tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post6534780177842608635..comments2024-03-28T02:00:11.260-05:00Comments on A Newbie's Guide to Publishing: Michael Cader of Publishers LunchJA Konrathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-17541240259085834502014-08-04T03:53:46.256-05:002014-08-04T03:53:46.256-05:00why all this noise about amazon wanting e books a ...why all this noise about amazon wanting e books a 9 99, which is a good price compared to the real bad guys, who never get a mention, the supermarkets who sell brand new hardbacks at five pounds, and whose shelf space for fiction has been slowly getting less and less over the last year.<br />And the big bad guys publishers who in their greed got rid of the net book agreement and made way for all of this to happen.sheila quigleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-8835665920290581112014-08-03T18:22:10.860-05:002014-08-03T18:22:10.860-05:00Barry said:
"Do you also believe that when s...Barry said:<br /><br />"Do you also believe that when some anonymous administration official is quoted in the newspaper, that’s the same as the White House issuing a public statement?"<br /><br />Ha Ha. The entire world knew that the CIA was torturing people. The White House seems to have caught up yesterday. Not that they seem ready to do anything much about it. Where's the DOJ now?<br /><br />So yes, sometimes statements from just about anybody but the official source can be valid.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-64264880736288997802014-08-02T15:02:55.448-05:002014-08-02T15:02:55.448-05:00Risky. If Amazon does that, accepts shipments and ...Risky. If Amazon does that, accepts shipments and orders and then Hachette pulls back its titles... what? There's no contract in place.<br /><br />Take care.shugyoshahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04437800091500543886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-8092920098775385042014-08-02T14:55:52.117-05:002014-08-02T14:55:52.117-05:00I was just wondering to myself if Amazon might be ...I was just wondering to myself if Amazon might be better off at this point if it just stopped delaying shipments and removing pre-orders. They could make a simple statement to the effect that Hachette has still been dragging its feet, and so since their efforts to encourage a quicker negotiation are not working they will return to normal policies out of consideration for the authors being impacted. <br /><br />Or maybe they could reinstate normal policies for debut authors, and apply pressure by delaying orders only for Hachette's established bestselling authors.<br /><br />Either of these could help Amazon in the public perception of their side of the issue, and either approach would kneecap the Author's United movement.<br /><br />Or maybe I should spend my time thinking more about my own business :)Nirmala (free spiritual ebooks)http://endless-satsang.com/free-ebooks-free-spiritual-books61.htmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-13081478703986335122014-08-02T09:08:06.991-05:002014-08-02T09:08:06.991-05:00"Shatzkin next to no integrity left?
Try no ..."Shatzkin next to no integrity left?<br /><br />Try no integrity left at all." <br /><br />I was trying to be be a little gentle, but yes, I think he has no integrity. I think he's trying to make money off the publishers, so he's trying to ease them into the understanding that they're screwed. He's going to make sure he sells them more useless "advice" before they're completely dead in the water though. <br /><br />I hope I am not the only one who has noticed more "experts" in these ancillary industries popping up to "aid" people through this transition with their experience in traditional publishing. They see the writing on the wall and they're just trying to grab those last few bucks from the desperate and confused.Liznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-80413251176347397292014-08-02T08:57:02.977-05:002014-08-02T08:57:02.977-05:00That's such a good point, Kirk. I don't se...That's such a good point, Kirk. I don't see evidence that the publishers do care about readers. All they do is defend themselves and why they think they should be allowed to charge higher prices. When have the readers ever come into the equation? When have the authors? They think this business is about them. When you look at it that way, is it really any wonder that they're failing at their jobs so miserably and being crushed by Amazon? This is one reason why I'm a little disgusted by all the people defending them, claiming that we can work with them. How do you work with an entity like that? What reason would you have to even try? They don't even think they did anything wrong and they certainly don't care about what happens to anyone else but themselves. No one should worry too much if they go out of business. Liznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-91434390219570710822014-08-02T08:51:59.464-05:002014-08-02T08:51:59.464-05:00Shatzkin next to no integrity left?
Try no integr...Shatzkin <i>next to</i> no integrity left?<br /><br />Try no integrity left at all. Instead of helping publishers see how fucked they are unless they adapt, he's blowing reassuring smoke up their asses, while seeing if he can make some fast bucks off their dying corpses, by selling them vintage-2004 "metadata" services for six figures a pop.Smart Debut Authornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-62693550391938410032014-08-02T08:43:53.544-05:002014-08-02T08:43:53.544-05:00At least Cader is willing to discuss this openly u...At least Cader is willing to discuss this openly unlike a lot of the people Joe fisks, but, that said, nothing he has done though has convinced me that he's not a corporate shill. Mike Shatzkin as well. He can be offended all he wants. After all, it's easy to get offended, but hard to actually show you're not a corporate shill..if you actually are one. The same thing goes for Mike Shatzkin, though I think it's obvious that Mike is a much bigger shill than just about anyone willing to speak out about publishing right now. He has next to no integrity left. Liznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-64498058508313702172014-08-02T08:40:45.785-05:002014-08-02T08:40:45.785-05:00I hope this comment gets read because I think Cade...I hope this comment gets read because I think Cadet let the cat out of the bag unintentionally while trying to be snide. He said, "Consumer prices are a separate issue. Higher prices to consumers may have been the result on some books, but it was not because publishers raised their prices. Publishers lowered their prices, but eliminated discounting."<br /><br />This illustrates a central point that has been touched on many times by Joe and others, but he is essentially saying that at the end of the day, publishers don't really care about readers because readers are not the publishers customers. Bookstores and distributors are the publishers customers. Why do you think Apple was so willing to take the Agency Model of pricing? It cost them less per book of course and all they had to do was give up pricing control which is fine as long as your competitor, Amazon, is forced into the same pricing structure.<br /><br />The true middleman nature of the publisher has just been revealed by a publishing industry shill. Somebody who has the inside scoop as he put it just admitted, frankly and blatantly that publishers do not give a flying shit about the readers. I'm surprised this hasn't been pointed out yet.Kirk Jollyhttp://www.kirkjolly.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-60094401337667608062014-08-02T00:37:55.026-05:002014-08-02T00:37:55.026-05:00"So how, then, do the deniers explain the DOJ..."So how, then, do the deniers explain the DOJ suit, the caving of the publishers in question, and Apple's loss in the courts?"<br /><br /><br />The apologist explanations I have seen:<br /><br />-They didn't do it, and in settling they cannot be said to have done it; they can only be said to have decided it would be less ruinous to settle with the DoJ than to fight a bogus DoJ case (and also a bogus class action suit fom 30+ states, which they also settled).<br /><br />- The DoJ is a sock puppet of Amazon, and the publishers were unfairly railroaded and bullied by these entities<br /><br />- Collusive price-fixing was an essential "solution" or the "only solution" to the problem of Amazon, and therefore it should have been allowed, regardless of what the law says about it<br /><br />- It wasn't really an antitrust violation, and the DoJ should never have pursued this, and it was a bad ruling, and it's somehow all President Obama's fault Laura Resnickhttp://www.lauraresnick.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-14600004847037862014-08-01T22:46:24.622-05:002014-08-01T22:46:24.622-05:00Rob, you have to ask Shatzkin. I don't get it,...<i>Rob, you have to ask Shatzkin. I don't get it, either. </i><br /><br />I'd rather eat ground glass. Exchanging any kind of dialogue with Shatzkin is an exercise in frustration. The apparent cognitive dissonance is astounding.Rob Gregory Brownehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12785299355462748009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-4321043651558347332014-08-01T22:42:31.895-05:002014-08-01T22:42:31.895-05:00Rob, you have to ask Shatzkin. I don't get it,...Rob, you have to ask Shatzkin. I don't get it, either. I would guess "the court was wrong" is at least part of the reason.<br /><br />What I'm finding interesting in all of this is how stupid the defenders of traditional publishing come across. You don't see Hachette out here defending itself. You have people like Shatzkin and Cader doing it for them.<br /><br />Why? Obviously it's their job. But it's amazing how dumb they end up sounding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-68958252431371997432014-08-01T22:13:59.164-05:002014-08-01T22:13:59.164-05:00Schatzkin also denies there was collusion.
So how...<i>Schatzkin also denies there was collusion.</i><br /><br />So how, then, do the deniers explain the DOJ suit, the caving of the publishers in question, and Apple's loss in the courts?<br /><br />Rob Gregory Brownehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12785299355462748009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-92211011490810434802014-08-01T21:55:22.196-05:002014-08-01T21:55:22.196-05:00Schatzkin also denies there was collusion. Schatzkin also denies there was collusion. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-54106837352391202032014-08-01T21:48:09.985-05:002014-08-01T21:48:09.985-05:00I am a bit disappointed that Cader didn't resp...I am a bit disappointed that Cader didn't respond to me calling bullshit on his pricing assertions. Ah well, no one is required to respond to annoying critics. <br /><br />On the other hand, he brought up the Pew Research survey. I am going to go out on a limb and claim that I know more about that data than Cader does. I might know more about it than anybody outside of Pew. AFAIK, Pew is the only reputable public pollster that releases the raw data from their surveys (generally six months after they report on it). I have requested and analyzed that data pretty carefully. I have learned a ton of stuff about readers that way. <br /><br />But you don't have to know much about that data to know that Cader is whistling in the dark when says only 4% of readers are ebook-only. That is totally irrelevant. Just think about other technological changes. Did the number of houses that were microwave oven only track the rise of microwaves? Spoiler alert! No. <br /><br />Let's look more content-related markets. How about television replacing radio as the delivery mechanism for audio episodic stories in the US? Did the number of homes with TVs and no radios tell you anything about how the function of the radio industry was changing? This is actually a good case to look at. Radio didn't die off. The nature of radio programming changed completely. That didn't happen overnight. For five years in the '50's, Dragnet was a TV series and a radio series. At the same time. <br /><br />The fact that 75% of publisher income comes from print is their choice. By their own admission, they have engaged in a four year battle to slow the adoption of ebooks. <br /><br />Cader is coming off more and more like a shill. Based on his inside knowledge, he thinks Amazon is desperate and flailing. I don't see that, but I find it pretty easy to understand why someone would assume that a publication called Publishers Lunch speaks for publishers. That seems to confuse Cader. If his publication is what he describes, he should change the name. <br /><br />I will challenge Cader to make a very simple statement. Penguin, Simon & Schuster, Hachette, MacMillan and HarperCollins broke the law in pursuit of their business agenda. We all know that is true. Why won't he say it? It is the most newsworthy thing that has happened on his beat in those 14 years. William Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13795149116565627671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-86288888636437418632014-08-01T18:37:06.123-05:002014-08-01T18:37:06.123-05:00By odd coincidence, today President Obama acknowle...By odd coincidence, today President Obama acknowledged that the CIA “tortured some folks” (yes, folks. He called the CIA people folks, too. Just folks, who torture folks). Contrary to treaty and federal law, no one will be investigated or prosecuted. But don’t worry, because "We have to as a country take responsibility for that so hopefully we don’t do it again in the future.”<br /><br />http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/01/obama-cia-torture-some-folks-brennan-spying<br /><br />You might wonder how there can be any taking of responsibility for breaking the law if the law goes unenforced. Which brings me to Michael’s thoughts on anonymous sources in journalism…<br /><br />Amazon executives claim on the record that Hachette has been dragging its feet, and lay out a whole timeline for the foot-dragging (see William Ockham’s reconstruction at the link below). An unknown Hachette official, who requested anonymity and was granted it by Publisher’s Lunch, then denies Amazon’s claim.<br /><br />http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/07/amazon-hachette-sounds-of-silence-guest.html<br /><br />Imagine you’re a child, and terribly unsophisticated about the worlds of journalism, business, and publishing. Might you ask… “Why won’t Hachette deny this in public? Don’t they want people to know the truth?”<br /><br />The child would know why, too. Because: the Hachette official was lying. But failing to understand something even a child would recognize, Publisher’s Lunch granted that executive anonymity rather than saying, "Sorry, if you want to correct that timeline, you’ll have to do so on the record, just as Amazon did.”<br /><br />Instead, knowingly or not, Publisher’s Lunch allowed itself to be used to launder corporate bullshit into what looks on the surface like journalism.<br /><br />And Michael’s response to being criticized for this is, "Hachette did deny Amazon's claims of dragging their feet, albeit in a fashion Barry did not like -- but the denial was issued nonetheless.”<br /><br />Wow.<br /><br />The fact that you would believe — and claim in public — that “Hachette” is responsible and accountable for something uttered by some presumptive executive who wouldn’t even agree to have his name attached to the statement is breathtaking. Do you also believe that when some anonymous administration official is quoted in the newspaper, that’s the same as the White House issuing a public statement?<br /><br />As I explained in my post to you on this topic, good journalism isn’t about what some other corporation does or doesn’t do in its own press releases. And it’s not about what someone like me “likes” or doesn’t like. It’s about what’s more likely to result in accuracy, transparency, and accountability… and what’s more likely to result in distortions, falsehoods, and propaganda. You really ought to read it — for the links to informed thinking on this topic if for nothing else.<br /><br />http://barryeisler.blogspot.com/2014/07/publishers-lunch-and-pernicious.html<br /><br />Michael, there are times when the sensible and dignified thing to say is just, “Those are good points. Thanks for bringing them up — I’ll consider them.” Instead of digging a deeper hole for yourself.<br /><br />Ponder whether this is one of those times.<br /><br />But however or even whether you want to respond, again I hope you’ll reconsider your practices on granting anonymity to people who have no legitimate reason to ask for it. Why not correct mistakes? Why not try to be better?<br /><br />Peace.Barry Eislerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17785333622697500192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-59301514643872965612014-08-01T17:37:03.336-05:002014-08-01T17:37:03.336-05:00I am surprised nobody is commenting on this. Cut ...I am surprised nobody is commenting on this. Cut and pasted from PM. Apparently profits are up at Lagadere despite the fact that Hachette authors sales are way down. What does this tell me? Hachette doesn't really care about whether individual authors are earning less because the corporation is doing fine, so it can absorb the loss from author sales? Preston, are you paying attention? Hachette doesn't care about you :)<br /><br />FROM PM:<br /><br />"Lagardere reported first-half of the year results after the close of the market in France on Thursday. Sales at Lagardere Publishing were 510 million euros in the second quarter (up 12 million euros) -- and 903 million euros for the full first half, up 2.5 percent on a like-for-like basis for the quarter but down 1.5 percent (or 14 million euros) in actual results because of foreign exchange. Earnings did fall to 51 million euros, down 28 percent from 71 million euros a year ago, due to an "exceptionally rich" publishing program in the first half of 2013.<br /><br />"The company answered the big question of how the standoff with Amazon has affected their performance: very little, if at all. Lagardere said the dispute with Amazon had a "limited impact...despite punitive practices." Though individual authors have reported significant declines in sales of their books in the US, Lagardere said sales at HBG USA of 226 million euros (or roughly $305 million) were up 5.6 percent thanks to the acquisition and integration of Hyperion and the takeover of Disney's distribution, as well as strong sales of books by J.K. Rowling and Donna Tartt."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-27232934534952279782014-08-01T16:21:54.339-05:002014-08-01T16:21:54.339-05:00Mr. Cader, I'd like to thank you for putting y...Mr. Cader, I'd like to thank you for putting yourself forward and respectfully joining in a debate here. I found it very refreshing and informative. Even if it hasn't changed my mind about Amazon or self-publishing, I tried to read your comments with an open mind.<br /><br />I'm curious about the survey you mentioned. Were the results posted somewhere that we could look at them for ourselves? Does anyone have a link?Madelynhttp://www.madelyneld.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-63665631609139424422014-08-01T16:18:26.782-05:002014-08-01T16:18:26.782-05:00Mr. Cader wrote: " The notion that you, or Ba...Mr. Cader wrote: " The notion that you, or Barry, or Hugh -- or Shatzkin, or me, are truly writing in defense of personal economic interests is illusory, and offensive."<br /><br /><br />By contrast, -I- am certainly writing in defense of –my- personal economic interests.<br /><br />I've spent 26 years as a full-time midlist writer, and I care about two things: writers and readers. <br /><br />More specifically, I care about my ability to earn a living as a writer—and to earn a better living than I have so far earned in the course of a very difficult career. (At least 6 publishers either dumped me or folded under me—so supporting myself as a writer has been a constant struggle. I have earned better and struggled less in the past 2-3 years, and I want to earn still more and struggle still less for the rest of my career.) And I care about my ability as a reader to be able to access whatever I want to read at a reasonable price, and about the opportunity for readers to access all of –my- work at a reasonable price.<br /><br />I deal with a traditional publisher (DAW Books) because it's a good business decision for me—they pay me well, package my work well, and treat me as a respected partner in the publishing process. No other publisher, in 20+ years of working with publishers, ever did that (in fact, the others all treated me like a crack whore, to one degree or another). I like DAW for all of this. There's also a little matter of loyalty and honor, which are important to me; DAW contracted me at a time when no one else would, and they have always treated me very well, in an industry where no one else ever did. I appreciate that, and I have no intention on walking out on a company that behaves that way.<br /><br />Given my experiences over the years in publishing, it seems unlikely I'll ever choose to deal with another US publisher (though I might choose to deal with overseas publishers). But I intend to remain in traditional publishing indefinitely, through my relationship with DAW.<br /><br />I also self-publish—just backlist for now, but once it's all out there, I intend to start self-publishing frontlist, too. I have a long-range self-publishing plan, because I think this is a crucial market, particularly for anyone who is NOT a mega-selling superstar of the bookworld. <br /><br />I can understand why super-successful, wealthy, media-profiled book celebrities like Patterson, Roberts, Preston, Turrow, etc. want to dance with the one that brung them. The system works well for them, so of course they support it. It would probably be unseemly of them NOT to support it, given the success it has helped them achieve. <br /><br />Obviously, that #1 NYT bestseller are going to have different agendas and goals as the market changes. Theirs, presumably, is to maintain the system that has put millions into their bank accounts year after year. Me to expand out of a system that kept me poor and depressed for 20+ years. I was only able to buy my first house 2 years ago—and only because of the way that self-publishing augmented my income.<br /><br />Bottom line, I think that all the anti-Amazon and pro-Hachette (and/or collusive pro-collusive price fixing) arguments keep boiling down to a conviction that publishers are important and their survival is paramount, and of concern to me, a priority, and tied to my fate as a writer.<br /><br />And I disagree. I care about writers and readers. More specifically, I care about myself as a writer and about my readers, and also about myself as a reader. The past has been pretty bad for all these things. The present is better, and the future looks to be better, too.<br /><br />Finally, NONE of the "what if?" scare tactics about Amazon or the future work on a full-time self-supporting writer who's already lost at least 6 publishers and is still standing.<br /><br />Laura Resnickhttp://www.lauraresnick.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-48925923809709473712014-08-01T16:07:37.250-05:002014-08-01T16:07:37.250-05:00From the peanut gallery: I keep thinking that some...From the peanut gallery: I keep thinking that some of this stuff from "Authors Guild" & "Authors United" and Preston and Patterson sounds vaguely familiar. Where have we heard this sort of thing before? <br /><br />"There is plenty of that kind of social and emotional hypocrisy around today. Add to it a liberal dose of intellectual pretentiousness and you get the tone of the book page in your daily paper and the earnest and fatuous atmosphere breathed by discussion groups in little clubs. These are the people who make best sellers, which are promotional jobs based on a sort of indirect snob appeal, carefully escorted by the trained seals of the critical fraternity, and lovingly tended and watered by certain much too powerful pressure groups whose business is selling books, although they would like you to think they are fostering culture. Just get a little behind in your payments and you will find out how idealistic they are."<br /> <br />"Anonymous", in an essay first published in 1950.<br /><br />I know, I know. It's not fair to quote this man, he was talking about something completely different. In his essay he starts out talking about realism in fiction, about Jane Austen, whose "chronicles of highly inhibited people [...] seem real enough psychologically." <br /><br />Maybe that's what makes it sound so familiar. The psychology still seems real. It's still with us. There is more than a trace of "indirect snob appeal" in the position that legacy publishers and sundry trained seals are taking - a not-so-subtle appeal to readers to keep the riff-raff at bay and buy what the publishers see fit to print - and on their terms. <br /> <br />I could be wrong. Maybe the writer was referring, well before his time, to Amazon? You decide. <br /><br />Regarding the term "legacy" as applied to publishers. I think Barry Eisler acknowledged that he borrowed it from the IT industry. "Legacy systems" in IT-speak referred, at one time, to the mainframe systems (IBM, DEC, Burroughs etc etc) that were the established systems for corporate computing ... until the PC came along in the early 80s and blew most of them away in the space of a few years. There was nothing wrong with the legacy systems as such. They did pretty much what they were supposed to do and the companies who made and maintained them made money for their shareholders... until new systems made them obsolete and people stopped buying them. <br /><br />For anyone who's read this far and didn't recognize the quote at the outset, it's from Raymond Chandler, The Simple Art of Murder.Phil Haddockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05040076303650669064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-85892238062415035542014-08-01T15:36:16.984-05:002014-08-01T15:36:16.984-05:00TL;DR
Will continue to sell books on Amazon and m...TL;DR<br /><br />Will continue to sell books on Amazon and make 5-figures a month. Everyone else can shove it.<br /><br />Thank you, Amazon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-58537916259478880982014-08-01T15:25:43.102-05:002014-08-01T15:25:43.102-05:00[Part 2]
* Again, it's a very long, separate ...[Part 2]<br /><br />* Again, it's a very long, separate conversation about when and how to trust sources and when not to. I am careful and circumspect; I know (and am told) a lot more than I report, and am always looking to have an understanding of the broader context; and as you've noted, I do have access and interaction with people all across the publishing world (including retailers, authors and agents). And they all know where to find me if we run something this isn't correct or doesn't sound right.<br /><br />I have been on this beat every day for over 14 years. Like anyone I've made my share of mistakes but I'll stand my record against that of anyone who has covered the trade publishing business. <br /><br /><br />* Since you have gone to admirable lengths to conduct a respectful dialogue here, I would like to take issue with this:<br /><br /><br />"You won't hear this from Publishers Lunch because it is Publishers Lunch is paid for by publishers, and when publishers start toppling, there goes PL's subscriptions. I don't get paid for this blog. I have no horse in this race."<br /> <br /> <br />The notion that you, or Barry, or Hugh -- or Shatzkin, or me, are truly writing in defense of personal economic interests is illusory, and offensive. I don't think an exchange among people who are likely to disagree will ever get very far if we lean back on an implication that the other guy is really in the tank for personal gain. (You said you're starting businesses to help sell ebooks by other self-published authors; I say good for you, rather than focusing on how that might give you a horse in the race....)<br /><br />We've all been fortunate in our work; we're all engaging passionately in precious free time in ways that none of us has to because we think it's important and valuable to a community we all care about and want to see endure and succeed. Even if we have different ideas about what that future path might look like, or ought to be.<br /><br />The idea that Publishers Lunch serves only publishers and is supported only by publishers is incorrect. PL and PM have welcomed and served all publishing professionals since inception, and from the beginning we included authors -- both published and aspiring -- in that definition and that community. Authors are a substantial portion of both paid and free subscriptions. (As are agents, retailers, digital startups, international publishers, film and tv people, media, and more.) The transparency and accessibility we have helped bring to information about deal transactions, dealmakers and how to contact them have had a radical effect on how the business works, and how those outside a very limited circle can use the same resources and information that editors, agents, publishers and others use all the time to get business done. And through that, among other things, we have helped create substantial opportunities, and revenues, for authors.<br /><br />I don't want to turn this into an infomercial, but I wish we all could not rely on facile ideas about what is motivating a dissenting voice.Cadernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-54757053582105480602014-08-01T15:25:21.560-05:002014-08-01T15:25:21.560-05:00[Part 1]
Joe:
Most importantly, thanks for the ext...[Part 1]<br />Joe:<br />Most importantly, thanks for the extra efforts to provide a respectful welcome and civil engagement. It is appreciated, and it does provide a better environment for exchanging contrary views.<br /><br />As you say, some of this is getting circular, so I'll try to keep this reply briefer, and focus on places where I might have something new to add, rather than repeating what I said before in a different way. (Also, together we've shed thousands of words over Amazon's 600-word statement, and I'm trying to get out of town.)<br /><br />Fundamentally, I think we are agreeing -- though stating in somewhat different fashion -- that both Amazon and Hachette are looking to protect/advance their own interests. <br /><br /><br /><br />* Hachette did deny Amazon's claims of dragging their feet, albeit in a fashion Barry did not like -- but the denial was issued nonetheless.<br /><br />I wish they would say more, but it's not at all unusual for a company to decline to negotiate with a key supplier in public. It's probably the norm. What's more unusual is Amazon's multi-pronged, multi-message approach -- sometimes negotiating with people who are not authorized to make deals, sometimes eliciting feedback from publishing community members and then ignoring that feedback, sometimes via these statements on their forum, like Clint Eastwood at the Republican convention. You see it as noble and clear; others see it as desparate and flailing.<br /><br />There's some dignity in HBG not letting Amazon set the public terms of engagement.<br /><br /><br />* Yes, Hachette cannot disclose how many ebooks they've sold via Kindle on a per unit basis. (They have disclosed, both to the court and their public investors, Kindle's share of their ebook sales.) The jeopardy that attaches to a big company for such a violation is different than the jeopardy to you as an individual.<br /><br />I agree that publishers have been uncomfortable with all kinds of transparency (including our PM deal reports). But Bookscan would not exist if publishers did not pay fees to keep it going.<br /><br /><br />* Your new businesses sound interesting, and savvy. The ebook world is still full of possibilities and room for growth. And at least some consumers are clearly uncomfortable with the idea of having only one reliable, viable place to buy their ebooks. I'll look forward to hearing more.<br /><br /><br />* I'd rather not launch into a long debate on paper versus digital. Yes, big publishers have distinct, leveragable market advantages in the physical supply chain. They may indeed want to "protect" that.<br /><br />But they are also servicing readers and I don't think we should lose sight of that. In the latest survey from a non-publishing-related polling entity, Pew, only 4 percent of respondents are reading e-only, and a substantial percentage don't read digitally at all yet and don't want to. And for mainstream publishers, 75 percent of dollars (or more) are spent on print. <br /><br />Continued....<br /><br />Cadernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-90661283741788316552014-08-01T15:24:56.851-05:002014-08-01T15:24:56.851-05:00So... I stopped reading halfway through because I ...So... I stopped reading halfway through because I had to go register at ebooksareforever.com and check out the booksloco thing. <br /><br />(PS some authors are stupid, aka: me, because I didn't read the instructions thoroughly the first time, so sent an email to have you guys delete one account and keep the other with my real name). <br /><br />That being said, and I truly hope Joe can make whatever he's up to successful, as in turn, it will be another set of excellent tools for authors like me, I don't think Cader understands, anymore than Marion Gropen over in the TPV comments, what this is really about. <br /><br />OR<br /><br />He does, but he's like the rest of the elitist authors who see midlist and self-pub as threats, and they don't want to share their candy with us. So he'll conflate issues to the point where he thinks he can confuse intelligent persons, and walk away feeling like he's won some internet argument. <br /><br />Meanwhile, Rome still burns, and Hachette is still losing the PR battle. <br /><br />The last point I'll make is that I find it nearly impossible to listen to the ridiculous nonsense from industry shills and execs after they were found guilty of breaking the law. If you think you aren't guilty just because you settled, you apparently have no clue that the entire trial transcripts are available for us to peruse, and within it, we found OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF YOUR GUILT. <br /><br />A liar saying he's not lying is a liar. Unless he can prove he's not lying. <br /><br />To this point, I've not heard anyone disprove any of the lies. Angry_Gameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06858237359474121630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-9140796654469883222014-08-01T15:22:57.768-05:002014-08-01T15:22:57.768-05:00w.adam mandelbaum - I'm pretty sure there'...w.adam mandelbaum - I'm pretty sure there's a coffee table company out there inventing a table with a built in screen so that homes can program different Coffee Table slideshows to replace the cumbersome and expensive coffee table book. Or maybe, a table with a holographic projector that cycles through images from your favorite coffee table books. <br /><br />And if there isn't, there should be!Alexander Morihttp://www.alexandermori.comnoreply@blogger.com