February 10, 2012

Bombshell Correction: PW’s early report was wrong — the ABA has NOT joined the Amazon boycott

by

After a request from Matt Supko, the Director of IndieCommerce, the e-commerce platform of the American Booksellers Association (ABA), Publishers Weekly has changed the headline and text of its story that was originally headlined “ABA Says ‘No’ to Amazon Publishing.”  (See our report from yesterday synopsizing the PW story.) As PW’s report broke the news and cited material that was otherwise unavailable online — including an email notification to IndieCommerce members and a statement of policy change made available to them by IndieCommerce — PW’s story, and headline, were cited in reports around the world.

The story is now headlined “ABA’s IndieCommerce Site Dropping Amazon Publishing Titles.”

The initial report’s lede sentence read, “The American Booksellers Association is the latest to weigh in on Amazon’s publishing program following the decision by Barnes & Noble, Books-A-Million, and Indigo Books not to carry their titles.”

It has been changed to read: “On Wednesday the American Booksellers Association’s for-profit subsidiary, IndieCommerce, began removing all Amazon titles from its database.”

PW has not explained nor even noted the changes on the revised story.

What gives? Has the ABA finally joined the chains in standing up to Amazon or not?

Apparently … not.

In an email to MobyLives, Supko explained that “IndieCommerce did not in any way suggest a boycott of Amazon or other publisher products.  Indeed, the IndieCommerce statement explains to its subscriber booksellers how to add back any of the deleted titles they may want to sell from their online presence.  Booksellers are also reminded that they are free to stock these titles in their store or fulfill them through other means.”

As for the policy change statement, says Supko, “Although ABA owns IndieCommerce, the policy change was made by IndieCommerce personnel, was announced to IndieCommerce subscribers and affects product fulfillment through IndieCommerce to those subscribers.  It has nothing to do with those ABA members at large that are not serviced by IndieCommerce.”

As we noted in our citation, the PW story was murky: “While neither the PW report nor the brief bit of the ABA statement it quotes makes it quite clear, it seems as if the organization can only prevent its members from selling books via its e-commerce platform; presumably, it can’t enforce a rule against members stocking the book in their brick-and-mortar locations.”

Pretty much accurate: IndieCommerce was removing Amazon’s books from the site (although allowing members to sell them anyway if they wanted), and wasn’t addressing the larger, brick-and-mortar membership of the ABA.

At the same time, we understand PW’s reading of IndieCommerce’s actions: It does seem strange that a wholly owned subsidiary of the ABA would make policy that was not reflective of their ownership, and that it would think its moves would be seen as some kind of rogue action. Likewise, IndieCommerce has not denied that it removed Amazon titles from its database, as PW reported. That’s something far more than a “suggestion” of a boycott of books—it is in fact a boycott.

Nonetheless, however we are to read IndieCommerce’s initial actions, their subsequent reaction to the coverage has been to make one thing clear: The ABA is not standing up to Amazon. They’re leaving that to the chains.

Which just leaves one question: Why?

 

Dennis Johnson is the founder of MobyLives, and the co-founder and co-publisher of Melville House.

  • http://twitter.com/illingworth Jack Illingworth

    The “why” doesn’t seem that mysterious.

    If U.S. competition laws are anything like those I’m familiar with (Canada’s) it would be clearly anti-competitve for an industry association like the ABA to call for a boycott of the products of a particular supplier. I’m sure neither their staff nor board fancy the prospect of legal action or government sanctions that would arise from that.

    I don’t have any inside knowledge of this particular situation, but I have plenty of experience with book industry collectives that are structured in similar ways. This is educated speculation as to the ABA’s motives, nothing more.

    IndieCommerce, as a for profit subsidiary of an industry association, presumably has somewhat autnomous governance, and would be well within its rights to make decisions that protect its own business interests. A single for-profit company with a small share of the online book market doing that would be extremely unlikely to be found anticompetitive on its own, and it shouldn’t matter if that company provides services to many more firms.

    While it is a little bitter that a legal system designed to be anti-cartel and anti-monopoly will sometimes protect companies in increasingly consolidated monopoly/monopsony positions from cooperative recourse by much smaller businesses, that’s how it goes.

    • http://mhpbooks.com Melville House Publishing

      Thanks for this thoughtful comment, although — in the spirit of honest engagement! — I’m not sure I agree with all of it …

      Retailers are certainly free to carry whatever they want, for example, as a general rule — there’s only so much room in the store. And there are tons of publishers — vanity presses, for example — whose books retailers just won’t carry. So I don’t think there’s really any fear of a lawsuit on this. It’s just a company they’ve chosen not to do business with, not any kind of particular censorship. I point to the three chains (in both the US and Canada) going ahead with a publicly announced boycott as further evidence of that. I’d add that Amazon getting into manufacturing, on the other hand, seems to be more clearly approaching a violation of antitrust law than retailers electing not to sell their wares, so it could be dicey for them to try and push a claim against retailers.

      As for IndieCommerce — you’re probably right, from an insider-functionality standpoint. But from a public perception standpoint, well hell, they’re owned entirely by the ABA, drawing clients from their membership, so isn’t it natural to assume this was approved by the mothership, and therefore represented the ABA’s thinking? Any trade group — a lobbying group, essentially — has to have some internal cohesiveness about its policies, no? This is such a huge issue — can they really be sending out such a mixed message on it? In short, whatever the internal reality, they have a serious PR problem on this one, no? And PR is what a trade group is all about.

      – Dennis Johnson

      • http://twitter.com/illingworth Jack Illingworth

        I agree that retailers — especially independent stores — can do whatever they like. I think we’re in agreement here. But there is a huge difference between individual firms making buying decisions based on their own best interests, and an industry group making a recommendation on specific trade relationships to its membership.

        I’m less sure about Indigo’s decision as their market dominance up here is stronger than that of any American player, but they have good lawyers and will have either done their due diligence or taken a very calculated risk. I would bet that the language that the big chains are using, indicating that they aren’t objecting to amazon publishing books per se, but are basing their stocking decision on the grounds that amazon is withholding e-book editions from its competitors, at least partially comes out of a legal direction to avoid entering into a full-fledged boycott situation.

        It’s when an association representing many firms collectively crosses that line that there’s the potential for trouble, at least according to the lawyers that my colleagues and I occasionally go to for updates on these things. That’s where it becomes cartel behaviour and we venture there at our peril.

        As for IndieCommerce … the law pertains to what organizations actually do, not the public perception of what they’re doing. If independent booksellers choose to read IndieCommerce’s decision as an indication of what its owner might believe, that’s probably a plus as it lets the ABA be thought to say something without them actually having to articulate it.

        I don’t see a contradition between IndieCommerce dropping amazon-published books and the ABA remaining mum on the subject. On the contrary, it’s evidence of good governance. When an industry group runs a business operation it is always best if there is clear separation of church and state, so long as the business operation’s decisions don’t actively undermine the industry group’s interests. Now if ABA were to come out and say that its members should stock amazon’s books, and IndieCommerce went against that, we’d have a real disconnect. Unless I’ve missed something, that isn’t what is happening.

        • http://mhpbooks.com Melville House Publishing

          Ha! That’s definitely not what’s happening. In any event your comments remain very interesting on this and thanks for making them. It certainly makes sense that all concerned are making statements polished by their attorneys, and have found a way to effectively pull off a boycott via loopholes only. I’d be interested in hearing further discussion on this from those attorneys (I can dream, can’t I?)

          As for whether or not IndieCommerce represents the ABA or not — we may be talking about two different things here. As I say, your comments make sense about their internal operations, but I do think they’ve stuck with a public perception problem, and a significant one, regardless of whatever the law says. I.e., what we’re each saying doesn’t necessarily disagree, but we’re making different points. To me, the forefront issue is that the ABA is not a dictatorship but it is a trade group: a group that promotes the interest of its members with recommendations, lobbying — in general, public relations efforts. It’s hard not to think their subsidiaries would be making moves unapproved by the umbrella organization, even if that is the reality. Which is why so many people ran the PW story and headline yesterday. It just made sense. Beyond that, it is, after all, a trade group that has launched antitrust lawsuits before — against publishers, against the chain retailers — so it does have a history of making such pubic pronouncements, and maybe there’s an expectation of them making them again on this issue. The appearance that they’d made one certainly was eagerly taken up yesterday.

          All of which is to say — again — that we may be simply discussing two different aspects of this.

          Thanks again — Dennis Johnson

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Josh-Cook/1196210349 Josh Cook

    When the ABA holds 

    • http://mhpbooks.com Melville House Publishing

      Thanks for this insight. Confirms much of Jack Illingworth’s suspicions, and yes, that is one rotten irony. — DJ

      • http://mhpbooks.com Melville House Publishing

        Still trying to clarify, but on further reflection, and understanding that the ABA is concerned about appearing to endorse a boycott in violation of antitrust laws — why can’t the ABA take the same tack that the chains did? I.e., say — as Jack Illingworth does above — that they’re making a decision based “on the grounds that amazon is withholding e-book editions from its competitors, at least partially comes out of a legal direction to avoid entering into a full-fledged boycott situation.” And what, really, legally, is the difference between a single firm making such a call, and a trade group. And I wonder if the percentage of the marketplace each controls would make a legal difference? Lots of questions, I know, and perhaps a vain attempt to chisel away at the above-mention irony, but anyone out there who can expound further? — DJ

    • http://mhpbooks.com Melville House Publishing

      Thanks for this insight. Confirms much of Jack Illingworth’s suspicions, and yes, that is one rotten irony. — DJ