Amazon, Hachette, and...oh yeah, I have a blog.

(I originally conceived this to be a series of tweets, but in the end, it was just to much to say, but that's why it might seem a bit choppy).

Lots of letters going around about Amazon and Hachette.   I have thoughts (that are solely my own).  

The petition is interesting, in that I don’t know what it’s trying to accomplish. Support Amazon? That’s fine…but why do they really need support? I'm pretty sure they're doing okay on their own (consider that Amazon rarely makes statements, making this one from Russ Grandinetti so intriguing).

But it does bring up some good points, namely: publishing is evolving, and there are certain advantages to the Amazon model: 

• It does pay higher royalties 
• The author does have more control 
• It generally has lower prices 

On the other hand, there are problems with the petition’s arguments: 

• eBook royalties are on net revenue, NOT list price (for everyone) 
• “traditional publishing” offers many resources in addition to advances and royalties: things that indy authors have to pay out of their pockets 
• The digital bookspace IS growing, but print is by no means dead, and that’s an important component for both writers and readers 

Sp why ANY author would want to burn a potential avenue to new readers (especially Howey, who has a deal with S&S)—in either direction—is strange to me.  Multiple eggs.  One basket. 

And Amazon has been great for many authors—but so has traditional publishing (even with the BN kerfluffle, how many pBooks did WOOL sell?).

The fact is, the number of indy authors making a living off their writing is a tiny percentage of the number of indy authors.  This is true of all authors, anywhere. Yes, at least authors ARE making money off their works, when they might have been denied the opportunity before, but how many are actually able to quit their jobs versus how many authors have a self-published book?

The odds are stacked against you, no matter what.

And too, like Cory Doctorow's article points out, if you're stuck into an eco-system, how long before that eco-system turns on you? More on that below.

For now, though, I'd like to take a look at the letter from the multiple authors, which is also interesting, and it also feels like a sincere plea.  But… 

Yes, these authors have made Amazon millions.  But, in return, Amazon has sold millions of their books, making them millions. 

As publishers, we should be worried about Amazon cutting into our profits—we’re businesses, after all. 

But we also don’t seem willing to “stand up for principle” either.  Why don’t we pull our books from Amazon?  Because we know it won’t truly hurt them. 

And yes, you could email Bezos if you’re upset by this.  But shouldn't you also email the head of Hachette (or, if we're remembering who we're actually dealing with here, Lagardère Publishing)? Tell them to maybe start selling books directly, and at a discount? 

But they won’t do that: it would upset other booksellers (bookstores, iTunes, Kobo, etc), and that’s the catch-22. Books are a business dependent on two other businesses: 

• First: authors, to produce content. 

• Second: booksellers, to sell that content.

  

And that’s why Hachette won’t just say “screw you” to Amazon: because Amazon still makes them too much money.

As I said above, Cory Doctorow notes this in his article in The Guardian.  He calls Hachette hostages... or at least the headline does.

But the headline is a bit misleading (and I'd love to know if it was Cory or the copy-chief who came up with it) when you read the article, because the article also talks about what the change.org petitition says (although perhaps not as eloquently):

Namely, that most publishers are stuck in the Amazon eco-system because of choices THEY made. And the only way to change is to violently rip our DRM from that system.  In other words, Hachette is a hostage, but they also walked into the rusty van because Amazon had them a lot of candy.

And now they have a stomach ache.

 Yes, the "traditiona" model still works, but nobody has said it’s perfect (and I think even the best-paid authors would agree—I know every agent I talks to would!).  Especially if the value of a publishing contract is solely in the terms of advances and royalties (and not the resources a publisher is also going to--or supposed to--provide the author and their book).

It's important, though, to remember that the model isn't really in question in the current dispute.  And, even more important, neither company is negotiating in terms of the authors.  

So if Hachette “wins,” it’s not like they’re going to up their royalty splits with the authors.

These are two giant companies.  Sadly, I doubt individual authors even come up in these meetings, except as potential leverage. 

  

As an aside, I’ve talked about this with many of my friends outside of publishing, and the thing is: they couldn't tell you the difference between publishers and imprints.Many have heard of Random House and Penguin, but most don’t follow imprints (or know who publishes their favorite authors). We've spent so much time with "author as the brand," that hearing a bookstore has a sale on "Hachette books" can't mean a whole heck of a lot to most readers.  Even I can't name all the authors an imprints at my own company, let alone at Hachette. 

So while most people seem to side with the authors on this (including me: I want to be clear, I think it sucks that they're books aren't available through Amazon; I'll also be clear: I buy most of my books through Amazon, and tend to only buy them when they're on steep discount), I don’t think there’s much indignation against Amazon outside the industry. 

And that’s sad: it should be a bigger deal. 

But it should also be a wake-up call to publishers, since we've given away much of our connection to readers.

  

It wasn't long ago that we all clapped when Amazon came on the stage, and it was even more recent that we all were excited for the possibility of Kindle.

And we also forgot (and tend to forget) this fact: this is a business, and Amazon is a business, and their job isn’t to “preserve literature” (to loosely paraphrase James Patterson).

 Amazon isn’t a museum.  It’s not a curator.  It’s a store.  And unless you publish directly with them, they’re not an author’s partner.  They're their distributor.

But the author letter seems to think they ARE partners, especially when they talk about how authors have provided tons of content for Amazon.  But it’s the same they’d do for anything where there’s an opportunity to sell more books, which is almost certainly how Amazon views it, too: you reach our customers through our promotions, you sell more books, WE sell more books, and everyone makes more money.

  

And consider the argument that the authors are doing this for free, and deserve some consideration now in return (The argument basically reading "after all we did for you, and this is how you repay us?").  

Now consider that a blog post on Amazon reaches 100,000s of readers (and potentially millions): ad space on one of the biggest websites in the world isn’t exactly content-for-nothing.

 I know, it sounds like I'm defending Amazon.  And, on some points I am.Yes, I worked at Amazon, and I loved it.  I think the people there are great, and the authors I worked with amazing people.

But I didn’t work on the retail side.  And if I did, I still wasn’t at the level where I would have been in on these discussions.   

I say this all because I'm not trying to apologize for them.  I just think I bring a different perspective, one from both sides, that might be interesting to others (I do wish it was also a bit more interesting reading, but it's definitely a bit disjointed--I DO apologize for that!).

 Obviously you’re free to disagree with me (heck, I’m disagreeing with most of you!).  But I can't help feel frustrated that this discussion seems so narrowly focused.  Especially since, as an industry, we should be looking beyond this immediate moment. It's an important moment, and shouldn't be dismissed, but unless we look down the road, and look where this will land (and not in the hope that the DOJ will break-up Amazon or somehow they'll find the error of their ways, but things in OUR power), we are in such a touch spot.

What we should be doing is:

• We should be exploring ways to have better control over our own product.
• We should be more dynamic with our business dealings: lower advances, escalating royalties, bonus structures. 
• We should be building our brands—and NOT just the authors, but our imprints. 
•  We should innovate and take risks, instead of reacting.
•  We should have long-term plans that might radically change some underlying principles of our business.

 How do we implement these changes?  How do we innovate?  Those are the tough questions.

But they’re questions that are necessary and immediate.  Amazon has shown their hand: they’re not defenders of content, nor should we expect them to be. It's naive to think that a store owes us anything 

*Remember, they took a risk of selling the product, creating an infrastructure and overhead on their own dime.  Too, remember that Amazon doesn't return books back to publishers; they accept all the risk when they make book orders.

No, they aren't books' defenders. WE are.  Publishers.  Authors.  It’s OUR content.  

(Another aside: That’s where the petition is both wrong AND spot on. As an author, you  have options, and one of them is a partnership with a publisher.  That partnership is a collaboration, and it isn’t a one-way street of communication. For some authors, it will feel like that.  Hell, for some editors, it feels like that.  For there are authors who don’t want to be in a partnership—they want to be in control from soup-to-nuts. And, if you’re willing to do the work, then BE in control: self-publish! But if you want the resources, access, and expertise, then a publisher (even Amazon Publishing) will require compromise.  A good one will, at least. I can’t speak for all publishers.  Sometimes I can’t speak for myself: I get frustrated when author’s don’t take my suggestions.  But that’s because there ARE people involved.)

And unless we once again take ownership of that content (which other publishers--self-publishers--are doing), it can look like that bleak future that keeps getting predicted for the industry is becoming more an more a reality. And a lot of people are going to find themselves in a tough spot, authors and publishers alike.

Yet, that’s the thing I think keeps getting lost: this dispute isn’t about people. 

 Yes, it AFFECTS people.  It affects them big time.

 But this is about money.  This is about market share.  This is about leverage and power.  It’s tangentially about books, and even less so about authors.

I hate that’s the case, but unless we take a step back from our fear and anger (or adulation and reverence), it’s difficult to talk about this in a way that may actually generate solutions.  And that should be what we're trying to take from this, at least at the industry level.  Because whatever the outcome, things have now radically changed for books and authors.

The people who continue to be radical in changing more are surely going to find themselves in a better space.

---

One last thing: I started this because this is all rhetoric.  These letters.  Amazon’s and Hachette’s statements.  Even my words, now.

 These aren’t facts without emotion: all of these communications are designed to help you take a side.  I'm not a journalist.  Rather, I'm a guy with a blog and some experience on both sides of the fence.

 So it’s easy to fall into the trap of the semantic argument: nitpicking individual words and phrases—that’s how debaters do it.  Looking back at my words, I've done it a few times myself.

 But always consider: what are these people really trying to say.  

• Is Amazon really good for customers? 
• Do they really champion authors?
• Is Hachette acting in their authors best interest? 
• Do they truly care about readers, per se?

Because actions speak louder than words.  And unfortunately, Amazon is the only one acting. 

And with that, I’m going to read some more submissions.