BA and Bookshop.org respond to bookseller criticism

This content has been archived. It may no longer be accurate or relevant.

From The Bookseller:

he Booksellers Association and Bookshop.org have responded to criticism following the launch of the online website in the UK in November. The criticism, which is focused on how effective the website will be at supporting independent bookshops and the BA’s role in facilitating the launch, came in the form of a letter from bookseller Tamsin Rosewell to BA m.d. Meryl Halls following a social media discussion about the website. The letter was subsequently leaked to the press.

The letter, seen by The Bookseller, states that there is “discontent” among booksellers and publishers that is growing and “increasingly bitter”. Rosewell wrote that she had had numerous questions over how the affiliates scheme would work for indies, publishers, and authors, and described the launch marketing as “far more aggressive than is appropriate”. She also raised concerns over the BA’s own role in bringing Bookshop.org to the UK, as well as the requirement that participating bookshops should be members of the BA. Rosewell also queried what the impact would be on established bookshop websites such as those operated by Waterstones and Blackwell’s. “This general lack of transparency and accountability raises more complex questions.”

When approached by The Bookseller, Rosewell declined to comment further, and denied being the source of the leak. The letter is wide-ranging and contains a number of criticisms, some of which have been repeated in a New Statesman article. Speaking to The Bookseller, Meryl Halls, m.d. of the Booksellers Association, said the exchange of letters had been with Rosewell, and not with a number of booksellers as was being implied by the New Statesman.

In response to the letter from Rosewell, Halls wrote: “I understand that you remain unconvinced about Bookshop.org – plenty of booksellers remain unconvinced, I know – we have a pluralist membership and they will all have a different view. There is nothing compulsory about any of this; on the contrary, it is all optional.” On the question of the BA’s links to Bookshop.org–Halls sits on the board of the UK company—she said that the BA has no financial interest in Bookshop.org, and received no income from sales made. “We have made no investment, we have given them no funding, there is no introducer fee coming to the BA from Bookshop.org, or anything of the sort. We have no financial arrangement with Bookshop.org.”

On the criticism that indies had to be members of the BA, Halls responded that it was the same model as used in the US where indies must be part of the American Booksellers Association, and that its intention was to make sure that “only genuine, bricks and mortar indie bookshops would benefit”.

Link to the rest at The Bookseller

2 thoughts on “BA and Bookshop.org respond to bookseller criticism”

  1. “The excitement about its proposition concerns me. I do not think that Bookshop.org is the answer. I understand the attraction, especially at these turbulent times, but I do not think it is good for customers and it is not especially good for the industry.”

    They’re just pissed because people are buying books over the internet rather than going into their stores.

  2. The piece they’re responding to is a bit more interesting to me:

    https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2020/12/bookshoporg-independent-bookshops-andy-hunter-waterstones

    Mostly because of the breakdown of prices:

    BOOKSHOP:

    Publisher – 35%
    Bookstore – 30%
    Consumer – 7% discount
    Middlemen – 28%

    AMAZON UK:

    Publisher – 40%
    Consumer – 30%(?)
    Amazon – 30%

    Middlemen – zero, because Amazon does everything tbey do, from picking it up at the publisher to delivering to the consumer.

    Of course, if the publisher gets less, so does the author.
    But, as Daunt said, “Who doesn’t love an anti-Amazon story.”

Comments are closed.