mobylives

Tues to Sun, 12 to 6pm
145 Plymouth St, at Pearl St
DUMBO, Brooklyn

»

Amazon capitulates, reveals why they act that way: They don’t know what “monopoly” means

1 February 2010

First, in a move that was obviously well-and-long-planned and executed in the dead of a Friday night but that nonetheless stunned the book industry, its own customers and — one has to think — the Justice Department and the Fair Trade Commission, the protection racket known as Amazon.com pulled the buy buttons off all books published by Macmillan (including those of its imprints such as Henry Holt, Tor, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Picador, and St. Martin’s). In a further move reminiscent — as per this earlier MobyLives report — of the company’s removal of bought-and-paid-for books by George Orwell from the Kindles of unsuspecting customers, Amazon went into customer accounts and removed all Macmillan books from customer wishlists.

Then, all hell broke out, with agents crying censorship, other publishers crying blackmail, and just about everyone expressing outrage at seeing a large corporation behave like an thuggish monopoly, as this MobyLives report detailed.

It all culminated in Macmillan head John Sargent calmly explaining his side of the story in a public letter that was the model of restraint.

Now, Amazon has responded with a letter of its own that capitulates, no doubt due to pressure from its own legal team … but not without some nasty and dishonest rhetoric, such as the stupefying claim that Macmillan, not Amazon — a company that essentially controls online booksales and whose most recent quarterly statement indicates, as per this MobyLives report, that it made more money in one quarter than Macmillan has made in the last several years — constitutes a “monopoly.”

The letter was not made public in ads as was the letter from Sargent, but rather it was simply posted as a note on Amazon’s Kindle Forum late Sunday. It was also unlike the Macmillan letter in that the head of the company, Jeff Bezos, did not take responsibility and sign the statement. In fact Bezos has not been heard from throughout the brouhaha.

Here is the letter in its entirety:

Dear Customers:

Macmillan, one of the “big six” publishers, has clearly communicated to us that, regardless of our viewpoint, they are committed to switching to an agency model and charging $12.99 to $14.99 for e-book versions of bestsellers and most hardcover releases.

We have expressed our strong disagreement and the seriousness of our disagreement by temporarily ceasing the sale of all Macmillan titles. We want you to know that ultimately, however, we will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan’s terms because Macmillan has a monopoly over their own titles, and we will want to offer them to you even at prices we believe are needlessly high for e-books. Amazon customers will at that point decide for themselves whether they believe it’s reasonable to pay $14.99 for a bestselling e-book. We don’t believe that all of the major publishers will take the same route as Macmillan. And we know for sure that many independent presses and self-published authors will see this as an opportunity to provide attractively priced e-books as an alternative.

Kindle is a business for Amazon, and it is also a mission. We never expected it to be easy!

Thank you for being a customer.

With other companies about to issue statements of solidarity with Macmillan and follow suit in its implementation of the agency model for pricing — whereby the publisher helps set pricing and works within an agreed-upon range — Amazon may have simply read the writing upon the wall, although the rashness of the act does seem to have overlooked any fear of penalty for violation of anti-trust laws and other laws governing monopolistic behavior. To be sure, those other companies are going to act now, and one would think the government has been put in a position of having to react. It could just be that Amazon’s nasty reaction is an instance of a hit dog, howling.

It ain’t over yet.

5 Comments »

  1. It’s exciting to see a publisher show some spine on this, even if it was probably the prospect of a post-Kindle-dominated e-book world that emboldened MPS to do this thanks to the iPad’s decision to run on EPUB. Ultimately, publishers sticking together on this is the only thing that will work as most Americans believe that the lowest possible price, regardless of how it is achieved, is a human right, and anyone who stands in the way of that is the enemy.

    Comment by Craig — February 1, 2010 @ 12:07 pm
  2. Amazon is becoming the monopolistic Walmart of online shopping. There is nothing “cool” about them.

    And in the end they’re just another middleman in the age of the internet. They can be circumvented like everyone else. I wish someone would figure out how to do that.

    Comment by Steve — February 2, 2010 @ 11:42 pm
  3. Your reference to the “Fair Trade Commission” should be corrected as the “Free Trade Commission”. Moreover, statements of “solidarity” by publishers implies collusion which merits an investigation of anti-competitive practices by the Free Trade Commission.

    Comment by Phil Leigh — February 4, 2010 @ 12:42 pm
  4. Okay, you got me in a typo. But it’s just ridiculous to say that people being inspired by someone else in their business constitutes “collusion.” You have evidence the heads of the big six have been holding secret meetings about taking over poor little Amazon … who made more last quarter ($9.4 million) than all of them combined? Great, call in the Feds, tiger. I’d love to see them checking out Amazon’s dealings with publishers. Meanwhile, do your homework: a 2007 decision by the Supreme Court held that it’s not necessarily illegal for manufacturers to collude on setting floor prices if it helps competition. You must not be a Moby regular — I’ve written about it numerous times, most recently here –

    http://mhpbooks.com/mobylives/?p=9965

    Here’s to hoping that the big boys will indeed get together on how to tackle Amazon. If you can’t see that they’re the ones trying to monopolize a marketplace and doing it with unfair practices such as blackmail and censorship, then I’ve got a nice piece of swamp land I’d like to tell you about ….

    Comment by Dennis Johnson — February 4, 2010 @ 8:29 pm
  5. What I can’t figure out is why a e-book is not 50% of a paper book. I only read paperbacks and the ebook is commonly the same or more expensive at Amazon and elsewhere. It doesn’t make sense. And yes I will buy the cheapest source. If that makes me bad in your books, so be it.

    Comment by Connie — February 5, 2010 @ 9:31 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment