehouse!” wannabe investigative reporting comes up. I have yet to see a single “undercover investigation” that didn’t sound like the whines of a pushover warehouse rookie that couldn’t hack it.
2. Knowledge: Many commenters here are also familiar with both self publishing, publishing, and contracts in general. Some of us are veterans of the traditional publishing route and others, such as myself, are versed in contract law and publish our own works while avoiding the traditional industry like the plague.
3. History: We also tend to have long memories, so every time someone laments at the lose of local B&N stores because of the evil Amazon empire we tend to remember the 90′s and early 00′s. You know, that point in time when B&N was responsible for the near-total destruction of the non-chain bookstore? Yeah, we remember that.
We use the term ADS for a variety of reasons. Most people that get the label are either naive fools, hucksters with an agenda, or made/make their money through the traditional publishing system. The term fits, because their logic is biased and/or flawed.
It might be inflammatory if it weren’t so darn accurate.
Thank you, Margaret.
Well, I’m going to Taco Bell.
But Taco Johns has those awesome cheetos stuffed burritos! Why are you censoring Taco John’s by not doing business with them?
There’s a lot of discussion here about whether it is Amazon or Hachette prompting a lot of these actions, but one factor I haven’t seen mentioned that much is that a similar dispute is happening between Amazon and Bonnier Media Group in Germany with similar results (delayed shipping of Bonnier’s titles from Amazon).
It could be that both Bonnier and Hachette are withholding books, or it could be that this is a tactic Amazon is using in both disputes. I lean toward thinking the latter, but as others have pointed out, no one but those in the negotiating rooms really knows what’s going on.
Here’s a story from the NYT about the Hachette & Bonnier issues.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/23/amazon-escalates-its-battle-against-hachette/
It just strikes me as incredibly coincidental that BOTH companies just HAPPEN to be employing the same strategy that hurts THEM financially, when AMAZON is the one common link between the two.
As I said above, I’m not a fan of the “Derangement” phrasing, but here it seems appropriate.
Well, no. Five of the then-big-six corporate publishers actively engaged in collusion, and violated anti-trust regulations. Amazon did not collude (and in fact was colluded against), and so suit was not brought against Amazon.
The quotes and the people the article chooses to quote are also rather telling. Johnson of Melville House hates Amazon. Seriously, read Melville House’s blog one day. They loathe the retailer. And the Authors Guild says it’s “likely” violates the Sherman Anti-Trust act? It’s funniest because Apple was found guilty of doing so, and the publishers would have been if they hadn’t settled.
Finally, I’m just not sure about the quote from Bonnier, or any from Hachette. Isn’t it possible either might have a reason to misrepresent Amazon to the Times?
Not exactly a surprise. The New York Times is from New York City, and you know who else is from New York City? The Big Five-nee-Six publishers. Naturally they’re gonna root for the home team.
It’s funny how often people seem to think that becoming a big company through superior customer service and shrewd business practices is somehow a criminal act in and of itself. Amazon didn’t break the law in building its market dominance. It didn’t somehow trick customers into loving it. It got its customer base the old-fashioned way—by earning it.
The Department of Justice investigated Amazon’s e-book pricing practices and cleared it. The DoJ investigated the publishers’ business practices and found they were behaving illegally—and without exception, even the publishers who swore up and down they would never settle and would fight it out until the end…settled, while still maintaining their innocence. (And why did they settle? Probably because they knew they’d be found guilty. They knew damned well what they were doing was against the law while they were doing it. “Double delete this email” anyone?) The DoJ took Apple to court and the court found Apple guilty.
Publishing partisans happily twist themselves into pretzels, inventing conspiracy theories and judicial incompetence to explain it. But in the end, I think it’s telling that, for all their cries of “Predatory pricing! Monopoly! Law-breaker!” the publishers never once attempted to take Amazon to court. They damned well knew they didn’t have a case. So they got together in backroom deals that they knew at the least were shady (“Double delete this email!”) if not downright illegal instead.
All it takes is an email to the FTC.
Of course, the reply would run something like, “Sure. And take care not to delete or “misplace” any internal documents where you discuss Amazon.”
I think it’s much more likely that the one common thread (Amazon) is utilizing the same tactics against two companies than it is that two separate companies are part of some kind of conspiracy to smear poor Amazon.
I’m not saying that Amazon isn’t the common thread between both stories. I’m saying that calling it “bullying” mischaracterizes what’s going on.
I’m not sure when Amazon’s current contract with Hachette expires, but when it does there’s every chance Amazon will lose the right to sell Hachette books–at which point it will be forced to remove buy buttons (having lost the right to sell them). If that occurs, it’s better as foresight to avoid taking pre-orders for books they will soon be unable to sell.
Honestly, if anything, it simply demonstrates that Amazon, as a retailer, is fair in its dealings and business practiced during negotiations with other companies, regardless of other companies’ sizes. Wouldn’t it be more damning if Amazon didn’t treat both companies identically?
When otherwise intelligent authors throw around words like “blackmail” and “extortion” to describe Amazon’s behavior, and mean it, “derangement” is not too strong a word.
David Gaughran wrote a great post on this theme: http://davidgaughran.wordpress.com/2014/05/26/amazon-v-hachette-dont-believe-the-spin/