Tao Lin's novel.

Will Melville House author Tao Lin, author of the novel Eeeee Eee Eeee, get royalties from netbook pioneer company Asustek Computer for its e-reader device, the Eee Book?

This report by ComputerWorld notes that Asustek “plans to launch its own e-reader and a tablet PC to rival Apple’s iPad in the second half of this year.” The Eee Book, the companiy’s first e-reader, will launch at the Computex Taipei 2010 electronics trade show June 1st - 5th.

Jerry Shen, CEO of Asustek, announced during fourth quarter meetings, that it will focus on bringing in content providers when it releases its tablet PC. But it seems obvious to me the first book they should offer on that Eee Book reader….

After a day in which Macmillan chief John Sargent gave Amazon another series of masterful lessons in the art of publicity, corporate responsibility, business leadership, and overall class (see the earlier report from MobyLives), the behemoth from Seattle finally really did capituate, although once again it was on a Friday night when it was likely to get the least attention: At about 6:15 pm ET tonight (Friday, February 5th), Macmillan’s buy buttons reappeared.

Except, it wasn’t — again — anywhere near a complete capitulation. As a brief report from the Wall Street Journal notes, Amazon has gone about things in its own pissy way: “only print editions of Macmillan books such as ‘Wolf Hall’ by Hilary Mantel were for sale by Amazon, not e-book editions of those books for the .”

It’s been a full week since Amazon disappeared all of Macmillan’s buttons. A New York Times report says “So what did Amazon hold out for? The company would not comment, but it is likely that Amazon demanded that no other e-book vendors, such as Apple, get preferential access to new titles, or any kind of pricing advantages. Amazon may also have negotiated terms into its agreement with the publisher that would allow users of Kindles or Kindle software to lend e-books to each other.”

But don’t let the assumption of the Times report, nor of other headlines proclaiming “the buttons are back,” fool you. As the WSJ report makes clear, they’re not back completely, meaning Amazon is still punishing Macmillan, and has yet to give in on ebook prices. Although it does seem that they’re processing the fact that they’ve lost in the industry, and in the court of public opinion … it just seems to take them a long time to process such information.

A day after HarperCollins owner Rupert Murdoch came out in support of Macmillan in its stand against Amazon, a third Big Six publisher has sided with the embattled publisher. Last night, Hachette Books Group CEO David Young sent a letter to agents announcing he, too, would follow the pricing model advocated by John Sargent at Macmillan.

As Peter Kafka put it in a report at All Things Digital,

Here’s another publisher publicly throwing its weight behind Apple — and against Amazon — in the e-book pricing war. Hachette Book Group says it will pursue the “agency model” for pricing its e-books: They set the retail price, and the retailer gets a 30 percent cut.

Translated into more practical terms, it means that Hachette will demand that Amazon and other retailers — but really, this is aimed at Amazon — raise the prices on their e-books from the $9.99 standard they’ve adopted. Instead, it will want them to use the $12.99-$14.99 standard for new books that Apple introduced last week along with its iPad.

The only question now is: Are a bunch more buttons about to disappear from Amazon?

February 4, 2010

Dear Agent,

At Hachette Book Group, we have been considering a new pricing model for some time, and have decided to transition to selling our e-books through an agency model.

There are many advantages to the agency model, for our authors, retailers, consumers, and publishers. It allows Hachette to make pricing decisions that are rational and reflect the value of our authors’ works. In the long run this will enable Hachette to continue to invest in and nurture authors’ careers–from major blockbusters to new voices. Without this investment in our authors, the diversity of books available to consumers will contract, as will the diversity of retailers, and our literary culture will suffer.

The agency relationship will allow us to make more titles available to more consumers on more platforms. This expands the author’s reach and readership, which is at the heart of what we do as a publisher. Ultimately, these new terms open doors to all online e-book service providers and create more avenues for delivering e-books to readers.

Another great benefit to our consumers is that we intend to release HBG e-books simultaneously with the hardcover (or first format print edition).

It’s important to note that we are not looking to the agency model as a way to make more money on e-books. In fact, we make less on each e-book sale under the new model; the author will continue to be fairly compensated and our e-book agents will make money on every digital sale. We’re willing to accept lower return for e-book sales as we control the value of our product–books, and content in general. We’re taking the long view on e-book pricing, and this new model helps protect the long term viability of the book marketplace.

We believe that this new model is preferable to withholding books, and is in our authors’ and HBG’s best interest. I’m happy to answer individual questions about the agency model, so please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Best,
David Young

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Hachette Book Group |

Major development in the Google Book Settlement case (remember the Google Book Settlement case?): Late Thursday the U.S. Department of Justice filed a legal brief with the federal judge overseeing the case, Denny Chin, that “expressed concerns” about the revised legal settlement put together in response to the DOJ’s previous objections.

A Wall Street Journal report quotes the 26-page brief saying “many of the problems previously identified with respect to the original settlement remain.” Essentially, says the WSJ report, “Google, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers were still trying to reach too broadly with their proposed class-action settlement.”

Says the report itself: The revised settlement “suffers from the same core problem as the original agreement: it is an attempt to use the class action mechanism to implement forward-looking business arrangements that go far beyond the dispute … in this litigation.”

In response, Google, the Authors Guild and the AAP issued a somewhat mystifying statement saying the DOJ brief “recognizes the progress made with the revised settlement, and it once again reinforces the value the agreement can provide in unlocking access to millions of books in the U.S.”

Judge Chin will decide whether to approve the settlement after a Feb. 18 “fairness hearing” on the agreement.

A senior Justice Department official, “speaking Thursday on background,” insists to the paper, “We’re encouraging the court not to approve it now.”

Some dramatic developments in the Amazon-Macmillan story yesterday — in particular, another public letter appeared from Macmillan head John Sargent, still standing starkly alone despite some encouraging words Wednesday from HarperCollins owner Rupert Murdoch (see the earlier MobyLives report).

You can read the full text here as it appeared first on the Publishers Lunch newsletter this morning. It is, suffice it to say, an elegant affair, addressed to “Macmillan Authors and Illustrators,” with a cc to “Literary Agents.” It’s calm with no apparent rancor and nothing but nice things to say about Amazon, whom, says Sargent, “has been working very, very hard and always in good faith to find a way forward with us. Though we do not always agree, I remain full of admiration and respect for them.” Still, says Sargent, “I can promise nothing on the buy buttons.”

Meanwhile, he issues a moving “salute to the bricks and mortar retailers who sell your books in their stores and on their related websites. Their support for you, and us, has been remarkable over the last week. From large chains to small independents, they committed to working harder than ever to help your books find your readers.”

The letter was made all the more notable in that the day passed, as have all the others in this publicity fiasco for Amazon, without anyone from the company making their own public statements of responsibility, elegant or otherwise.

But that wasn’t all that Macmillan did — continuing to plug their books harder than ever, the company took out a full page ad in the New York Times for Atul Gawande’s The Checklist Manifesto that included the line Available at booksellers everywhere except Amazon.” (See the full MobyLIves report.)

And the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America announced it was pulling Amazon buttons from its website, and urging its members to do the same. (See the full MobyLives report.)

But at day’s end, the company’s stock — steadily declining all week — had fallen farther than it had on any other day this week (by $3.16) … and there was still no sign of Macmillan’s buy buttons at Amazon. You can see for yourself if they’re up yet by checking, for instance, the page for Gawande’s Checklist Manifesto, or for Hilary Mantel’s bestselling, Booker Prize-winning Wolf Hall.

To: Macmillan Authors and Illustrators
cc: Literary Agents
From: John Sargent

I am sorry I have been silent since Saturday. We have been in constant discussions with Amazon since then. Things have moved far enough that hopefully this is the last time I will be writing to you on this subject.

Over the last few years we have been deeply concerned about the pricing of electronic books. That pricing, combined with the traditional business model we were using, was creating a  market that we believe was fundamentally unbalanced. In the last three weeks, from a standing start we have moved to a new business model. We will make less money on the sale of e books, but we will have a stable and rational market. To repeat myself from last Sunday’s letter, we will now have a business model that will ensure our intellectual property will be available digitally through many channels, at a price that is both fair to the consumer and that allows those who create and publish it to be fairly compensated.

We have also started discussions with all our other partners in the digital book world. While there is still lots of work to be done, they have all agreed to move to the agency model.

And now on to royalties. Three or four weeks ago, we began discussions with the Author’s Guild on their concerns about our new royalty terms. We indicated then that we would be flexible and that we were prepared to move to a higher rate for digital books. In ongoing discussions with our major agents at the beginning of this week, we began informing them of our new terms. The change to an agency model will bring about yet another round of discussion on royalties, and we look forward to solving this next step in the puzzle with you.

A word about Amazon. This has been a very difficult time. Many of you are wondering what has taken so long for Amazon and Macmillan to reach a conclusion. I want to assure you that Amazon has been working very, very hard and always in good faith to find a way forward with us. Though we do not always agree, I remain full of admiration and respect for them. Both of us look forward to being back in business as usual.

And a salute to the bricks and mortar retailers who sell your books in their stores and on their related websites. Their support for you, and us, has been remarkable over the last week. From large chains to small independents, they committed to working harder than ever to help your books find your readers.

Lastly, my deepest thanks to you, our authors and illustrators. Macmillan and Amazon as corporations had our differences that needed to be resolved. You are the ones whose books lost their buy buttons. And yet you have continued to be terrifically supportive of us and of what we are trying to accomplish. It is a great joy to be your publisher.

I cannot tell you when we will resume business as usual with Amazon, and needless to say I can promise nothing on the buy buttons. You can tell by the tone of this letter though that I feel the time is getting near to hand.

All best,
John

Except Amazon.

That’s the sell line in yesterday’s New York Times at the bottom of Henry Holt/Macmillan’s full-page ad for The Checklist Manifesto by Atul Gawande. At the time of this writing (Thursday 9 pm ET), Amazon had yet to restore buy buttons to Macmillan books, in a continuing battle between the retailer and the publisher.  Amazon has not reacted to this unorthodox and very public jab, but then again, Amazon hasn’t said anything publicly since their online post last Friday.  Macmillan, on the other hand, has used the media to their advantage, including using ads in newsletter Publishers Lunch to reach out to all authors, agents, etc. to disclose the actions that they are taking in negotiations and to update the industry and the public.

Photo Credit: Mediabistro/Galleycat

“You un-link to Macmillan?  Well we’ll un-link to you.”

At least that’s what some readers, writers, and bloggers seem to be saying. In an announcement on its website, the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America says “we are removing Amazon.com links from our website. Our authors depend on people buying their books and since a significant percentage of them publish through Macmillan or its subsidiaries, we would prefer to send traffic to stores where the books can actually be purchased. To that end, our volunteers are in the process of redirecting book links to indiebound.org, Powell’s, Barnes and Noble, and Borders. Many authors are being hit hard by this, so we encourage you to seek out new places to find their books.”

The announcement on the SFFWA homepage has generated a lot of discussion, mostly in support.

A few people have spoken out against the decision, but most agreed that the SFFWA had their authors’ best interests in mind.  One commenter writes, “I don’t think it matters who is in the right: Macmillan or Amazon. What matters is that Amazon is not hurting Macmillan. It’s hurting authors.”  Another (who I assume is the moderator) comments, “Amazon is in its rights to remove those links, but we prefer to send our links to stores where readers can find our members’ work.”

This is an effective way to not only respond to Amazon as an individual, but also to embrace the conversation that is going on about retailers, pricing, and e-book technology.  A small grassroots movement seems to be building on line, and the Macmillan debacle is only further supporting the growth of that movement.  Hopefully Indiebound, Powell’s, and other independent online retailers have seen not only a growth in traffic directed towards their sites, but also a small growth in sales.

The people that disagree with un-linking to Amazon only need to look back to last fall, when Amazon enforced a new affiliate policy, disallowing links to other booksellers.  This affiliate policy effected everyone from LibraryThing (a social networking site for booklovers, which drives a lot of book-buying traffic to e-tailers) to bloggers in states trying to enforce sales tax.  These websites acquiesced then, but maybe its time to pull data from another e-tailer.

“There’s no good reason the National Enquirer shouldn’t win a Pulitzer” for its coverage of the John Edwards scandal, says John Cook in a Gawker story. “There’s no question that the Enquirer humiliated the institutional political press with its revelations about Edwards’ infidelity, Rielle Hunter’s pregnancy, the potentially illegal use of campaign cash for hush money, and the existence of a federal grand jury investigation into the matter,” writes Cook, adding that “The exposure of Edwards’ pathological lies and frantic corruption is precisely the sort of journalistic behavior that the Pulitzer Prizes were designed to encourage.”

Cook’s long piece focuses on analyzing the various reasons Pulitzer watchers say the magazine can’t win, refuting many such reasons by citing past Pulitzer winners. Some claim, for instance, that the Enquirer doesn’t qualify because it’s a magazine and not a newspaper–though Cook shows that the Pulitzer has been given to weekly papers that have the same format as the Enquirer. In the end, Cook’s case is pesuasive. For one thing, Cook notes “The Times wouldn’t print the name ‘Rielle Hunter’ until August 9, 2008, almost a full year after the Enquirer’s first story.”