The Shatzkin Files


Agency seems (to me) to be working; I hope it’s legal


A year ago, before Agency was ever publicly discussed, I was grasping for what publishers could do to get control of ebook pricing and curtail, or at least manage, the degree to which ebooks undercut paper and, in turn, brick-and-mortar. At the time, people told me that it was possible for a manufacturer to control the pricing of their goods at retail and pointed to Apple’s success doing that and to other manufacturers like Bose that managed to do it. I believe the key was that they controlled the entire supply chain, right to the point of consumer purchase (although we know that other retailers do sell Apple products.)

I never got a grip on how this could be made to work, legally.

Then, along came Agency. The concept is that the publisher is the selling party in the retail transaction so the publisher sets the price. The intermediaries (the retailers) wouldn’t actually buy and sell the goods, as they always did. They would, instead, be “agents” for the publisher. That approach pushes the responsibility for sales tax back to the publisher, no trivial matter (although services are springing up to help with it). But it gives the publisher price control.

From Publishers Lunch, and then picked up by the Wall Street Journal, comes the news that the Attorney-General in Texas is investigating Apple and the publishers participating in Agency over the legality of the Agency arrangement. For publishers who had been struggling for years with the real market control exercised by Amazon, Apple’s arrival on the scene and willingness to accept unform pricing across outlets (to be followed shortly by Google doing the same) constituted liberation.

But one can see a logic to the Texas investigation. Amazon’s strategies required no cooperation with any other company. They bought the ebooks at the prices publishers charged them and sold them at the price they thought was best for them in the marketplace. But the Agency agreement with Apple (as I understand it; I’ve never seen one) allows (or maybe requires) that Apple meet any lower price for the same title offered by another retailer. So there is a “combination” and it is “restraining” trade. That’s a speaker-of-English talking here (which I am), not a lawyer (which I’m not.)

It would make many publishers very unhappy if the Agency model were deemed illegal. One major house CEO I spoke with two weeks ago was positively rhapsodic about the control the new paradigm gives the publisher. That CEO told me about one major bestseller at their publishing house which suffered no loss of unit sales when the price went up from the Amazon-set $9.99 to the Agency price of $12.99. Struck by that, the CEO further raised the price of that title to $14.99 and saw immediate sales erosion. So, two weeks later, the CEO took the price back down to $12.99 for that title, where it sits.

As this person said, “I can’t ever see going back. I have never had this ability to maximize revenue before or to experiment with pricing.”

I’m personally persuaded that universal set prices for ebooks are good for the industry and, ultimately, for consumers. They will definitely foster competition among retailers. My belief for a long time has been that the day will come when almost all web sites will offer their own curated selection of ebooks. (Why shouldn’t ESPN.com be selling the new Willie Mays or Steinbrenner biography?) That will work great in a price-set world. It would make the retailing opportunity about “location, location, location”, rather than “price.” It would boost sales for publishers and authors by putting ebooks a click away from interested consumers across the Web. But it isn’t going to happen if web sites figure that their curation efforts will just be triggers to send people to a deep-pocketed etailer that is pricing for market share.

It would appear that the Agency model is good for just about everybody except the etailers that would use price to drive others out of the market. But will it ultimately be ruled legal? I don’t think we know yet.

Late add: The vision of every-site-a-curated-bookstore got some confirmation a couple of hours after I posted this when Ingram and F+W Media announced a partnership by which Ingram will power sales of all publishers’ ebooks through the online stores F+W operates for their communities. I’d expect this to become increasingly common.

  Back to blog

  • http://www.directebooks.com/ Gareth Cuddy

    I agree particularily with your last point on “curated selections of eBooks”. They would be a natural fit for many sites/businesses and Agency pricing insulates Publishers. I think we will see a lot more small-medium publishers offering their own eBooks through their own sites/communities in the very near future.

  • http://gravitationalpull.net/wp/ ampressman

    I don't agree with much of your analysis at all but I'll skip that. I did want to point out the contract provision that has been widely reported and likely is the focus of legal scrutiny isn't what you're describing. The agency deals with Apple reportedly prohibit publishers from allowing any other retailer to undercut the agency price. Agreed to by all 5 of the “agency” deal publishers, that sounds a lot like a restraint of trade, similar to to the mess record labels got into with minimum advertised pricing in the 1990s.

  • http://hybernationmusic.blogspot.com John Hagewood

    Mike, I enjoy your blog and you are obviously a very smart and experienced person. But honestly, when you say “It would appear that the Agency model is good for just about everybody except the etailers that would use price to drive others out of the market”, aren't you forgetting about the one “party” that matters the MOST in this equation? THE CONSUMER. I don't agree with Amazon's “loss leader” pricing, but I also don't see how some of the RIDICULOUS eBook pricing we've seen recently, especially from Penguin, benefits consumers in the least. By omitting consumers from the equation, I believe the “Agency 5″ are simply hastening their own demise.

  • http://alturl.com/tnap John Austin

    What in the hell would be illegal about the agency model? Is it illegal for the creator, or who s/he gives rights to, to price their own work?

  • steve

    Hi John,

    I must take issue with you on two points. First, is your statement that consumers are taken out of the equation. I believe that under the Agency system that consumer buying decisions will be the main determinant of the prices.

    Second is your seeming assumption that prices that are initially set too high will stay up there. Some of the Penguin prices do seem to me, also, to be way too high. If so, market forces will drive them down.

    With Agency, the publishers will know exactly how many units they sell of each item, and for how much. If they're like any other business, they'll keep an eye on their sales figures. They'll be able to look at comparative sales figures from before and after the agency agreement. If lower prices tend to show higher revenue (that is, number of sales times price per unit), they will lower the unit prices. Through trial and error, and perhaps some price leadership, they'll stumble across something close to the ideal price point.

  • Lee

    Great Blog! I really enjoy your insight into the publishing world. I think there is a misconception about the publisher's freedom of pricing under the agency model…at least with Apple. eBook prices are determined based on a pricing grid set by Apple in relation to the printed book, so who really has the power of pricing? In the example provided above, the CEO would not have the flexibility to adjust the price from $9.99 to $12.99 or even $14.99 to test the market because the maximum price allowed per the grid would force the price to remain at $9.99 or lower.

  • Eric

    “As this person said, “I can’t ever see going back. I have never had this ability to maximize revenue before or to experiment with pricing.””

    Cool. So we, as consumers, get to suffer through the publishers playing with their new toy and figuring out how to price things. Information the retailers already have and have been using to their (and their customer's) benefit. Charming. And timed so well right with an explosion of eReaders on or hitting the market.

    I'm also glad to hear the publishers are happy making $9.10 on that $12.99 agency-priced title when they were probably making $12 wholesale in the past. Just another data point that shows the publishers really don't have any clue about what they're doing.

  • Matt D

    Pricing pricing pricing – what will best lure readers into punching that “Buy” button?

    Here is what I haven't seen discussed. What if best-selling authors, particularly those of the mystery/thriller/pulse pounding narrative variety, offered their new works digitally BY THE CHAPTER?

    Purchase a chapter of the new Thomas Harris (dream on, Matt) for 99 cents. The next chapter will be available next Saturday at midnight, and for every Saturday at midnight for the next 30 weeks. You can purchase by the chapter, or you can purchase the entire 30 chapters for $14.99 (half price of the chapter download) and have the content downloaded automatically to your eReader.

    Such a chapter by chapter release model worked pretty well for Dickens and Dumas. If they were digitally publishing their works today by the chapter in multiple languages and taking 70% of the gross…

    Thomas Harris et al will be leaving tens of millions on the table if they let a traditional publisher do their distribution.

    Imagine “The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo” and its sequels being published via the digital chapter model, available simultaneously in thirty languages every week around the globe for 90 weeks. For less than a buck.

    Start polishing that art-of-the-cliffhanger style, authors!

  • http://ireaderreview.com/2010/06/03/insight-into-publishers-mindset-regarding-agency-model/ Insight into Publisher’s mindset regarding Agency Model « Kindle Review – Kindle 3 Review, iPad Review

    [...] Insight into Publisher’s mindset regarding Agency Model Posted on June 3, 2010 by switch11 TeleRead point to a post by Mike Shatzkin that provides a very revealing insight into how Publishers think of the Agency Model. [...]

  • http://hybernationmusic.blogspot.com John Hagewood

    thanks for your reply Steve. My choice of words was poor…I should have said “THE CONSUMERS' FEELINGS”, not just “CONSUMER”. I think the backlash on the web is evidence that eBook consumers don't like being used a guinea pigs for maximizing profits. The Agency Five don't give a crap out the consumers' feelings because they have NEVER actually sold books to them…they have NO “retail experience” and boy does it show.

    To your second point, I'm not as concerned with the pricing on new releases…I expect that they will continue to tweak these to maximize profit, and that is to be expected since they are what pays for everything else. What concerns me is the RAMPANT repricing of back catalog stuff like Ayn Rand's 50 year old classics:

    http://www.teleread.com/2010/05/28/penguin-ayn-…

    You think ANYONE at Penguin is going to sit around analyzing sales and adjusting the price on these older books that don't sell in large numbers anymore? Hell no. Imagine that poor college kid with their trust Kindle/iPad/Nook who needs to pick up this eBook for an assignment. They cannot sit around and wait for a more realistic price (like that's ever going to happen anyway). Can you say “lost sale”. They'll hit the used bookstore and pick it up for $5.

    Further reading (these guys are smarter than me, and I think in this case, a bit smarter than Mike):

    http://www.teleread.com/2010/06/03/boy-do-i-dis…

    http://ireaderreview.com/2010/06/03/insight-int…

  • steve

    Hi John,

    People who frequent online discussion groups such as telereads (and, I might add, this blog here) have about the same relationship to the total customer base that the “Ron Paul for President” group has to the electorate as a whole. Neither one of these tiny tiny tiny tiny groups — insignificant, really, is representative of the whole.

    You said you weren’t concerned about the price of new releases; it was the price of the Ayn Rand books that you found disheartening. I think that makes you unusual.

    Let us stipulate that The Penguin Group played their hand maladroitly. But you wrote against the Agency Five — tarring them all with a single brush — and the agency model. If we look at the Macmillan Group we will see a completely different story.

    Contrary to what you say, I don’t think Amazon has shown that they give much of a crap about their customers’ feelings either. A few examples:

    The deletion of illegal copies of such books as Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four.” It wasn’t the deletion of the files per se, which was a reasonable response given that they had screwed up in allowing the bootlegs to be sold on their site anyway, but the way they handled it: they did not explain the reasoning in their emails; they never announced their policy; and they didn’t make a response to the whole thing until negative publicity appeared in the papers. This had happened with other books several times in the past, and they never bothered correcting it or even coming up with a polite way of informing the customers to whom this had happened.

    The removal of the buy buttons on all the Macmillan books, print as well as electronic. Assuming that there was some defensible reason for doing so (which I highly doubt) they didn’t think their customers were important enough to let them know what was going on, in case somebody wanted to buy one of these books.

    You mentioned the loss leader policy, and I’m glad you say you don’t like that policy. Amazon’s ebook pricing model was at first to offer a lot of books at very low prices in order to sell their expensive hardware. Once they gained market share and the hardware came down in price, they started to jack the prices up.

    Okay, one might say, we all understand special promotions for a new product. Here, however, the advertising misled quite a few people into thinking that these prices were going to stay. (Not me, by the way.) This went into their calculations when they justified paying for the device. Now that the prices are being ratcheted up — and the list of deeply discounted books is diminishing — some of these people are getting very angry. Maybe you think such people were fools for believing such a thing. Amazon, however, did nothing to dissuade their customers from this mistaken belief.

    So I can’t take it very seriously when anybody says that Amazon cares very deeply about their customers’ feelings.

    Contrast this with Macmillan. After the agency relationship was announced, Macmillan CEO John Sargent took the extraordinary step of laying out for anybody who wanted to interested what their intentions were regarding ebook pricing. He explained what the different prices points would be — and was quite plain that some would go up — and made no promises that they would stick to that schedule, only that this was their intention. And they have, for the most part, stuck pretty close.

    Has Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos ever shown enough consideration for his customers to make a similar statement explaining why — after all the hoopla over cheap books — the prices still under the “retail” system were going up, up, up? Not that I know of.

    Amazon is first-rate with their Kindle hardware, keeping the server going, allowing fast downloads, customer service when you need help, and the most navigable store on the web. All of that stuff stays the same. What changes under the Agency model is the pricing. Here, Macmillan has the advantage over Amazon, at least as far as I’m concerned. Amazon has this wacky system where a book can be $14.99 one day, $9.99 a few days later, then back up to $14.99. It’s this weird bestseller discount, where exactly what makes a bestseller is a secret. I prefer the Macmillan approach, where they tell us what sorts of prices to expect and they follow through on it. With Amazon, God only knows what they’ll do.

    For ebook versions of books currently in hardcover but NOT one of Amazon’s bestsellers, Macmillan’s prices are significantly lower. For example, I looked at two comparable product lines, Tor (Macmillan) and Del Rey (Random, priced by Amazon). The highest Tor/Macmillan price is $14.99. The highest for Del Rey/Amazon is $19.25. The most common price point for Tor/Macmillan is $12.99, with $11.99 coming in a close second. The most common price point for Del Rey/Amazon is $14.30.

    If you like to read the new stuff that’s not necessarily what’s popular, Macmillan gives you a better deal than Amazon. On the other hand, books with mass market paper editions tend to be lower under the Amazon model, generally $6.39 instead of $6.99 or $7.99. On the whole, I prefer Macmillan’s approach better, and I hope that something close to their model is adopted by the other Agency publishers.

  • http://freesf.strandedinoz.com/wordpress Blue Tyson

    Ok, so why didn't he also try $6.99 to see what would happen?

  • http://hybernationmusic.blogspot.com John Hagewod

    touche Steve. I reckon I am different than most readers. I mentioned the Ayn Rand because it was extreme….I see Simon and Schuster doing similar things with old star trek books (though not as extreme). But I agree it was unfair of me to pass judgment on the whole A-5 group based on what only a couple of them are doing. I did appreciate what Macmillan's CEO tried to do with his communication out to the customers.

    I sure didn't mean to say that Amazon cared deeply about the customers' feelings, just that they had a lot of experience with retail pricing. Yeah, I was caught up in the Orwell thing and it totally pissed me off when they swiped my “Animal Farm”. And I thought the way they treated Macmillan WAS pretty bad too. But I have also dealt with their customer service and they are pretty awesome on that front.

    What I find MOST ironic in ALL of this is that with the Agency model, Amazon gets to start making MONEY off all those best sellers they were previous discounting under their cost (assuming people still buy them, and obviously they do). So, in that respect, I suppose the agency pricing IS a good thing…everybody makes money so the ebook ecosystem can grow and thrive, which IS obviously good for everybody.

  • Leo

    I believe that would be the collusion to keep the price the same amongst all publishers. Where is the open competition between them? Would you be happy if every oil company all of a sudden said- “Alright, $6.50/gallon for gasoline”, somehow I doubt it.

  • http://johnaustinblog.blogspot.com/ gator1965

    Hi, Leo…What you say is perfectly right. I was referring to the “legality” or “illegality” of the agency model as such…Keeping in mind the best possible living wage for the authors. I don't mind a lower price/book…IF the author (content creator) can keep a higher percentage of the cost as with some ebook publishers today i.e: AmazonEncore

    I want the creators (not publishers or retailors) to set the price at what the market will bear.

    Every oil company coming together to set prices and stifle competition…now that is illegal…but it seems the bastards are paying off politicians to get away with it! Is big oil too big to survive? Definitely…

    Did the big publishing houses get too big to survive under the old traditional publishing paradigm…definitely!

  • http://idealog.com/blog Mike Shatzkin

    Agreed, Gareth. And thank you for focusing on what I think is the most
    important original point in this post!

    Mike

  • http://idealog.com/blog Mike Shatzkin

    There's a pretty nuanced difference between what I said and what you said.
    If it wasn't clear that I thought the Apple agreement obliged publishers to
    manage the price through all retailers on the web (not just Apple), then it
    was my failure to communicate clearly.

    It is hard to argue that this isn't “restraint of trade.” But although this
    probably gets to where you don't agree with me, I'd say that this
    “restraint” actually will create a lot more trade and a lot less
    concentration of retailing power than would be the case in a “free”, or
    perhaps we should say “unconstrained”, market.

    I leave it to the lawyers and judges to decide what's legal. I try to take
    account of two things in forming my own opinions: commercial reality and
    public interest. From my perspective, both are served by the Agency
    arrangement.

    Mike

  • http://idealog.com/blog Mike Shatzkin

    John, the evidence I've heard — from one retailer and one publisher — is
    that the rise in prices from $9.99 to $12.99 had no noticeable impact on
    ebook sales. And the consumer will not be well served by a sharp narrowing
    of the number of retailers distilling and curating the ebook choices,
    particularly as they grow. Retailer-set pricing in the short run benefits
    consumers because the retailers compete in a cutthroat way with the
    deepest-pocketed giving away the product. But they lose in the long run
    because there won't be as many players in the market.

    I agree that “ridiculous” ebook pricing is damaging. Ebooks can't command
    hardcover prices. But there was a real race to the bottom taking place
    before Agency came in. It is still happening (to the benefit of the
    non-Agency publishers). I think it would be best for the industry if prices
    for each title were the same in all stores so that you could buy what is
    offered to you without the nagging fear that you were passing up a better
    deal somewhere else. So if the price were too high for your liking, you
    could shop for another book. But you wouldn't have to shop across a bunch of
    other stores.

    Mike

  • Chris

    I agree with Gareth, but I also think this is a prime time for third party affiliate programs to step into the game on a larger scale.

    If I owned e-junkie.com I would be actively marketing the bloggers/site owners and traditional and/or self-publishers on the merits of using their turnkey affiliate back-end.

    I'd rebrand it, however.

    The negative connotations of Junk/Junkie are too obvious.

  • http://idealog.com/blog Mike Shatzkin

    I'm not a lawyer.

    Mike

  • http://idealog.com/blog Mike Shatzkin

    Well, in the example provided above the CEO *did* have the power to shift
    the price and we know that because the CEO *did* shift the price.

    You're right that there is a pricing grid that generates a highest allowable
    price in relation to the price of the print edition on sale. What I think
    happened in this case is that the publisher set $12.99 as the price, even
    though $14.99 was allowable (and the old retailer-set price was $9.99.) So
    then the publisher was free to move it.

    The general point you make is correct; Agency does not allow total
    flexibility. I think the key to Agency is that it, theoretically, ends the
    use of price as a competitive weapon by the retailer. If it can do that, it
    works. If it can't do that, it fails.

    Mike

  • Chris

    Years ago when Internet Porn was 'huge' business I knew some programmers working for an adult company.

    The price point they found that worked best was $39.99 USD per month. This particular company sold roughly 100,000 memberships each month at this price. They tried $49.99 and it dived, they tried $19.99, $29.99 and the memberships stayed the same. It seemed that $39.99/month was what people wanted to pay for their adult content.

    Suffice to say that the adult sites made some very good coin between the years of 1993-1999.

    And here's the funny thing … the content was not king … it was the front end sale and the back end affiliate network!

  • http://idealog.com/blog Mike Shatzkin

    Eric, the retailers and the publishers have completely different objectives
    in pricing things. The retailer is aiming for market share; they're trying
    to take business from other retailers (and, in the ideal world, drive them
    out of business.) The publisher is trying to maximize revenue for themselves
    and for the author.

    The publisher who was “making $12 in the past” was doing it by putting a
    totally notional and unrealistic price on their book, which almost no
    retailer ever charged. Some publishers believe that is a gravy train that
    comes to an end. They recognize that they are in a world where prices are
    set with no regard to the value of their products as they perceive them (and
    as authors perceive them) and they are trying to take a measure of control.
    They're also trying to “protect” brick-and-mortar retailers from the impact
    of predatory ebook pricing. Losing the retail network is what really scares
    the trade publishers, not the short-term revenue.

    We're in a speculative world here; nobody knows where this is all going. So,
    in that sense, your disparagement of what publishers know is accurate. But I
    think publishers have more of a clue about what they're doing than you
    think. So far, there is no sign that anybody's ebook sales are being hurt by
    the change in the pricing paradigm. Whether this will result in uniform
    pricing across the web, which is the objective, is still open to question. I
    have little doubt that, if they accomplish that, they will enable a lot more
    retail points online than will be there otherwise.

    Mike

  • http://idealog.com/blog Mike Shatzkin

    The post by Paul Biba turned into an email exchange which he will post on
    Teleread tomorrow morning (Friday.) He says his piece and I say mine.

    As to whether anybody at Penguin (or anyplace else) “sits around” and
    “analyzes sales” at various price points: the answer is, “yeah, they do!”
    And they do see the difference in response at different price points. And
    they (not everybody, but many) *are* repricing books based on *real* consumer
    response, not the ideological position that many like to take without regard
    to any data. So in the hypothetical example where the students en masse
    abandon the ebook purchase for the used books; that would, indeed, show up.

    The job of the publisher is (usually — there are exceptions) to maximize
    the revenue opportunity by a societally-granted copyright monopoly. It is
    their *responsibility* to find out the ebook price that brings in the most
    money. Usually their author contract explicitly makes the author their
    partner in this because they split revenues by a contractual formula. (In
    hardcover publishing; the author is usually paid on cover price. In ebook
    publishing, the author is almost always paid on a percentage of the
    receipts.)

    Mike

  • http://idealog.com/blog Mike Shatzkin

    I don't have an answer to that, but here's one thing to consider: not
    everything that will be tried or should be tried has been tried yet. Agency
    is 2 months old.

    Mike

  • TuxGirl

    “It would appear that the Agency model is good for just about everybody except the etailers that would use price to drive others out of the market. ”

    Huh??? How are the Agency model high prices good for the consumer? Do you really think that the it's good for consumers that books like “Fountainhead” went up from $9.99 to > 25$?

    “I’m personally persuaded that universal set prices for ebooks are good for the industry and, ultimately, for consumers. They will definitely foster competition among retailers.”

    How in the world does the inability for retailers to set prices foster competition among retailers??? That doesn't even make sense.

  • http://idealog.com/blog Mike Shatzkin

    The unintended consequence of forcing Amazon to “make money” on the ebooks,
    of course, is that it just puts more money in their pocket to discount *
    print* books, which would do even greater damage to the bricks-and-mortar
    portion of the supply chain that the publishers are trying to protect. And
    there's evidence that they're doing exactly that.

    Mike

  • http://www.the-digital-reader.com/2010/06/05/morning-links-5-june-2010/ Morning Links 5 June 2010 | The Digital Reader

    [...] Advantage of an Ebook Agency Model There is currently an interesting debate occurring between Mike Shatzkin and Paul Biba over the possible benefits of an agency pricing model in publishing. If you have not [...]

  • http://idealog.com/blog Mike Shatzkin

    I actually don't agree with the original premise.

    Publishers setting the price is not comparable to the oil example. What the
    publishers are doing is assuring a uniform price for each book across
    retailers. They aren't establishing the same price for EVERY book, and they
    certainly aren't establishing the same price as every book their competitors
    publish.

    Mike

  • http://idealog.com/blog Mike Shatzkin

    Interesting that you chose Ayn Rand for your example. She believes in the
    primacy of property rights. The c/r is owned by the author and exploited for
    the author or its estate by the publisher. Ayn Rand herself would be very
    distressed to have her work used as an example of how property rights should
    be undermined, which is what retailers are doing to c/r holders. (Tongue
    somewhat, but not entirely, in cheek.)

    But your second point just requires more thought. Price is NOT the only way
    for retailers to compete. Use your imagination, and think about range of
    selection, curation, information about the titles (provided by the retailer
    or crowd-sourced like Amazon reviews), customer service,
    presentation…Believe me, even if they can't compete on price, you'll find
    you like some retailers better than others. You might even find you like
    some retailers for some kinds of books and other retailers for different
    books!

  • http://freesf.strandedinoz.com/wordpress Blue Tyson

    That'd be funny, actually. Retailers that remove the PR hyperbole and fluff, and the stuff from captured trade magazines and put more of the truth instead.

    'We think this book is absolute rubbish. We seriously suggest you buy this other one instead.'

    Good for buyers, imagine there'd be a few hissy fits on the other side, though. :)

  • Linda

    Actually, if she were to hold true to her stated beliefs, Ayn Rand would have to agree with the following internal dialog of an e-book reader looking at a $27.99 price tag for Atlas Shrugged:

    Reader/Buyer: $27.99? This book will prevent me from buying other books priced at $9.99 or below. Factoring in sales tax, I can buy three books for the price of this one. Besides, since this is a 50-year-old book, there are lots of used copies out there. Therefore, it is not in my best self-interest to buy this e-book at this price.

    After all, it's all about free will, isn't it? And consumers have the right and the free will not to pay outrageous prices. It's not as if other choices don't exist. E-books are not a necessity of life. I love my Kindle, but I guarantee that I will buy a used book if I deem the e-book price to be more than I am willing to pay. I did this just last week with a book I really want to read. When I'm finished with it, I'll sell it again. That's not just one, but two sales lost.

  • http://johnaustinblog.blogspot.com/ gator1965

    I was just using the oil example because Leo had used it…

    Dang, Mike, this article got too many responses! How do you find the time for individual answers? It does point out the disparity in thinking on this, however…Their is your view, tinted by your growing up within the publishing industry; the buyers who want everything free or as cheap as they can get it; the booksellers (retailers) who want the highest margin by selling somewhat cheaper, resulting in monopolies where the last one standing can then manipulate future prices…etc, etc

    My core belief is the creators, who are the actual producers of the gold, have always been raped for the most part and never got their financial due! And the big publishing houses were the guilty parties under the traditional publishing paradigm…The exception being an author whose book might have went viral for some reason..Then the old houses offered somewhat better deals and proper promotion for future books.

    The beginning of the demise for big publishing came NOT with new gadgets and the internet so much as when the big publishers got greedy, lost their core mission of promoting new talent and art, and started publishing superficial crap from “celebrities” who mostly hired ghost writers anyway.

    I'm not quite sure yet if big publishing ever properly marketed new writers (still researching), BUT, my gut feeling from data collected is they historically took horrible advantage of new writers.

    Anyway, hope you are enjoying this bee's nest you set off on a pretty simple concept, really, RE the so-called “agency model”

  • http://christopherwalters.com Chris Walters

    Can you explain your second to last par. a little more? I'm not sure I understand the “location location location” aspect and how that works in the digital marketplace. In my mind, location is important with brick & mortar because, well, it's a physical space and that matters when it comes to foot/car traffic, congestion, neighborhood, etc. But online, what's the added value an Amazon can bring to digital bookselling over a Barnes & Noble or Kobo, other than customer service and pricing, neither of which fit the “location” category?

    I understand that in today's online marketplace, many websites can participate as affiliates to Amazon and pick up scrap revenue in the form of sales commission. The downside is lower profit, but the up side is zero overhead–even returns are handled upstream.

    I can imagine that if I ran (“curated”?) a single-topic blog, and a publisher used Agency to let me sell topical titles at the same price as Amazon, and the publisher took care of the shopping cart back-end as well as after-sale customer service, then that would make me more money.

    However–and this is where I get confused–I don't see how that is a higher-value offering for the consumer. Because in the non-Agency model I can still have that website and still offer that book through a retailer's affiliate program, and although I might make less money, the consumer will potentially pay less owing to special discounts by the retailer.

  • http://idealog.com/blog Mike Shatzkin

    Chris, by “location” I mean your virtual location, as part of a community or
    niche-oriented destination.

    And the curated content will be that provided by the aggregator but also
    that provided by the community that the aggregator may not know about or
    carry. Specialized for the niche. “Affiliation” works if you're selling a
    single title; much more complex offerings will require a more complex
    relationship with your supplier.

    Mike

  • http://leanderwattig.de/index.php/2010/06/08/link-tipps-der-letzten-woche-20/ Link-Tipps der letzten Woche | Leander Wattig

    [...] Agency seems (to me) to be working; I hope it’s legal [...]

  • Andybsg

    I'm afraid you overlook a very basic and simple premise of retail competition with your ill considered praise of the Agency Model.

    By allowing the publisher to set prices you put all retailers on a level playing field, removing the biggest price force there is.. Free market competition.

    If two retailers are selling the same bottle of soda and both are paying 99 cents for it, one sells at 79 cents and the other for 84 cents, then you have a market driven price. Sure the 79 cents guy is taking less of a percentage but more people are buying from him so overall his profits are up and the actual supplier of the soda is unaffected as he's still selling them at the same price.

    Under the agency model both of these guys have to sell at the suppliers price of 81 cents a bottle(although from what we've seen of the agency model on Ebooks the price is now actually 89 cents!).

    So, where is the problem?

    Under the old model the price was set by the market, the 79 cent guy was getting the most business because he was selling at a price more desirable to the buyer, his business was benefitting and he used his retail knowledge to determine his business' future.

    Under Agency that is taken completely out of his hands, leaving his profit margins completel unrelated to his retail knowledge or savvy and the supplier now has final say on how much his product sells for, regardless of market input which is price fixing, plain and simple.

    People may argue 'but if people don't want to pay it they can buy a different soda' which is fair enough when one cola tastes pretty much like any other. If I want to buy the new Stephen King novel though then my hands are tied because Stephen Bling down the road isn't selling a much cheaper sequel to Stephen King's orignal novel and that is where the monopoly in this situation is established, leaving teh consumer completely at the mercy of the publisher instead of market prices.

    Now i'm sure people will point all sorts of caveats and loopholes in my rather simple analogy but the bottom line is that fixed pricing does not benefit the retailer, it does not benefit the customer it just allows the publisher to take control rather than the free market forces that should drive a successful economy.

    The whole idea that if the publishers don't set prices then small retailers will go out of business is very noble but does that mean we should still be back in the pre-industrial revolution ages and making everything by hand rather than mass producing because people will lose their jobs?

    If small retailers are dying out their is a reaosn behind that, because market forces have dictated they are now a thing of the past and an outdated concept in the modern economy.