January 12, 2012

Et tu, Nancy Pearl?

by

Amazon's newest publisher

Nancy Pearl, the reigning “Librarian of the Year” and widely acknowledged champion of all things library science, has done the unthinkable: partner with Amazon.

BusinessWire reports:

Amazon.com Inc. (NASDAQ: AMZN) today announced Nancy Pearl’s Book Lust Rediscoveries series, a line of Pearl’s favorite, presently out-of-print books to share with readers hungry for her expert recommendations. Book Lust Rediscoveries will publish approximately six books a year and will be made available for sale in print editions via Amazon.com and as audiobooks via Amazon.com and Audible.com, at bookstores, wholesalers and libraries nationwide and as eBooks in the Kindle Store.

Say it ain’t so…

Pearl’s opinions and commentary on literacy and the role of libraries (and literature) in society are some of the most respected in her field. She is recognized as the inventor of the very successful “One book, One City” literacy campaign and has one numerous awards. Her likeness has graced ALA posters and more recently she was immortalized in the form of a bobblehead.

So what is she doing partnering with a predatory company like Amazon?

As Paul Constant noted in a report for Seattle’s The Stranger, “many of the local librarians and independent booksellers who supported her and her Book Lust TV show and series of books will feel disappointed, and even betrayed, by the move. Many librarians distrust Amazon.com’s spotty privacy issues and independent booksellers have a long history of issues with the Seattle-based online retailer.” (Emphasis his.)

But Pearl doesn’t seem to mind or be aware of the business practices of her new partner. Or maybe she doesn’t care or see them as a threat. It appears that what she is certain about is what she will be providing:

“I’m thrilled that Book Lust Rediscoveries makes it possible to republish many of my all-time favorite novels, all of which have long been out of print,” said Nancy Pearl. “Helping these wonderful books find new readers is, for me, a joy and a delight. I was blown away by Amazon Publishing’s enthusiasm for the project and the extent to which they really understood what I wanted to do.”

I bet they did. Amazon’s private war on publishers has become a little more public recently, which is without a doubt tied to their own publishing interests. I suppose that’s not Nancy Pearl’s concern, though perhaps it should be. What ought to be her concern as a leader of library advocacy is the fact that Amazon’s future is driven by customer loyalty programs, ones like their book lending system, which if perfected may prove yet another opponent for the already beleaguered library system. And as everyone learns a little too late in the game, you don’t want to have Amazon as an opponent.

 

Paul Oliver is the marketing manager of Melville House. Previously he was co-owner of Wolfgang Books in Philadelphia.

  • Anonymous

    Predatory? I suppose any capitalist venture has a responsibility to maximize its success. Amazon is no different.

    Its Kindle Owners’ Lending Library (KOLL) is off to a dramatic start (see this press release: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1647593&highlight=). KOLL is a direct threat to the continued health and even existence of our public library system, and publishers and authors need to wake up and realize what is going on.

    Although Amazon has a success with KOLL, far greater opportunities for readership and profits resides with a cooperative venture among publishers, self-published authors, and libraries, as I point out in The End of Libraries (at http://alltogethernow.org/showtag.php?currid=85 (look for Part IX, tonight)).

    • http://mhpbooks.com Melville House Publishing

      The line that Amazon is just doing what capitalism dictates is a pretty weak defense. There are numerous kinds of capitalism, for one thing. Both France and Germany have pricing control laws, for example, and yet they are capitalist countries. The quick response: Yes, capitalist ventures have a responsibility to maximize success. But this must be balanced by their responsibilities to their communities, not to mention to the law. And as this site has been documenting for years, Amazon is in pretty flagrant violation of our anti-trust laws against predatory behavior. — Dennis Johnson

      • Dale_Copps

        No actually, it is a strong defense, against which there is no reasonable argument. A capitalist venture has but one directive and that is to maximize profits for the capitalist; it has no responsibility to any community.

        It is up to society to make rules that channel capitalist enterprises for the advantage of the community. If France and Germany have pricing control laws, then that is exactly what they have attempted to do. We used to have rules, such as the Glass-Steagall Act, which purported to do this, but they have been dismantled over the past three administrations.

        I am not sure Amazon has violated any anti-trust laws; I see no legal authority claiming such, as yet, anyway. What they have done is put together an admirable product which could in time kill our public library network–a tragedy of enormous proportions. But you can’t blame Amazon for that. The fault, dear Brutus…

        • http://mhpbooks.com Melville House Publishing

          First, getting off on the power of a big money-maker regardless of how it operates is revealing enough, I suppose, but saying there is no reasonable argument against that standpoint is an unfortunate rhetorical tactic that only makes it more clear you don’t really know what you’re talking about. For example, it’s clear you know nothing of the relevant anti-trade law to this conversation, which is the Robinson Patman Act. We’ve written about it here before many times. It’s an anti-trust law specifically aimed at stopping predatory behavior and the development of monopolies. The fact that Amazon both practices predatory behavior, and is a monopoly, is obvious, of course, and documented on a daily basis in our newspapers. The fact that our current government hasn’t enforced anti-trust laws is no secret either, and so the charge that Amazon can’t possibly be a predatory monopoly because the government hasn’t accused it of being one doesn’t mean it isn’t. Beyond that, you can say capitalism has no other rules if you want to, but from the perspective of this business owner, that’s a dangerously egocentric attitude, not to mention simply fucked-up, like saying I can drive my car as fast as I want to in a crowded neighborhood if the speed limit isn’t posted. Our society can have reasonable expectations of a less murderous attitude toward the culture that both includes and transcends legislation. — Dennis Johnson

  • http://wordsandpeace.com/ Emma

    with correct French, that would sound much better: Et toi, Nancy Pearl?

    • http://mhpbooks.com Melville House Publishing

      It’s not incorrect French — it’s correct Latin, via Shakespeare: “Et tu, Brute?” Said by Julius Caeser to his former friend and supporter Marcus Brutus … right after Brutus stabbed him. — Dennis Johnson

Stories from related categories