SFG75
Well-Known Member
The Nation recently came out with this piece regarding what they feel to be, unsavory business practices on the part of amazon.
O.K., The Nation is a fine publication, but I disagree with their assessment and here is why. Bargaining and driving a hard bargain is not illegal in this country. Amazon is not entitled to do business with anyone, neither are publishers entitled to do business with Amazon. is the service good for customers?, yes! Is it good for publishers?, yes! It is good for the latter in that books are moved consistently off the shelves and into homes. It is good for customers because they don't have to pay extortion money, such as $50.000 for a $28.00 book. The price of books today in brick and mortar establishments is enough to make you shake your head. How many people here rush to Borders to plunk down $40.00 in cash for one book?:whistling:
The first example cited in the article made me chuckle. The use of the comments about amazon promising to be a "nice" company was something else. I suppose it had its intended effect with garden burger eating hip-liberals, but for everyone else, it falls flat. I think most leaders make schmaltzy-lame comments like that. I don't care if a company is run by Gandhi, but when it comes to low prices and the best bargain, Gordon Gekko had better be in charge.:
So, what do you guys think? I believe the title is wrong, it should be "publishers" instead of customers.
Another man who recently lost his Amazon buy buttons is John Sargent, head of Macmillan, the US arm of German book giant Holtzbrinck, home to many authors familiar to Nation readers, including Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky and Barbara Ehrenreich. In January Sargent confronted Amazon over its insistence on setting the prices of e-books it sold on its site, generally at under $10. This was a concern throughout an industry worried that low prices of electronic versions would undermine profits from printed books and generally lower the perceived value of the product. Sargent informed Amazon that he wanted to move Macmillan to an "agency agreement," meaning that he, as the publisher, could price books at whatever level he chose, paying Amazon a fixed discount.
Amazon reacted with characteristic distemper: bye-bye Macmillan's buy buttons. A face-off ensued. Amazon was vehement that its stand was on behalf of customers looking for bargains. A gallery of cynics openly suspected it had more to do with securing the future of its proprietary e-book reader, the Kindle, in the face of Apple's imminent launch of the competing iPad.
O.K., The Nation is a fine publication, but I disagree with their assessment and here is why. Bargaining and driving a hard bargain is not illegal in this country. Amazon is not entitled to do business with anyone, neither are publishers entitled to do business with Amazon. is the service good for customers?, yes! Is it good for publishers?, yes! It is good for the latter in that books are moved consistently off the shelves and into homes. It is good for customers because they don't have to pay extortion money, such as $50.000 for a $28.00 book. The price of books today in brick and mortar establishments is enough to make you shake your head. How many people here rush to Borders to plunk down $40.00 in cash for one book?:whistling:
The first example cited in the article made me chuckle. The use of the comments about amazon promising to be a "nice" company was something else. I suppose it had its intended effect with garden burger eating hip-liberals, but for everyone else, it falls flat. I think most leaders make schmaltzy-lame comments like that. I don't care if a company is run by Gandhi, but when it comes to low prices and the best bargain, Gordon Gekko had better be in charge.:
So, what do you guys think? I believe the title is wrong, it should be "publishers" instead of customers.