(cc photo: Sarah Browning)
Boy, the folks at Amazon.com sure are mean–to hear the New York Times tell it.
A March 18 story by Motoko Rich and Brad Stone begins:
Amazon.com has threatened to stop directly selling the books of some publishers online unless they agree to a detailed list of concessions regarding the sale of electronic books, according to two industry executives with direct knowledge the discussions.
It’s very clear who’s the villain in the story, tabbed on the website as “Amazon May Impede Access to Some Publishers’ Books”: The story talks about how the online bookseller is “pressuring publishers” with its “hardball approach,” shortly after it was “widely accused of abusing its position” with similar tactics that “shocked the publishing world.” If Amazon keeps it up, “it could harm its reputation in the eyes of customers and the publishing industry” and (in the words of a source) do “serious long-term damage to their own brand.”
By implication, the hero would be Apple, which is also entering the electronic book market. Apple’s business model, at any rate, doesn’t get the harsh spin from the Times that Amazon receives.
Which is funny, because Apple’s plan would result in consumers paying from 30 percent to 50 percent more to buy most e-books, and prevent publishers from allowing anyone else to undercut Apple’s inflated prices. It’s a terrible deal for consumers, whom you would think make up the majority of readers even in the Times‘ Business section–but the piece is written with the unstated assumption that we’re all rooting for the publishers.
The word “profit” only comes up once in the article, in reference to the $9.99 Amazon wants to charge for titles for its e-book reader: “Many Kindle owners have said the low price motivates them to buy more e-books, but publishers feared that the price would eventually erode their profits.” But it was Rich, one of the article’s co-authors, who did the reporting (3/1/10) that showed that the $9.99 price would give publishers about the same profit they make selling a hardcover for $26–and that the $12.99 price (let alone $14.99) gives them a significantly higher margin.
As FAIR pointed out at the time (FAIR Blog, 3/2/10), however, Rich’s earlier piece was likewise heavily spun so as to avoid giving readers the accurate impression that higher e-book prices are a rip-off for consumers. So it’s not surprising that the same pro-publisher slant is found in her coverage today.
Terrific and to the point. I wish I’d seen it before writing a million words :-)
Thanks for the perspective.
This is crazy–a market gets more participants and the prices go up! Where’s the DOJ?
The ten million dollar question is:
Does the NYT have a deal with Apple already for selling it on the iPad?
Better yet:
Isn’t the NYT owned by a media conglomerate which also owns one of the big 6 publishers?
…
Also, isn’t this whole affair already entering the illegal zone at this point? This all sounds like price collusion to me.
What Apple is trying to do is known as setting a price floor, and it used to be a clearcut violation of anti-trust law. In 2007, the Supreme Court issued several rulings weakening anti-trust, and one of them said that a price floor could be legal if it promoted competition in the bigger picture. I’m not sure how you would argue that Apple’s plan does that, but no doubt Apple’s lawyers could explain it to you.
Ah, but what about the authors?
The concept of an e-book is that you can cut out all of the expensive middlemen (and women) by eliminating printing, distribution, and returns.
However, all of these deals seem to mysteriouisly usually offer the actual author (without whom the book would never exist) a smaller and smaller cut of the deal.
What’s up with that?
Well, the New York Times never used a hardball business approach in its entire history! (Did it?)
Competition is a beautiful thing. If Apple truly offers consumers a “terrible deal,” as you put it, then they will ultimately lose. And consumers will win. So much for “fiendish plots.”
Indeed, competition often is a beautiful thing, which is why Apple’s efforts to fix prices are unfortunate.
Book publishers are fighting a losing battle with their attempts to artificially maintain high prices for ebooks. Medium sized and small publishers as well as self-published authors will lower their prices to sell more books. Which means the buying public may pay more for best sellers but why should they for the normal dregs cranked out by the big houses? They switch to cheaper titles at lower prices from medium-small publishers and self-published.
What Apple is doing is bad for everyone.
What Amazon is doing is good for everyone.
Apple bad. Amazon good.
It’s so obvious that we don’t need the DOJ.
If Apple didn’t make such cool stuff they’d be out of business.