As I’m sure many are doing, I was contemplating the coverage of the whole Amazon/Hachette thing, and I think I twisted myself up with the logic of certain people writing about the issues. Walk through this with me and see if it tracks.
Authors such as Douglas Preston are publishing or signing open letters complaining that Amazon is “Refusing to discount the prices of many of Hachette’s authors’ books.”
It seems a reasonable assumption that the Amazon/Hachette disagreement has something to do with Hachette wanting a return to agency pricing. The assumption is supported by the recent move by Macmillan and S&S filing a brief in opposition to Judge Cote’s final order to Apple. According to The Digital Reader, who was reporting on an article in Publisher’s Weekly:
Lawyers from two of the 5 publishers were back in court last week, objecting to the terms of Apple’s settlement. In appeals filed last week, lawyers for Macmillan and S&S argue that Judge Denise Cote’s 2013 final order against Apple made it virtually impossible for the publishers to successfully negotiate new agency model contracts which included retail price maintenance.
Granted, Hachette wasn’t one of the two, but do you really believe they feel differently?
In case you’ve forgotten, agency pricing means that Amazon (and other retailers) are prevented from discounting.
So, assuming the Hachette authors (and others) who are speaking out against Amazon get what they want (for Hachette to prevail), they will likely guarantee they will receive exactly what they are complaining about: No discounting.
This makes sense how?
Oh, and let’s just assume, for fun, that Hachette is encouraging its authors to speak out. That makes this really twisted.
Am I missing something here?