I wasn’t planning to make any kind of statement about the Amazon-Macmillan ebook pricing conflict, but the most recent post by writer John Scalzi had the effect of changing my mind about that decision.
But first, let me start out by saying that this post isn’t about John Scalzi, nor is it specifically a rail against his position on a call to support authors. This is more like the first shots fired in a blog campaign where I am going to vent about a few issues that have been on my mind for quite some time.
I’ll briefly summarize the situation, and if you want more detail, it’s all over the internet by now. Amazon is a big corporation, and this big corporation has ideas about profitability. They are a tech company. They are one of the few survivors of the tech wreck of 2000-2002. They are a technologically progressive company, a company who saw the power of the internet and grabbed it by the horns. They saw that the future of publishing will be digital, and they saw it before even many science fiction writers. And they need Macmillan’s books on their digital shelves.
Macmillan is a large publisher. According on one Amazon statement, they represent 1/6 of the publishing market. Like most publishing giants, Macmillan is a dinosaur. They publish with a prehistoric business model that depends upon a prehistoric distribution system and prehistoric notions of how the money for a book is distributed. Like most print publishers, the e-revolution in books scares the pants off of them. And they need Amazon.
Enter the Kindle. Amazon created a proprietary format which, contrary to popular belief, does not own the ebook market. Amazon has a policy to set ebooks with a maximum price of $9.99 because either their market research or their board of directors dictated that the market will not support higher prices. Which is the correct model remains unclear.
Macmillan wants the ability to sell new releases at prices higher than $9.99 and stagger the prices at their will, not Amazon’s.
Conflict.
The two parties are at a stalemate. Neither party will yield. Amazon pulled the plug on all Macmillan titles, in all formats. Including paper.
That is the summary, further details are everywhere.
Scalzi is correct that the writers are caught in the crossfire, held captive by both parties.  Now, understand that I have never met John Scalzi and I don’t know much about his politics or worldview. I am not a regular reader of Whatever. I also underscore that this is not about John or his ideas, but I do suspect that part of his motivation stems from the pervasive opinions expressed in Amazon customer reviews that the culprits here are the “greedy authors.”
Unless the author self-publishes, the author has absolutely no control over pricing. I have also fallen victim to the same sort of comment in this review about Winter, where the author of the review belabors the price to value point over the story. Let it be noted that I do not have, I never had, nor will I ever have any control over the price of the book.
Scalzi’s author support drive has merit in the sense that he is calling upon readers to support Macmillan authors by purchasing the books elsewhere. But I get a sense that he thinks that readers have an obligation to support the authors, and that is where I differ. (John, if you read this and I’m misinterpreting your statements, feel free to clarify in comments.)
There are a lot of reasons why I think corporate America is broken, and I will discuss those another time. However, I’m not sure this is one of those situations. The thing is, nobody owes me, you, Scalzi, Amazon, or Macmillan anything. If the readers want to support their favorite authors, most of them are smart enough to figure out that they can get in the car and drive to Borders or Barnes and Noble. Most of them realize that these chains and others have online bookstores that are not involved in the squabble. The books are still in print and are available.
What we are seeing in action is part of the shakeup that is the evolution of publishing. It’s always painful for the little guy whenever big business fights a war. Industry is demanding. Customers always want in decrease in cost from suppliers. Coming from the semiconductor industry, I know this very well.
In my last job, I worked on automotive safety products. (Thankfully, nothing involved in any of the recent recalls.) Cost and quality was the message of the day, every day. I have been involved in cost-cutting since March of 2000, when the NASDAQ hit its peak and began the collapse that was the tech-wreck. The semiconductor industry transformed into profit strategy not by creating markets, but by cutting cost. It’s an unsustainable model that ultimately imploded when the automotive industry tanked 18 months ago.
The result of that was the release of a lot of very good engineers. Good people who worked hard every day. There were days where I was on the phone at 5:00am on conference call to Europe, at work until 5:30, at which time I raced home so I could grab a bite to eat before another 2-hour conference call to Asia. This is the reality of the increase in American productivity. Corporate America squeezing workers until there isn’t anything left to give, then demanding more.
And when the market collapses? The expenses are cut and workers let go. It may not be fair, but the reality is that corporations do not owe you or me or anyone else a living. that is why we have at-will hiring laws. It may not be right, and it may not be ethical, but today’s corporation is a living, breathing entity that serves only one master, and it ain’t the employee, nor is it the customer. Instead, it is $.
Employees are to corporations as muscles are to a human body. If the person is asked to lift 300 pounds, it requires a lot of muscle. If the body is then asked to lift only 100 pounds, the excess muscle is no longer needed. If lifting 300 pounds is no longer required, the excess muscle atrophies until it can only lift 100 pounds. The corporate equivalent of this is a layoff with brain drain. The corporation misses the atrophied muscle, but doesn’t need it. If the task of lifting 300 pounds in needed again, the corporation will rebuild the body by hiring.
How does this relate to the Amazon-Macmillan situation? It’s an issue of corporate survival. No matter how employee-friendly management may be, corporate interests will always come before those of the employees. This is where Al Qaida made its biggest mistake. They thought Americans were timid and weak because on the surface we seem to be a civilized society. The reality is that corporate politics are brutally cut-throat. The blood is just green instead of red.
So the authors are the battlefield casualties in this battle between Amazon and Macmillan. Scalzi is trying to call in the Red Cross. But the Red Cross is a volunteer organization. Those responding are doing it for their own reasons. Writers can sound the klaxon, but the readers have to want to support the writers.
Scalzi states how his own situation is not critical largely because of good planning on his part. He also claims good luck in his publishing career as a factor, but I submit that if his career looked like mine, he would have (or had) another source of income to take its place. It’s how I’ve managed to survive 13 months as a free-agent. Yes, it’s very very hard because corporations are now in survival mode. Publishers are only different in the sense that they are not only fighting this great recession, but also for their future business model.
But being a writer has always been a life filled with landmines. Anybody who takes on this challenge has to prepare themselves financially for a downturn or face catastrophe. Writing is an inherently hit-or-miss way to make a living, but even those with a traditional job still live life on the edge. Good personal financial planning is the responsibility of everyone, because nobody owes any individual a living. Ever.
Yes, as an unemployed engineer, I could use a break. The writers caught in the middle of the Amazon-Macmillan fight could use a break, too. The main difference here is that the authors already have that break. Their books are still for sale online and in brick and mortar stores, in paper and electronic form. That’s a lot better than many of the 8 million unemployed people in this country have.
So go ahead and support your favorite author by buying from an alternative resource. But authors remember, your readers don’t owe you the sales. They have to want to buy the books, and when a lot of those readers are wondering how to make the next mortgage payment, I think it’s a bit hypocritical to expect those sales.