As promised, the blog has moved and it has a new URL. You can now find the blog at http://nocturnal-lives.com.
Stop by, look around and let me know what you think. There’s a new post up now, along with a new snippet.
As promised, the blog has moved and it has a new URL. You can now find the blog at http://nocturnal-lives.com.
Stop by, look around and let me know what you think. There’s a new post up now, along with a new snippet.
Over the next few days, I’ll be migrating my blog, etc., to a new host. Please bear with me during the move. Once it’s done, I will be posting more often. Until then, that scream you hear in the background is me trying to do too many things at one time.
For those of you who might have missed Sarah’s wonderful series of articles on bringing back that sense of wonder we used to find in science fiction and fantasy, I recommend you read Bring Back That Wonder Feeling, What is Human Wave Science Fiction and You Got To Move It Move It. Also check out Patrick Richardson’s The New Human Wave in Science Fiction.
Like Sarah and all those who have commented on her posts, I miss those days of derring-do in science fiction and I’ve been thinking about why I first started reading science fiction and why, after going away from it for awhile, I returned to it.
I grew up in a house where books were valued friends. I was one of the lucky ones where my parents were voracious readers and they began reading to me very early. When I was old enough, we read together. They encouraged me to read fiction and non-fiction, no book in the house was off-limits. In a time before video games, books were my escape.
When I was an early teen, maybe even a tween, I was spending a week or two at my grandmother’s house in small town Oklahoma. It wasn’t the first time. Every summer I spent at least a week there and another week in Tulsa with my other grandmother. But that summer was different. I’d read all the books in Grandma’s house–all two dozen or so of them. My grandmother just wasn’t a reader. The books that were there were either some left by my dad when he moved out years and years before or by my Uncle John.
Uncle John’s books introduced me to Louis L’Amour and Zane Grey. They were good books but short and it didn’t take long for me to read them. So, one day, I did what most any kid who is bored will do–I started prowling the dark corners of the house to see if I could find anything of interest.
Imagine my surprise when I came across a HUGE closet filled almost floor to ceiling with not only books and magazines but also records. I was in heaven. The only problem was that there was nothing to play the records on.
I spent hours going through the books and magazines. There was such a wide assortment of them to choose from. But one thing–well, several actually–that caught my eye. There were a number of If: Worlds of Science Fiction magazines. The covers and story titles intrigued me. I gathered them up and went outside to sit under one of the huge trees to read.
One of the very first stories I read was Jungle in the Sky by Milton Lesser. I’d never heard of either the story or the author before, but there was something about the cover that called to me. I didn’t know then that the magazine had been published in 1952. That part of the cover had been torn away. All I knew was it was something new I hadn’t read at least twice.
The story, like so many science fiction stories, could just as easily have been set in Africa. It was basically a safari set in space, but with a twist. There were aliens, sort of like parasites, that were hunting humans just as humans were hunting other aliens for their expositions on Earth. When our heroes are captured and “infested”, they have to not only find a way to defeat an enemy that is now part of them, but also find a way off the planet and back home to warn the rest of humanity about this threat.
I came across the story again a few months ago. It’s probably been thirty years since I last read it. My initial response on reading it this time was to shake my head when Lesser described the ship’s captain–our heroine–wearing hot pants and a cape while the rest of the crew is in overalls, etc. But then I realized I was looking at the story through today’s so-called sensibilities. This wasn’t a military ship. So the captain could wear whatever she wanted, as long as the ship’s owners didn’t mind. Also, this fit what was being written in the pulps back then. So, I put away the judgmental part of me and just read the story again, wondering if I’d like it as much as I did back then.
I can’t say I did, not completely. But it still made me smile at the right place and cringe when I was supposed to. I still found myself imagining that I was one of those crew members having to fight to survive. Yes, there were structural issues with the story and the science really doesn’t work. But you know what? That really doesn’t matter. It is a good story and I felt good at the end, even though some of the good guys died and some of the bad guys didn’t get the comeuppance I wanted them to.
It didn’t take me long to finish Jungle. So I started looking for more like it. Guess what I found. The first two installments of Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I was hooked. Oh boy was I hooked. And I was ticked because the last installment wasn’t there. Worse, stuck as I was in Ardmore without a car–my grandmother didn’t drive–and without a bookstore in walking distance–I had to wait until I got home and could con,er convince, my parents to take me to a store to buy the book.
Those two started my love affair with science fiction. SF allowed my imagination to fly. It took me to worlds where I knew I’d never be able to go but I could hope my children or grandchildren could. Even those books that didn’t have a happily ever after had that sense of hope to them. If only the survivor could hold out. If only the rescue team got there in time. There was a respect for humanity and for the human spirit I could identify with.
It’s that respect I have found lacking in so many of the “modern” science fiction novels and short stories. Well, that and the very unsubtle attempt by the author to beat me over the head with their political or social beliefs. It has seemed like the need to “teach” has become more important than the desire to “entertain”. Sorry, but when I read for pleasure, it isn’t so someone can pound a message into my head.
That has seemed especially true when it comes to most dystopian sf. (Well, to be honest, the utopian sf as well. But I have always tended to avoid those stories because, frankly, they bore me.) Governments are bad. Corporations are bad. Your neighbor is bad. Even your companions will sell you out at the drop of a hat and you can’t hold onto your beliefs if your life depended on it. Not only are these stories depressing but they usually wind up flying across the room before I finish the first quarter of the book. Why? Because the characters are unbelievable. Not everyone is a caricature. Just because you are a white, blond male doesn’t make you a villain. You aren’t automatically a victim because your skin is a certain color or you are a certain sex. Give me a break.
Give me Heinlein any day of the week. Do I like every one of his books? No. But most of them never fail to send my imagination soaring. Sarah’s Darkship Thieves does the same thing. Athena comes from a horrible world, but it is still a world where there is hope held by some of its inhabitants for a better world. It’s also a fun romp. Terry Pratchett is the same in fantasy as is Dave. l have yet to find anything by Dave I haven’t liked. The reason why is simple. Dave and Sarah, like PTerry, RAH and so many others, are storytellers. They focus on story and character, putting the “message” in subtly instead of beating us over the head with it.
So, sign me up for the Human Waver movement. I’m thrilled with the opening of the publishing market to small presses and self-published authors for a number of reasons, including the fact that we will be getting more books that fit the Human Wave model. Even better, this “movement” can be applied to every genre. So who else is with me?
Cross-posted from Mad Genius Club
Posted in Musings | Tagged Dave Freer, Heinlein, Human Wave Science Fiction, Human Waver, Jungle in the Sky, Milton Lesser, Sarah A. Hoyt, Terry Pratchett, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress | Leave a Comment »
A couple of days ago, Sarah A. Hoyt’s post Bring Back That Wonder Feeling got a lot of people, yours truly included, thinking. The basic gist of the post (and this is just scratching the surface of it. Please, go read it yourselves) is that much of science fiction, and even fantasy, has lost that sense of wonder it once had. Too much is either dystopian or politically/socially correct claptrap stories. Looking at the comments that followed, both to that post and to the next (What is Human Wave Science Fiction), it is clear a number of people have wanted that feeling of wonder to return.
If you’re one of those who misses the days of entertaining stories, characters you can care about, etc., I recommend you check out the two posts linked above. I also recommend her post today, You Got to Move It Move It.
The reason I am so excited by these posts, and especially by the comments to them, is that it shows there are readers out there who want the sort of stories I like to read and, more importantly, the type I like to write. The fact writers now have the opportunity to publish our books through channels that bypass certain gatekeepers that still want to push political or social agendas that don’t seem to celebrate the human condition or individualism or, gasp, innovation means these books can now find their way to the marketplace. I don’t know about you, but that excites me.
So get thee over to According to Hoyt and read these posts. They are well worth your while, imo.
This morning at Mad Genius Club, I posted about how I’ve come to the decision that my advice to writers about keeping the politics separate from their careers was wrong. I started changing my mind when I watched a small number of authors and agents jumping all over anyone who dared disagree with them about whether or not Amazon is the cause of all publishing’s problems or whether the agency pricing model is a good thing or not. I’ve been pretty vocal about my thoughts on both issues. First, Amazon might not be anything close to a paragon of virtue, but it is by far NOT the big evil this small group of people want to make it out to be. As for agency pricing, even the publishers using it point out they don’t make as much money from it as they did from the previous pricing model. So how in the HELL can it be better for them, much less for authors?
But what finally threw the lid off my reticence to talk politics or religion or anything else I damn well please has been the rash of pile-ons by another group of very vocal folks (funny thing is, many of them are the same ones who think we should continue backing publishers that have been slowly continuing policies that are killing the industry) who feel they have the right to bash those who don’t agree with their social policy beliefs.
I’ve done my best to ignore most of the Facebook posts about the so-called Republican War on Women. But the final straw came over the last 48 hours when a group of them felt they had free rein to go to Sarah A. Hoyt’s blog and attack her because she dared not agree with what they had to say. After all, she wasn’t being loyal to her gender when she said employers shouldn’t be forced to pay for birth control for their female employees. They took offense when she commented that any war based on sex that is being waged in this country is against our men. They called her names, they suggested she leave the country and they howled in outrage when she finally started blocking the more offensive comments.
They accused her of stifling discussion and of not wanting to hear the truth. Of course, it was their “truth”, usually unsupported by hard facts or data. At best, most of the data cited was flawed because it mingled different “classes” of people (no, not economic or racial, but by age). This co-mingling would be enough for most statisticians to toss it out as being flawed. But that co-mingling was the only way this vocal group could make its point.
What was worse is that it was so clearly a case of someone being outraged at what Sarah had to say that she called/texted/pm’d her buddies and said they had an infidel to deal with. Most of the comments were nothing more than almost verbatim repetitions of the one before it. They weren’t interested in discussion. They were interested only in browbeating Sarah and those who dared agree with her. Most of all, they were interested in disrupting Sarah’s blog.
So, for the record, there is no war on women. There are some really stupid pieces of proposed legislation out there. Most are not sponsored by more than one or two loonies. There are a few with more sponsors. But the actual probability of these being passed into law are slim to none.
Moreover, assigning a sinister motive to an entire political party based on the actions of a few of its members is ridiculous.
I’m more worried about how we are raising our kids now. As the mother of a son, I’ve watched him being told by teachers and administrators that boys are bad. They have centuries of mistreatment of women to make up for. They are taught that women have never had any power and the feminist movement is a natural correction to that oversight. There are even history classes that teach women never had the right to own property, have a profession or ply a trade (other than prostitution) until the last century. There’s more, but I think you get my drift.
So, if I don’t agree that employers should be forced to pay for birth control — for the purposes only of not getting pregnant and not for any existing medical condition — if it is against the employer’s fundamental religious beliefs, get over it. No one forced that woman to go to work for that employer. There is this thing called personal responsibility.
And don’t give me the line of crap that the employee pays for the insurance. They only pay a portion of it. This is the real world, boys and girls, so grow the hell up.
I’ll go even further. I think the government, be it state or federal, should put limits on welfare and unemployment benefits. But, in doing so, it should also offer job training and placement services. But the days of going on the government dole and staying there for years, even decades, has to end. Of course, if there are medical reasons, that is a different story.
We have spent the last generation weakening our country and our citizens. We have become a country full of folks who feel entitled to whatever they want. If they don’t get it, they pitch a fit like a little kid in the grocery who doesn’t get the piece of candy he wants. They kick and scream and call names. And they don’t think about the consequences of their actions.
It’s like this trend we’ve had for much too long of not keeping score at kids’ games. The reason, well meaning I’m sure, is to make sure no kid has his feelings hurt. The problem is, it doesn’t teach a kid how to lose, how to fail. And if you never experience either a loss or a failure, what is there to drive you to seek to achieve a gain or a win?
This trend has moved from the playground into the classroom. There are schools now where homework is no longer mandatory. In fact, if a teacher assigns it, it can’t be graded. Some schools now allow students to retake exams as many times as they want if they failed. Classroom curriculum is a one size fits all in public schools. Teachers aren’t allowed to adapt their lesson plans to meet the needs of all their students. And yet people wonder why our scores are continuing to fall when compared to other countries.
Then there’s the consequence–yes, I know that’s a word a lot of folks don’t like to think about–of not teaching our kids how to fail, or how to achieve. They get to college or into the workforce and are suddenly faced with the fact that not all people are created, much less treated, equal. Not everyone is going to like them and–gasp–maybe they aren’t as wonderful as mommy and daddy and their teachers led them to believe.
Personal responsibility needs to be re-introduced to this country. It starts with something as simple as taking responsibility for obtaining your own birth control if it isn’t a medical necessity for some physical condition. Guys, it includes you making sure some form of birth control is being used unless you want to assume the responsibility for a child. You can’t rely on the women to do it. Most of us are pretty honest, but there are those who will tell you they are on the Pill or using an IUD and aren’t.
Personal responsibility as parents means teaching our kids that not everything in the world is good. Nor is the world fair. There are times it will kick you in the teeth and the only way to respond is to pick yourself up and work harder. If you se an injustice, it is your decision to determine how you will react–and you have to live with the consequences. The government needs to stay the hell out of our bedrooms (as long as they are occupied by consenting adults) and out of our kitchens. I don’t need it telling me what to eat or not to eat. I take the responsibility for my actions.
One commenter the other day said they are fighting for a society. Of course, they didn’t say what society. Nor did they seem to care that there might be folks who don’t want to be part of it. In fact, they didn’t care about much of anything as long as we all agreed with their opinions. Sorry, but think about how boring the world would be if we all agreed on everything and if the world was a social utopia.
I’ll go back to that “heretic” Heinlein: TANSTAAFL
It’s time we remembered that.
(Cross-posted from Mad Genius Club)
I’m a little late posting this morning because I’ve been going round and round about what to write. Dave did such a wonderful job yesterday discussing his thoughts on Mike Shatzkin’s blog about what he thinks will happen if the Department of Justice’s possible antitrust investigation into Apple and five of the big six publishers causes the agency pricing model to disappear. I’ve already covered my thoughts on Scott Turow’s letter about the issue. Then I made the mistake of reading some of the comments from the “enlightened” on it and, well, you guessed it. I’m weighing in again on the issue.
I’ll admit, part of the reason for this post is a thread started by what I can only term a publishing troll on one of the boards I read every morning. This person posted a defense of big publishing comment that included a statement that the people “attacking” legacy publishing are doing so because they don’t have the talent to be published by a “real” publisher.
I beg your pardon? Oh, and that grinding sound you hear is the sound of the teeth of innumerable mid-listers who have suddenly been cut loose by their publishers because, even though their books are still on the shelves more than a year after publication and even though there are continued demands from their fans for more in a series, the publisher claims they just didn’t connect with the public. And that evil laugh you hear is me as I contemplate what will happen when these same mid-listers, free of the fear of upsetting their publishing masters, finally demand full audits and the publishers are caught between a rock and a hard place because of their “creative” bookkeeping methods.
So, yeah, I’m in a pissy mood this morning. I’m tired of legacy publishers thinking they can pull the wool over the eyes of authors who should know better. I’m tired of them also thinking readers, those good folks who buy their products, as so dumb they can’t see what is happening. With that in mind, I’m going to revisit Shatzkin’s blog and some of the sources it cites.
From the opening paragraph: But if this does mean the end of the agency model, it would seem to be a cause for celebrating at Amazon and a catalyst for some deep contemplation by all the other big players in the book business.
Duh. Of course it will be “a catalyst for some deep contemplation”. The problem is, they should have been doing this “deep contemplation” years ago. Market trends and technology have been changing for the last three plus decades and yet the publishing industry hasn’t really embraced these changes. The publishers should have been concerned when the big box stores came onto the scene and forced the smaller, locally owned bookstores out of the market. But publishers weren’t. Oh no, not at all. They embraced these new stores, loving the fact they could do larger orders and write bigger checks. But now, with the economy and other trends causing these large stores to close down, publishing is running scared and blaming Amazon for the problems faced by these brick and mortar stores. But the truth of the matter is, Amazon is only one small part of the whole equation. Unfortunately, neither the big box stores nor publishers did any “deep contemplation” before things became so bad their entire companies are in danger of failing.
Agency pricing, for those who have not been following the most important development in the growth of the book market, enabled the publishers to enforce a uniform price for each ebook title across all retail outlets
Okay, pardon me while I laugh for a bit. Is he really saying agency pricing is the most important development in the growth of the book market? Sorry, but no. E-books are the most important development in the growth of the book market. If you’ve followed the sales numbers over the last few years, the only segment of the market to consistently grow, usually in triple digit percentage points, has been e-books. The only thing agency pricing has done is artificially inflate the price of certain e-books and that, in turn, has opened the market to small press published and self-published e-books.
This was Apple’s desired way to do business, and it addressed deep concerns the big publishers had about the effect of Amazon’s loss-leader discounting.
Okay, whether he meant to or not, he just admitted that agency pricing is something dreamed up by Steve Jobs and agreed to by five of the big six publishers. And, if you read the link included in the quote above, you will see this wonderful piece of logic from Macmillan: The agency model would allow Amazon to make more money selling our books, not less. We would make less money in our dealings with Amazon under the new model. Our disagreement is not about short term profitability but rather about the long-term viability and stability of the digital book market. Am I the only one to see all sorts of wrong in this statement? How in the world is lower profits for the publisher–which would mean less money for authors under most contracts–be good for the publisher? How is this sort of an agreement going to safeguard the “long-term viability and stability of the digital book”? It makes absolutely no sense. My opinion is that they went along with this because they wanted into iBooks/iTunes and the only way to do so was to accept Steve Jobs’ terms and that meant forcing Amazon, B&N and other e-book retailers to adopt the agency pricing model. Remember, the key to the agreement with Apple was that these publishers would not allow their e-books to be sold for less anywhere else. So Amazon isn’t the only market where these publishers would be making less money. Funny how folks seem to overlook this little item.
Back to Shatzkin: Although the WSJ article and Michael Cader’s follow up in Publishers Lunch make no “agency is dead” declaration and there are quotes from publishers and others indicating that there are a range of possible outcomes, including a version of agency that is modified to allow some discounting, everybody in the industry now has to contemplate what it would mean if the agency model is legally upended.
Again, why weren’t they already considering this? For one thing, the contracts signed with Amazon, B&N, etc., weren’t for perpetuity. There would soon be a time when they came up for renegotiation. For another, The European Union, not to mention more than a few states’ attorneys general, were already looking into the legalities of agency pricing. The fact that the industry hasn’t been considering “what ifs” simply shows how out of touch it is with the reality of the market these days.
To Amazon, it would mean they would be free to set prices on all books again, including the most high-profile and attractive ones that come from the big trade houses. That is an opportunity they are likely to seize with loss-leader discounting of the biggest marquee titles.
Ah, evil Amazon. Conducting its business as, gasp, a business. The ability to sell a product wanted by the public at a lower price has been an age-old tactic of shop owners and merchants. It gets folks through the doors, be they physical doors or cyber doors. And isn’t this basically what the brick and mortar stores did when they burst onto the market? They were able to price hard covers much less than the mom and pop bookstore could. That’s why the public initially loved these larger stores. It’s also why publishers loved them. These lower prices meant more units being sold. Funny how the publishers have forgotten that.
To Barnes & Noble, it would mean they have to devote cash resources to ebook discounting that they might have preferred to dedicate to further development of the Nook platform, maintaining the most robust possible brick-and-mortar presence, and improving the user experience at BN.com.
This very well may be true. The problem with this statement is that it omits the part about BN waiting too long to enter the e-book market. It forgets that BN spent too much time selling third-party e-book readers instead of developing and putting on the market its own e-book reader. It also ignores the fact that the BN online presence is not user friendly, especially not when it comes to e-books. It also lacks the vibrant online community Amazon has built.
Unconfirmed stories abound that B&N is about to announce an international expansion. Whether that will produce cash flow immediately or require it for a while is not yet known. For B&N’s sake, it would always better if it were the former, but if they’re about to fight discounting wars, it might be critical.
I seem to be saying, or at least thinking, “too little too late” a lot as I re-read Shatzkin’s post. BN needed this international expansion long ago. The fact that it may, finally, occur probably is too little too late. I’ll note here that this possible expansion is for e-books, not brick and mortar stores. Again, why has it taken this long? I’ll also note that the source Shatzkin cites is from August of last year. So far, to the best of my knowledge, that expansion has yet to occur.
To Kobo, it would mean that they also will need to devote cash resources to subsidizing price cuts to match Amazon. With their new ownership by Rakuten, they should have the capital they need to fight this battle. They must be glad that deal got done before agency was upended.
Nope, sorry. For those of you familiar with Kobo, you know they don’t always match Amazon prices. There are a number of titles Kobo offers for substantially higher prices than the same title is offered for on Amazon. And, before you ask, I’m talking about legacy published e-book titles. So I don’t see them trying to match prices with Amazon except on certain titles.
To Google, it would mean that the bookstore service piece of their ebook business will suddenly be highly challenged. Many independent stores might be pushed out of the ebook game completely; it certainly would be extremely difficult for them to support competition with Amazon’s prices. To Google itself, with their new Google Play configuration, it means they will have to both spend more margin and more management energy to be a serious competitor in the retail marketplace. There’s no clear evidence that they have the interest at the top to do that, although they certainly would have the resources.
Yes, I’m laughing again. Google’s e-book business is already highly challenged. They’ve dropped the number of stores able to take part in their program. Their interface for authors and small presses leaves a lot to be desired. As for Google Play, why is Amazon the only reason they would have problems? Doesn’t Shatzkin remember a little company called Apple and its iTunes store? Or does he not see the parallels between Google Play and iTunes?
To Apple, it would mean that their entire iBookstore model is in question. They apparently didn’t want to take on all the normal responsibilities of a merchant, which would include setting prices. Now they may have to.
Oh, cry me a river. If Steve Jobs hadn’t presented the agency model to publishers and said “accept or else”, we’d not be having this discussion. But then, I’m just a bitter small publisher employee who can’t put our e-books directly onto iTunes/iBooks because we use PCs and not Macs, something required to use their interface. And, btw, they are the only storefront for e-books that we’ve come across that requires a certain computing platform in order to upload a file.
To all the big publishers, including Random House (the one of the Big Six not being sued, because they stayed out of agency for the first year and therefore were not considered part of the “collusion”) it would mean that they will have to painfully reverse the re-pricing and systems adjustments they went through to implement agency in the first place.
“Painfully”? How can it be painful if they can return to a pricing model where they made more money? Remember the quote from the Macmillan post above. It was admitted then that agency model pricing meant less money for publishers.
Smaller publishers and distributors might be beneficiaries if agency is eliminated, but they might not. The agency model is a great advantage for those publishers who are able to fully implement it. But that is only six publishers — the Big Six — because Amazon has simply refused to let anybody else sell to them that way.
I ask again, how is ia great advantage for publishers when these same publishers admit they don’t make as much money from agency pricing as they did before? As for Amazon refusing to let anyone else use agency pricing, good for them. It means Amazon is looking out for the economic well-being of the company and making sure it keeps its shareholders happy. It also means Amazon is looking out for its customers. But that’s a bad thing I guess because, gasp, it isn’t saving legacy publishing from the follies of the boardrooms in NYC.
That creates problems for the smaller publishers but an even more threatening one for distributors. All but the Big Six, if they want to sell to both Amazon and Apple, must operate a “hybrid” model, selling Apple on agency terms and Amazon on wholesale terms. The two are inherently in conflict. What is ultimately a threat to the distributors is that distributees that desire agency terms, and many would. might seek distribution deals from one of the Big Six. (It might be coincidental, but it is worth noting that IPG, the company having a fight with Amazon at the moment over terms, is a distributor.)
Okay, here is where I have to watch myself. It doesn’t create a problem for small publishers. We set our own prices both with Amazon and with Apple. If one lowers the price for promo reasons, the other can and does the same. As for the two being inherently in conflict, thank Apple. As noted before, Jobs required the first five of the big six to accept agency pricing or not sell in iBooks. Blaming Amazon for something it had no control over is ridiculous.
As for the threat to distributors, get real. I’ll admit distributors have a role in publishing, but not when it comes to e-books. Sorry, but there is no reason a small press has to use a distributor to get into Amazon or BN. The process is simple and relatively pain free to upload titles to either of these stores. Given the proper Apple computer, I assume it is for iTunes/iBooks as well. So I have no sympathy for IPG or other distributors moaning the fact Amazon won’t let them go to agency pricing. As an author I have even less sympathy because I know publishers take out the cost of distribution before figuring royalties. Why would I want to lower my already too small royalty payments?
Of course, we don’t know how the Big Publishers will respond if they’re forced off agency. It’s long been my opinion that the 50% discount for ebooks is unworkable. It leads to ridiculous and unrealistic retail prices. (Publishers operating on the hybrid model have to have two retail prices: one on which to base the wholesale discount and another at Apple operating agency-style. It’s crazy.) Would the big publishers, if they couldn’t do agency, keep the 30% discount and their current prices? Would they go back to the 50% discount and jack the suggested retail prices back up? If they did the former and nothing else changed, the smaller publishers could be at a much greater disadvantage than they are now.
Ah, the economic double-speak. First of all, small publishers won’t be at a “much greater disadvantage” because we will still be pricing below major publishers. Why? Because our overhead is much smaller. Also, for those of us with a limited paper-side publishing, we aren’t trying to artificially prop up the hard copy publishing arm with the digital arm. And that is exactly what the legacy publishers are doing. They are trying to use their e-book sales to keep the print side alive.
The other thing Shatzkin keeps overlooking is the fact that publishers aren’t making as much per sale under agency pricing as they did before. So, going back to the previous pricing method would actually give them more money in their pockets. How that is a bad thing, I don’t know.
Over time, the biggest losers here will be the authors. The independent authors will feel the pain first. Agency pricing creates a zone of pricing they can occupy without much competition from branded merchandise. When the known authors are only available at $9.99 and up, the fledgling at $0.99-$2.99 looks very attractive and worth a try. Ending agency will have the “desired” effect of bringing all ebook prices down. As the big book prices are reduced, the ability of the unknowns to use price as a discovery tool will diminish as well. In the short run, it will be the independent authors who will pay the biggest price of all.
This guy really should try his hand as a comedian because he’s killing me here. First of all, do any of us really see legacy publishers pricing their books under $5.99, much less as low as $2.99? And let’s forget about the fact that they already have e-books in the $7.99 range. The loss of agency pricing will simply allow best sellers and new releases to come down in price to something more readers will be willing to pay. This will be, in my opinion, back in the $9.99 range and there simply aren’t that many self-published or small press published titles that are in that range.
With regard to his comment that the lower prices will make it harder for “unknowns” to price their titles low enough to be discovered by the average reader, wrong again. I would be very surprised if legacy publishers will price any book, much less a new release, at less than $7.99. Remember, they are using e-books to prop up their print divisions. If they price low enough to shut out these so-called “unknowns”, they will have to do some major cost cutting somewhere and that isn’t going to happen. They like their plush offices and they’ve already cut out or outsourced so much of the editorial process that it isn’t funny.
But, in the long run, all authors will just get less. They will join the legion of suppliers beholden to a retailer whose mission is to deliver the lowest possible price to the consumer.
Authors already get less. Most authors are not paid royalties based no cover price, not really. Publishers take out expenses. So, if an e-book has a price of $12.99 and the publisher gets 30% of that under agency pricing, that starts the share of the pie the author gets to look at at $3.90. Believe me, the author is not getting much of that at all. Once more, I remind you of what the Macmillan post said. Agency pricing means less money for publishers than the previous pricing plan paid. Less money for publishers means less money for authors.
Seth Godin has recently made the argument that this is simply inevitable. Perhaps it is. The laws of supply and demand would support that contention. But from my personal perspective, I don’t like seeing the government hasten the process along.
Could this be because he works with/for publishers? I am not, and never have been, one to want our government interfering in business. However, we do have laws and the Department of Justice is tasked with upholding these laws. If there has been collusion between the publishers and Apple — and I think it is pretty clear there has been — then those laws need to be applied to them.
The truth of the matter is simple. Agency pricing has hurt publishers and hasn’t done what they wanted–it hasn’t saved their print divisions. Those sales continue to fall while e-book sales continue to rise. Amazon is not the only reason for the problems publishers face. Despite what one commenter on the thread that got me started on this this morning said about publishing’s business model not being broken, it is. Until legacy publishers address ALL the issues facing them and not just try to save things by artificially inflating e-book prices, the industry will continue to flounder. Just a few of the issues they need to address are:
1. the failure of agency pricing to do as they wanted
2. low royalty rates to authors
3. cutting of mid-list authors, traditionally the work horses of the industry, as a cost-cutting means to allow them to continue paying higher advances to their so-called best sellers (note here that those advances have fallen just as have the advances to mid-listers)
4. lack of push or promotion for books
5. decline of physical bookstores (yes, Amazon has had a hand here, but so has the economy, over-expansion of the big box stores after pushing the locally owned stores out of the market, mismanagement of the big box stores, etc.)
6. decline in the quality of their product (publishers have cut their editorial staffs, often use interns to do copy edits and proofreading, lower quality bindings and paper, etc)
7. economic downturns that have people unable or unwilling to pay $10 for a paperback or $30 for a hard cover
There are a number of others as well. But agency pricing is not the savior of the industry. Amazon is not the big bad that a few outspoken publishers and authors would have us believe. Publishing is plagued by what could almost be termed a perfect storm, a combination of factors that it failed to see coming and that it has failed to effectively deal with once those factors could no longer be denied.
One of my main beefs with big box stores is the way corporate bean counters have taken away local and regional discretion on ordering books for a store. There once was a time when a store manager could place an order for multiple copies of a book to be sold at that store because a local author sold well. Those same managers could order enough books for a teacher’s class if needed — and without the teacher having to pay up front. But those days are, for the most part gone. Worse, an Alaskan author has been caught in the middle of the world v. Amazon battle — and no one is standing up for that author against BN because, duh, Amazon is involved.
This morning’s edition of Shelf Awareness Pro tells the story of Alaskan author Debbie Dahl Edwardson. Her latest book, My Name is not Easy, isn’t available in Alaskan Barnes & Noble stores because her publisher was purchased by Amazon last year. Now, the interesting thing is that prior to Amazon buying the publisher, Marshall Cavendish, Ms. Edwardson’s book was apparently available. From the Anchorage Daily News: “An email from the Anchorage Barnes & Noble store informed her that her book, “My Name is Not Easy,” would no longer be available on their shelves.”
Would no longer be available on their shelves. NO LONGER BE AVAILABLE.
Sigh. So, a book they had been selling, a book that was nominated for a National Book Award last year, has been removed from the shelves. A book written by a popular local author has been removed. A bookd the Anchorage B&N manager said had been doing well. Why? Because the publisher was purchased by Amazon. No other reason except it is now tainted by THE EVIL THAT IS AMAZON.
And no one is up in arms about this. No writers are hitting social media condemning Barnes and Noble for taking income away from an author, from keeping reading material out of the hands of the buying public.
But the thing that really has me shaking my head is that BN has forced stores to remove a book from the shelves that was selling well, at least locally. And then they want our sympathy for their economic problems. Sorry, that dog don’t hunt. That would be like a coffee grower burning down part of its crop just because the plantation next to it was growing the same type of beans.
Understand, Amazon wasn’t taking this title as an exclusive. In fact, there is news today that Amazon’s latest line of e-books will not be exclusive only to Amazon.
Now, before you claim I’m applying a double standard here, I’m not. B&N has the right to choose what books it will and won’t sell. Just as Amazon does, even though the lemmings I’ve written about earlier don’t think so. However, my beef is with the policy that prevents a store manager from being able to order books for the local buying public that help make money for the store. My beef is with the double standard being presented by a certain group of writers who are so quick to condemn Amazon for not “doing right” by authors but they don’t hold the big box stores to the same standard.
I agree with what Ms. Edwardson had to say about all this calling it “the latest in a series of sad moves that keeps books from readers and punishes individual writers for decisions they had no say over.”