The Shatzkin Files


It’s official: putting books in stores is a subsidiary right


The headline in a number of places was that Amazon was now aggressively going after exclusives for their Kindle line and actually bid against the publishers for Amanda Hocking’s trade books.

The enabling component, as reported in Publishers Lunch, was that Houghton Harcourt is now Amazon’s trade book distributor. Except please don’t call it that.

Lunch reported that Harcourt had acquired a range of titles from Amazon’s Encore and Crossings imprints, as well as securing a first-look relationship.

From one standpoint, this makes a lot of sense. Amazon can sell the hell out of a book online, and they have long made print available through their CreateSpace program. But they can’t merchandise books in stores. Even paying extremely high print and ebook royalties, as they do, they can’t maximize an author’s revenues if they can’t deliver store sales of print in today’s world.

On the other hand, virtually all of the Big Six CEOs (a club Houghton Harcourt stands just outside of) have said that they wouldn’t acquire print only, a clear signal to authors that their ebook rights were hostages to secure their print sale. After all, they wouldn’t have ever given up book club rights or paperback rights when those were important and didn’t require a scale organization to reach.

Harcourt’s adult trade publisher Bruce Nichols told Lunch that his arrangement did not constitute Houghton Harcourt doing a print-only deal. Quoting from Lunch:

“I’m sure some people will say in principal ‘we never split print and electronic’” rights, but he sees the Amazon deals as “no different than licensing reprint rights,” in which ebook rights are not available. Just as Houghton still intends to compete with Amazon on new projects, Nichols says the house will not bid for print-only rights to new properties. While “there are certainly agents and authors who want to” split rights, he underscores that “we’re refusing” to do so. “This is different; Amazon already owns all rights.”

So, there you have it. Houghtons’ full-fledged print publishing efforts are a subsidiary right.

This simply reflects the most fundamental publishing economics. Somebody can afford to write a check (the initial advance, or what might be called “the enabling transaction”) to buy the opportunity to exploit a copyright because they control the means of reaching the largest single piece of its revenue and the relationships to license others to generate revenue from smaller pieces.

Five years ago, the lion’s share of the revenue from any book-type property would have come from the sales of print in retail stores.

Five years from now, the lion’s share of the revenue from any book-type property will come from the sales of print and ebooks through online channels.

We’re in a period of transition. Houghton’s deal, just like Barry Eisler’s decision two weeks ago to decline a half-million bucks from a house so he could self-publish, are first times for business practices that will soon be normal.

  Back to blog

  • Merch Maniac

    This is amazing news, but there's stuff I still don't quite get. The Bookseller story you point to in the first line of your post says:

    “The article claims it was Amazon's insistence on exclusive e-book rights that was a factor for Hocking to choose St Martin's Press.

    “A publishing executive familiar with the deal told Crains: '[Amazon] has less than 65% share of the e-book market and dropping, and 20% to 30% of the print market . . . [The author and agent] would have anticipated significant lost sales.'”

    So Amazon would have been Hocking's exclusive ebook vendor and that would have excluded B&N or Borders or Kobo or Sony from selling her titles as ebooks. But what about printed books? If Houghton Harcourt was a partner on the print side of this proposal wouldn't their sales force have been selling the book to all brick-and-mortar and online booksellers — including independents? It's that publishing executive's comment about Amazon having only 20% to 30% of the print market that puzzles me. It suggests that the deal would have limited Hocking to sell even her printed titles through Amazon. Is that true?

  • Merch Maniac

    Sorry — should have read the Crain's story before posting my first comment.

    The problem was one of perception — whether a bookseller like B&N would agree to stock a book that, despite having a Houghton Harcourt colophon on the spine, would really have benefited Amazon. As the Crain's story quotes that same executive:

    “I'm not sure that head fake would have been enough,” the executive said. Referring to the rough tactics that Amazon has employed in its battles with publishers, he added, “Barnes & Noble plays hardball, too.”

    So St. Martin's walks away the winner despite a lower bid. You can't make this stuff up.

  • Peter Turner

    I feel like the underlying dynamic here in the Houghton-Amazon deal is the continued erosion of the legacy author/publisher/retailer ecosystem. Amazon has created such clout and power in the industry but they clearly have little interest in supporting the long-existing dynamics of book creation, publication, and book-selling. From a purely business point of view this is all well and good but we're not talking toaster ovens or tube socks. Books have been the main current of expressing and communicating culture and information. I continue to wonder if the writers, publishers, and consumers who are making possible the transition to this new, emerging ecosystem are really thinking about the ramifications of their actions on the future.

    • /blog Mike Shatzkin

      Frankly, Peter, I don't think consumers think about this at all! They just

      want their information or their entertainment in books and they get them the

      fastest, easiest, and cheapest way they can. I wrote a post a while ago

      called “Why are you for killing bookstores?” where it became VERY clear that

      many people saw no conflict at all in being “pro-bookstore” and “pro-ebooks'

      at the same time.

      Things evolve through natural selection, not through a grand plan. In this

      non-believer's opinion…

      Mike

      • Peter Turner

        I agree, largely, Mike, but here's an odd bit of acecdata. I used to work for a small press with a d2c business (direct mail, email, social media), which amounted to about 12% of the revenue. Now, ever single one of the people who bought a book from us must have known that they could get a better price elsewhere on-line. What's even more striking is that the direct mail analysis seemed to show that those prospects that didn't identify us as a publisher were more likely to buy than those who just assumed we were a direct mail cataloguer. (this wasn't customer reported data but list and co-op database analysis). This is all a bit geeky but relevant to anyone publisher wanting to transition some significant portion of their business to d2c.

    • Peter Turner

      I agree, largely, Mike, but here's an odd bit of acecdata. I used to work for a small press with a d2c business (direct mail, email, social media), which amounted to about 12% of the revenue. Now, ever single one of the people who bought a book from us must have known that they could get a better price elsewhere on-line. What's even more striking is that the direct mail analysis seemed to show that those prospects that didn't identify us as a publisher were more likely to buy than those who just assumed we were a direct mail cataloguer. (this wasn't customer reported data but list and co-op database analysis). This is all a bit geeky but relevant to anyone publisher wanting to transition some significant portion of their business to d2c.

      • /blog Mike Shatzkin

        But, of course, by definition, your direct response business was “vertical”

        so it is a demographic and psychographic that may or not be repeated in

        somebody else's vertical. Mileage may vary on these things, but it has to be

        measured to be managed. And the central point, to me, is the power of brand.

        It makes people pay more than they have to all the time.

        Mike

      • Peter Turner

        Well, yes, Mike, but there is no good data about whether this “success” is or is not repeatable in other verticals. Or maybe you have anecdata you can share that would shed light?

        I actually disagree with your comment about “brand”–that's actually the point of my reply. The audience of direct-mail catalogues who likely knew our “brand” underperformed against those who likely didn't. In fact “brand fatigue” was occurring and effecting the return on those who knew our brand best; since they already knew what we offered, and often found about our offerings in other ways, their response to direct marketing was weaker. It may seem like a niche-specific point, but it may have a big relevance to how “prospecting” for new customers is measured and justified.

        Peter

      • /blog Mike Shatzkin

        OK, thanks for correcting my misunderstanding. And in making the point that

        your brand can at times work against you. But I still think brand loyalty:

        to retailers, airlines, hotels, wristwatches, soft drinks, coffee — makes

        people spend more than they need to a lot of the time. But clearly not all

        the time.

        Mike

  • http://claudenougat.blogspot.com Claude Nougat

    We sure are in a period of transition! I understand everybody is vying for a monopoly position but how can they get away with it?

    • /blog Mike Shatzkin

      I think Google, Amazon, and Apple are the best defense against any of the

      others getting a monopoly position. And Kobo helps. And in the US, B&N

      helps.

      Mike

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=619957712 Renard DellaFave

    “So, there you have it. Houghtons’ full-fledged print publishing efforts are a subsidiary right.”

    If you say so, but for those of us not intimately familiar with the topic, I can't figure out from this story exactly who is getting shafted or how.

    It sort of sounds like Amazon wants to exclusively have some books as eBooks and keep them from being in print?

    Another story with more explanation and less pure quoting would be helpful.

    • /blog Mike Shatzkin

      Sorry, Renard, but his blog is written primarily for publishing

      professionals. I'm delighted that people outside the industry find it

      useful, but it is written with the assumption of a pretty high level of

      industry knowledge from the reader.

      What Amazon wants to do is to be the exclusive distributor of the ebook.

      What the partnership with Houghton gives them is a way to get complete

      distribution of print. They're okay with that.

      Mike

  • Pingback: Thoughts on Self Publishing?

  • Pingback: Disintermediation in Publishing | Jack the Reader

  • Pingback: Look for Amazon Titles in Your Nearest…Bookstore? | Publishing In the 21st Century

  • Pingback: DBW Weekly Roundup: 4/7/11 | Digital Book World

  • Pingback: Amazon Bids for Exclusivity on Hocking Books — Unruly Guides ePublishing

  • Pingback: Monday Midday Links: Digital is killing print and everyone wants a piece of that pie

  • Pingback: Seks grunner til at Bokskya er bra « minerva

  • Pingback: S. V. Rowle» Blog Archive » The Tipping Point in Publishing

  • Pingback: Seks grunner til at Bokskya er bra « polecon.no

  • Pingback: John Locke and S&S show us another kind of deal we can expect to see again – The Shatzkin Files

  • Pingback: Ebooks and Self-Publishing Part 3 – Yet Another Dialog Between Authors Barry Eisler and Joe Konrath | Rss Blog List

  • Pingback: Monday Midday Links: Digital is killing print and everyone wants a piece of that pie