Last week, I read what, at the time, I thought was the most one-sided, absurdly inaccurate article that could possibly be written about the ebook Agency Model price fixing lawsuit the Dept. of Justice recently filed against Apple and five of the six largest book publishers in the country. I went through some points on the complete and utter nonsense spouted by David Carr in the New York Times here. Today, being one to readily admit my mistakes, I have to say I was wrong.
Now, I’m not about to suggest that my impressions of Carr’s piece have softened or that I’ve been convinced that he was right about any of it. He wasn’t. It’s just that I read this piece in the Huffington Post by bookstore owner and former attorney William Petrocelli that, to my complete shock and dismay, somehow managed to reach a level even more misguided and inaccurate than Carr’s propoganda piece. I guess the old adage really is true: don’t think things couldn’t possibly get worse because they certainly can. Here we go:
The Justice Department is hounding MacMillan and Penguin Publishers, even though those companies and other publishers have done nothing more than try to protect their business from the unfair tactics of Amazon.
This is a very early quote from the piece, but it sets the tone throughout. You can see pretty clearly that his take is Amazon is totally at fault and publishers were doing little more than defending themselves. Interesting take, particularly considering Amazon was the victim in this case, the admitted target of the pricing scheme that publishers (allegedly) illegally colluded to put in place.
News coverage of the DOJ’s case has been almost uniformly critical. When large publishers, small publishers, independent booksellers, Barnes & Noble, Apple Corporation, the American Booksellers Association, and the Authors Guild all agree that this case is terribly wrong, it’s time for the Justice Department take a step back and re-assess what’s doing.
Really? I’ve read more than a few defenses of the DOJ since this was filed, but then again, he might have a point. In the mainstream press, coverage has been generally critical of the case. But consider the sources. Most of the entities that own the mainstream press also own other business interests, you know, like book publishers, including some of the defendants in this case, under giant conglomerate umbrellas. Not exactly an unbiased position to report from, huh?
As for his list of groups inside the book industry that have been critical of the decision, they have one thing in common. They all have notable ties to the traditional industry, and therefore stood to benefit from the price fixing scheme. Without it, genuine adaptation is looking even more necessary, and that places every group inextricably tied to the traditional model at risk.
By the way, the big news this week is the DRM is on the verge of being killed off by some major publishers. Does anyone for even an instant think that would have happened if not for the DOJ lawsuit that stifled the price fixing racket? The lawsuit has already worked as it has compelled these publishers to actually compete rather than spend their time trying to squash competition they don’t like.
The DOJ has stepped into a business it doesn’t understand at all, and it is tilting the outcome against those who are trying to play by the rules.
Huh? I’m sorry, but even as cynical about government as I am, I just don’t see anybody getting sued for antitrust violations for simply playing by the rules. Collusion and price fixing are illegal actions that artificially hike prices and stop or slow down competition. If that’s considered playing by the rules, I’d hate to see what a publisher who was openly cheating looks like. Maybe Petrocelli needs to brush up a bit on what constitutes playing by the rules. Pretty sure breaking them doesn’t count.
What did the publishers do to bring down the wrath of the Justice Department? They did nothing other than what any rational business person would do in the face of unfair pressure from an over-bearing, dominant retailer.
So, according to a former attorney, the rational course of action for a business person faced with growing competitive pressure is to break the law? That’s the rational choice? Not to innovate or adapt? Not to find new ways to compete in a changing marketplace but to violate the law to manipulate market conditions to quash a competitor’s earned advantage? Sure, I guess that’s rational. This must be a line of thinking I missed out on by skipping law school.
If you read the Justice Department’s complaint , you’d get the impression that the publishers adopted the Agency Plan as a means of maximizing their profits at the expense of the consumer.
You know, he’s right. When I read the DOJ complaint, I did get that impression. You know why? Because that was their intent. And it worked. Remember all those stories a few months back about publishers’ profit margins increasing even in the face of declining revenues? How do you suppose that happened? Could it possibly have been consumers paying 30-50% higher ebook prices? And let’s not forget that a big part of the Agency strategy was to protect print profits, as well. Of course, this could just be a serendipitous coincidence for the publishers in question, right?
It is clear even in paragraph 30 of the DOJ’s own complaint that Amazon was engaging in predatory pricing — i.e. by selling e-books at $9.99, Amazon was selling them below cost.
It’s only clear if that’s what you want to believe it says. Here’s a direct quote from that same paragraph 30 that he seems to believe is so incriminating: “From the time of its launch, Amazon’s e-book distribution business has been consistently profitable, even when substantially discounting some newly released and bestselling titles.”
Predatory pricing is generally defined as losing money to run off competition, then recouping those losses later through unchallenged higher prices. But what happens if the supposed predator isn’t actually losing money? Isn’t it just as feasible that Amazon’s managed to develop a more efficient, consistently profitable mechanism for selling ebooks? Maybe they’re not really predatory at all, but actually have a sound, profitable business practice? Notice the emphasis on the word profitable there. Also, there’s the perplexing fact that in all of U.S. history, there’s never actually been a monopoly created through predatory pricing.
To top it off, here’s a quote from the SCOTUS in its 1993 case Brooke Group v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco , dealing with a predatory pricing allegation:
“The mechanism by which a firm engages in predatory pricing–lowering prices–is the same mechanism by which a firm stimulates competition; because cutting prices in order to increase business often is the very essence of competition. Mistaken inferences are especially costly, because they chill the very conduct the antitrust laws are designed to protect. It would be ironic indeed if the standards for predatory pricing liability were so low that antitrust suits themselves became a tool for keeping prices high.”
Interesting that Amazon haters who toss around the predatory label seem to want antitrust law to do exactly what the Supremes in 1993 declared it shouldn’t; chill competition and keep prices artificially high. Even more interestingly, there hasn’t been a successful prosecution in this country for predatory pricing since this decision. That’s because (1) predatory pricing doesn’t work (2) the remedies end up more anticompetitive than the offense itself and (3) very few, if any, are actually engaging in it, not even Amazon.
While it is true the cost of producing e-books is somewhat lower than print books, there are large development, marketing, and other costs that publishers simply couldn’t recover if they were forced to drop their wholesale price significantly below $9.99.
This, to me, seems a little confusing. The market shifts, prices drop and publishers find themselves in a position where their established costs exceed the prices they can bring in. Ok, so that’s Amazon’s fault? It is, in a way, because they largely ushered in the ebook disruption, but other than that, this seems to be pointing out the necessity of publishers to change. Their business model isn’t working with current or sure-to-be future market conditions. Shouldn’t the point here be adapt before you go under? Rather, he seems to be using this point to justify publishers’ actions to stifle the changes in the market to support a status quo your own damn customers are walking away from! I just don’t know anymore. These people work with books, for god’s sake! Wouldn’t some knowledge and logic sink in just out of random chance once in a while?
To really see the disastrous effects of the DOJ’s action, we should probably listen to authors.
By authors, he really just means Scott Turow. Otherwise, you might actually run across some authors who aren’t all that fond of the traditional book business model, and they might even hold opinions that don’t truck with illegal collusion and price fixing. Can’t have that. Don’t these silly writers understand that if something isn’t good for old school publishers, then it must be bad for them, too? I mean, writing and literature–hell, the entire culture itself–will simply cease to exist if the so-called Big Six go under. I’m sure I read that somewhere.
With a new hardcover book, an author will typically get around $3.00 to $4.00 per copy in royalties — hardly an extravagant amount, when you consider the effort that goes in to writing a book. But if the print book fades away and the $9.99-priced e-book becomes the new norm, authors’ royalties would be reduced to a pittance.
If I started selling ebooks on Amazon for $9.99, I’d make $7 a book. I already make the $3-$4 per book he cites for an author’s royalty on a hardcover for an ebook priced at $5. Not that it’s possible to make that, mind you, I already have, virtually every day for several months now, and so have lots and lots and lots of other writers.
This is, again, a problem for the publishers and their business model. Writers get the pittance royalties, particularly on ebooks, because that’s what publishers want to pay. This may well become a problem for those chained to traditional contracts down the road, but the rest of us pretty much just shrug it off and go back to writing.
The entire end of Petrocelli’s article is a virtual point by point presentation of the failings of the traditional model. But unlike what most rational people would do, see the need to adapt, he seems to prefer sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling, “Nah, Nah, Nah, It’s all Amazon’s fault, Nah, Nah, Nah, It’s not fair, Nah, Nah, Nah!”
So, as I said at the beginning, I was wrong about David Carr’s piece being the worst possible. And to show that I do learn from my mistakes and know how to adapt, here’s my new take: William Petrocelli’s piece is the worst, most misguided, one-sided Amazon hating missive I’ve seen, so far. See, adaptation isn’t so difficult.