[cstross]

John Scalzi's response to this piece of self-serving agitprop is worth reading in full:

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2014/07/30/amazons-latest-volley/

(Shorter Scalzi: Amazon are presenting as "good for authors" policies which, in fact, are only indisputably "good for Amazon"; the only authors they might be good for are those who cleave unto Amazon like limpets and don't do business with the other 70% of the book distribution business, and even then, it's somewhat questionable: Amazon's T&C's for authors publishing directly are invidious and include binding arbitration clauses and boilerplate giving AMZN the right to vary their terms unilaterally -- meaning AMZN basically have those authors by the short and curlies, in a manner that no real publishing company even attempts in their author contracts.)

[mcguire]

Hm.

"Amazon’s assumptions don’t include, for example, that publishers and authors might have a legitimate reason for not wanting the gulf between eBook and physical hardcover pricing to be so large that brick and mortar retailers suffer, narrowing the number of venues into which books can sell."

So Scalzi and Hachette want me to subsidize Barnes & Noble? Mighty nice of them.

"...it appears to come with the ground assumption that books are interchangable units of entertainment, each equally as salable as the next, and that pricing is the only thing consumers react to."

That's an interesting statement to appear next to the Kirkus review of Lock In: "...yet more evidence that Scalzi is a master at creating appealing commercial fiction." My impression is that Amazon is more correct than Scalzi concerning the specific market in "commercial fiction".

Further, I'd be a little more sympathetic to him if he didn't include the argument, "...then I feel perfectly justified in considering your cost of production position vis a vis publishing as entirely hypocritical," if the publishing industry had not made that same argument for all of the price increases in the thirty years previous."

And then, of course, there's the bit about "Which is to say that between my publisher and Amazon, one of them gets to utter the immortal Darth Vader line “I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it further” to authors doing business with it and one does not."

It contrasts entertainingly with the fact that neither he nor his publisher are operating under the terms of the Kindle Direct agreement with Amazon, although I suspect his publisher has more authority than he admits, if he wants to get anything new published. Also with the fact that "Amazon is just 30% of the market."

[opendais]

Scalzi, like usual is ~90% correct and what little he is off about is easy enough to ignore. ;)

I easily see #3 resulting in the bottom end selling at $5 and the top end selling at $9.99 because I suspect the reason Amazon picked that number is, overall, it generates more total sales [by dollar volume]. One of the few things Amazon is good at is accurately pricing products to maximize gross revenue.

That being the case, I don't think its likely to be the disastrous price point Scalzi thinks it is even if it squeezes the publisher's margins on the higher end books. Ebooks, once created, are a sunk cost...not an ongoing one so maximizing gross revenue works in everyone's favor.

[cstross]

Ebooks, once created, are a sunk cost...not an ongoing one so maximizing gross revenue works in everyone's favor.

What you're missing is that, from the author's point of view, ebooks are not interchangeable. A unit of my sales is not usefully interchangeable with a unit of Scalzi's. To Amazon we're fungible produce, but to us we're suppliers of bespoke one-of-a-kind products. The Amazon move squeezes those of us who are able to sell at a higher price point -- like me (current lead title priced at $12.99 on Amazon and selling jolly well; and at £7.99 in the UK, and doing well there, too).

Amazon's proposed $9.99 guillotine on pricing would basically impose a 30% cut in my income if sales volume of my titles remains static. And I haven't seen any evidence that the price elasticity of demand for novels by Charles Stross will respond to crude pricing signals the way that aggregate demands for all books will do across the board.

[opendais]

> What you're missing is that, from the author's point of view, ebooks are not interchangeable.

> we're suppliers of bespoke one-of-a-kind products

People who make specialty designer products all think this way, it isn't just authors. I'm well aware of the mindset, I just don't subscribe to it. Many software products are as unique as two different ebooks, however, they meet the same general need/desire for products of that category and are ultimately interchangeable under the right market conditions.

> Amazon's proposed $9.99 guillotine on pricing would basically impose a 30% cut in my income if sales volume of my titles remains static. And I haven't seen any evidence that the price elasticity of demand for novels by Charles Stross will respond to crude pricing signals the way that aggregate demands for all books will do across the board.

The number of authors I don't buy on price is a very, very small list compared to the majority of my ebook purchases. FWIW, I've never bought any of your books precisely for this reason.

So, if you accept Amazon's premise that aggregate demand for all ebooks will increase, that leads to the basic question of:

Why should I specifically value the net outcome for Charles Stross over any other author that benefits from the increase in demand?

[mcguire]

"A unit of my sales is not usefully interchangeable with a unit of Scalzi's."

You sure about that? I haven't read anything by either one of you. You both have a bunch of good reviews and some interesting titles. Or, I could just go get a new paddle leash for the price of your book and go kayaking.