Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Amazon pulls thousands of e-books... and the SFWA strikes back

(1/4) > >>

wraith808:
The thing as an indie publisher, you don't have a lot of leverage in negotiations, as shown in the recent Amazon dispute with the Independent Publishers Group.

Amazon.com removed more than 4,000 e-books from its site this week after it tried and failed to get them more cheaply, a muscle-flexing move that is likely to have significant repercussions for the digital book market.

--- End quote ---

But the Science Fiction Writer's Association didn't take that lying down.  SFWA is now redirecting Amazon links.

While Amazon has the right to decide with what company it does business, its removal of many of our authors’ books from its ordering system will have an economic impact on them. Our authors depend on people buying their books and a significant percentage of them have books distributed through IPG.  Therefore, SFWA is redirecting Amazon.com links from the organization’s website  to other booksellers because we would prefer to send traffic to stores where the books can actually be purchased.

--- End quote ---

Since online retailers are at the mercy of traffic (which is one of the reasons online advertising is so messed up), this could be a valid way to hit back at companies that engage in such practices.  Imagine something on the scale of the SOPA blackouts that affected Amazon.  They pay (a pittance to be sure) for those links, because they need/want that traffic.  But how do you get such solidarity in place?  Especially when we're talking short term vs. long term gains, i.e. associate revenue vs. the management of an industry?

IainB:
Wow. Interesting. This is such a surprise. (NOT)
What an amazing, change-inducing thing to happen.
Actually, what I do find surprising is that Amazon management would act in such a manner as to realise the potential to shoot themselves in the foot with such consummate skill like this.
Probably a regrettable action and one which is effectively a wide-band broadcast communication to the entire market - right up and down the value-chain - "We can make a victim of you if we want."
It announces to the prospective consumer and publisher alike what sort of business ethics they can expect to get embroiled in if they deal with Amazon - Caveat emptor; There Be Dragons.

Looks like Amazon management may have just demonstrated an inability to adapt their own business model to the flexible and dynamically changing nature of the value chain in the market that they have de facto been largely responsible for developing from its infancy right up to this point. Maybe the management are prone to serial execution errors - this looks to be almost certainly an error in any event.

It creates opportunity:

* (a) It's a potential fork in the road, and the market has apparently already taken the opportunity and branched off - viz: the SFWA is redirecting Amazon.com links to indiebound.org, Powell’s, and Barnes and Noble. An eminently pragmatic approach. Market forks tend to take on a separate existence and don't necessarily join back up at a later stage. This market is theoretically close to being "perfect" in economic terms, relatively sophisticated, watchful, and has a long collective memory - so will probably ensure a continuing separate existence to the fork. No pardons for mistakes like this.
* (b) It's a signal that it is an opportune time for Amazon's competitors (or maybe even a new player) to come into the market to pick up the business that Amazon has just apparently sacrificed for short-term gain and demonstration of an imaginary monopolistic control. Imaginary because it doesn't have that degree of control if the market doesn't allow it.
Be a part of the change. Vote with your feet and your wallets. Boycott. Buy elsewhere.

Oops.

40hz:
+1. Boycott.  8)

Oh wait! I can't. I never bought an ebook reader because I knew this would eventually happen.  :-[

wraith808:
Looks like Amazon management may have just demonstrated an inability to adapt their own business model to the flexible and dynamically changing nature of the value chain in the market that they have de facto been largely responsible for developing from its infancy right up to this point. Maybe the management are prone to serial execution errors - this looks to be almost certainly an error in any event.
-IainB (February 28, 2012, 06:53 PM)
--- End quote ---

I think they thought they had learned from the consummate masters of this... Apple.  But in comparison, Apple was a lot more deft, and only went after corporate interests, so they looked to be on the side of the angels in comparison.

They're in a critical time to be sure... they have a very short window in which to backpedal and do the requisite mea culpas to reverse in part the effects of their maneuverings.  But do they see that?  Especially with the fact that a lot of their revenue doesn't come from books and there's no solidarity behind this movement?

Carol Haynes:
What is not clear is if Amazon dropped IPG does that mean all the customers who have bought IPG product have had it removed from their Kindle accounts? Amazon did this before.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page