PDA

View Full Version : B&N not selling Amazon published titles!



MysteryRiter
02-02-2012, 02:58 AM
Read this article (http://www.examiner.com/literature-in-lexington/barnes-noble-will-not-sell-amazon-published-titles). Thoughts?

Torgo
02-02-2012, 02:59 AM
Handbags.

ETA: Or possibly a dire omen presaging the fragmentation of the book market. Either, really.

kuwisdelu
02-02-2012, 03:03 AM
I'm on B&N's side.


Or possibly a dire omen presaging the fragmentation of the book market. Either, really.

You say that like it isn't fragmented already.

ios
02-02-2012, 03:04 AM
Read this article (http://www.examiner.com/literature-in-lexington/barnes-noble-will-not-sell-amazon-published-titles). Thoughts?

In relation to self-e-publishers, at first, I thought it meant that I can't have a version on B&N and Amazon both. But I don't think it means that. I think it means if I had a book published by Amazon itself through its new publishing branch, I can't also self-e-publish it on B&N. Or at least, that's what I think it means. It's wording is not distinct. But anyway, I didn't think Amazon allowed anyone but itself to publish its own works in its own publishing arm (which is distinct from its distributor platflorm).

Or am I reading this all wrong? Because if I am, that means its not just self-e-publishers affected, but that anyone who distributes through Amazon cannot distribute through B&N too. Which means even the Big NY houses would have to choose.

Hmmm. Would love to hear more thoughts on this.

Jodi

Torgo
02-02-2012, 03:06 AM
You say that like it isn't fragmented already.

Eh, there's a huge Amazon-shaped crack in it, but most trade-published books still end up in all the stores (pretty much) simultaneously. Although for how much longer, I don't know.

Torgo
02-02-2012, 03:10 AM
In relation to self-e-publishers, at first, I thought it meant that I can't have a version on B&N and Amazon both. But I don't think it means that. I think it means if I had a book published by Amazon itself through its new publishing branch, I can't also self-e-publish it on B&N. Or at least, that's what I think it means. It's wording is not distinct. But anyway, I didn't think Amazon allowed anyone but itself to publish its own works in its own publishing arm (which is distinct from its distributor platflorm).

Or am I reading this all wrong? Because if I am, that means its not just self-e-publishers affected, but that anyone who distributes through Amazon cannot distribute through B&N too. Which means even the Big NY houses would have to choose.

Hmmm. Would love to hear more thoughts on this.

Jodi

Amazon publish ebooks but withhold them from B&N's Nook service. So now that Amazon is getting into print publishing, B&N will refuse to carry their print books.

If you sign a publishing deal with Amazon, however that works, you already won't see your ebook in B&N's ebook store. Now there's no chance you'd see your print book on their physical shelves either, should Amazon decide they want to publish one.

What it won't mean is Amazon refusing to carry your ebook just because you have a print edition on a shelf at B&N, published by a third party.

swvaughn
02-02-2012, 03:11 AM
Handbags.

ETA: Or possibly a dire omen presaging the fragmentation of the book market. Either, really.

Handbags, for sure.


I'm on B&N's side.

I think I am, too. Can't say that unequivocally, but my first reaction when I read this thread title was, "Well, DUH."

I read the article, and that's kind of still my reaction.

But I can't think straight right now.

And now... we all sit back and anticipate Konrath weighing in mightily on the matter (on his blog, of course -- not here :tongue)

kuwisdelu
02-02-2012, 03:17 AM
Eh, there's a huge Amazon-shaped crack in it, but most trade-published books still end up in all the stores (pretty much) simultaneously. Although for how much longer, I don't know.

Yeah, but the fact that the stores are incompatible with each other is bad enough. Maybe if there's more fragmentation, they'll realize we need a solution that is not "Amazon takes over the world."

Torgo
02-02-2012, 03:23 AM
Yeah, but the fact that the stores are incompatible with each other is bad enough. Maybe if there's more fragmentation, they'll realize we need a solution that is not "Amazon takes over the world."

I hope so. The incompatibility is a thorny problem. Neither publishers nor consumers want it, but it's central to the business models of the stores.

EngineerTiger
02-02-2012, 03:27 AM
Wonder how that affects eBooks published simultaneously through Smashwords and Amazon? Interesting to see how this plays out.

ios
02-02-2012, 03:30 AM
Yeah, but the fact that the stores are incompatible with each other is bad enough. Maybe if there's more fragmentation, they'll realize we need a solution that is not "Amazon takes over the world."

Are you talking about ebooks and an universal format? If so, that would be nice on one hand, but unpleasant on another if your current ereader device won't read the universal format.

Jodi

kuwisdelu
02-02-2012, 03:31 AM
I hope so. The incompatibility is a thorny problem. Neither publishers nor consumers want it, but it's central to the business models of the stores.

The format incompatibility is surely the stores' faults, but as I understand it, it's the (big) publishers that insist on DRM.

Torgo
02-02-2012, 03:32 AM
Wonder how that affects eBooks published simultaneously through Smashwords and Amazon? Interesting to see how this plays out.

This is only affecting books where Amazon is acting as a publisher. If you're publishing something yourself, using the self-publishing services of Amazon and Smashwords, that wouldn't be the case.

Torgo
02-02-2012, 03:40 AM
The format incompatibility is surely the stores' faults, but as I understand it, it's the (big) publishers that insist on DRM.

I think it's more complicated than that. The publishers insist on DRM even though they know it does nothing to secure their books from piracy. You could explain that a number of ways, but I think a big part of it is pressure from the stores. I mean, with Kindle, we just send Amazon the unprotected EPUB, and they convert it to their DRM format. They wouldn't want it to be DRM free even if we offered to waive protection.

EngineerTiger
02-02-2012, 04:22 AM
Thanks Torgo.

PorterStarrByrd
02-02-2012, 04:27 AM
I'm a little new ...

Can you publish a real book and then e-publish it yourself anywhere with violating a contract?

Torgo
02-02-2012, 04:30 AM
I'm a little new ...

Can you publish a real book and then e-publish it yourself anywhere with violating a contract?

Depends: did you retain ebook publishing rights?

You can sell print publishing rights to a publisher, have them produce a physical book, and then having retained ebook rights, self-publish an ebook; in theory. In practice, most publishers won't buy your print rights if you don't also sell them digital rights.

James D. Macdonald
02-02-2012, 05:24 AM
And now... we all sit back and anticipate Konrath weighing in mightily on the matter (on his blog, of course -- not here :tongue)

Whatever Konrath says, it'll be the Amazon party line.

Sheryl Nantus
02-02-2012, 05:49 AM
Whatever Konrath says, it'll be the Amazon party line.

Well, he *is* one of their authors.

Funny how he doesn't regard Amazon as a "bad" publisher when he's busy ranting about how 'orrible all commercial publishers are, eh?

;)

ios
02-02-2012, 07:32 AM
Funny how he doesn't regard Amazon as a "bad" publisher when he's busy ranting about how 'orrible all commercial publishers are, eh?

;)

There is a link where they talk about their reasons for going with Amazon publishing.

The link: http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/06/ebooks-and-self-publishing-part-3-yet.html

And a couple quotes by Eisler (http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/06/ebooks-and-self-publishing-part-3-yet.html), but I think Konrath agrees in general with him.


The gist of it is, itís the best of both worlds, legacy and indie. The advance and marketing muscle you (might) get in a legacy contract; the kind of digital royalties, creative control, and time-to-market you get with indie.

Also by Eisler in that post (http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/06/ebooks-and-self-publishing-part-3-yet.html):


And what could lure me back is precisely what I've never been able to get from any legacy publisher--not the two who have published me; none that I've negotiated with, either. Specifically:

1) A much more equitable digital royalty split.
2) Full creative control (packaging, pricing, timing).
3) Immediate digital release, followed by paper release when the paper is ready (no more slaving the digital release to the paper release).

This post is well worth reading to see why they went with Amazon Publishing.

Jodi

ios
02-02-2012, 07:38 AM
Whatever Konrath says, it'll be the Amazon party line.

But isn't it the same with most people? If you (general you) like your terms and relationship with your agent/editor/publisher, aren't you going to be spouting the party line for it too? Most people promote the ones that do well by them and do the opposite by the others.

Jodi

gothicangel
02-02-2012, 12:24 PM
Well, Duh! I'm pretty sure that we predicted this on AW months ago.

It would be like trying to buy a BK Whopper from McD's.

Terie
02-02-2012, 01:09 PM
NEWS FLASH!!!!!

SEARS DOESN'T SELL JC PENNEY BRAND CLOTHES!

TARGET DOESN'T SELL WALMART BRAND HOUSEWARES!!

FORD DEALERSHIPS DON'T SELL GENERAL MOTORS BRAND PARTS!!!

SAFEWAY DOESN'T SELL VONS BRAND GROCERIES!!!!

T-MOBILE DOESN'T SELL VIRGIN BRAND PHONES!!!!!

B&N DOESN'T SELL AMAZON BRAND BOOKS!!!!!!

OMG!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!

oh wait.

Stacia Kane
02-02-2012, 06:24 PM
Good for B&N, I say.

veinglory
02-02-2012, 07:45 PM
Read this article (http://www.examiner.com/literature-in-lexington/barnes-noble-will-not-sell-amazon-published-titles). Thoughts?

I think that article (blog) is pretty clearly biased, perhaps due to the reason in italics at the end.

I also think the whole retailer/publisher thing is just as fraught with potential conflicts of interest as the agent-publisher thing.

Terie
02-02-2012, 08:02 PM
I also think the whole retailer/publisher thing is just as fraught with potential conflicts of interest as the agent-publisher thing.

I don't think so. I see it as being exactly like any other retailer with their own name-brand goods, which can only be bought at that retailer's stores.

I can't buy Sainsbury brand orange juice at Tesco. I can't buy Starbucks brand coffee at Costa. I can't buy Marks & Spencer brand shoes at Clarks.

Why would I expect to buy Amazon brand books at Waterstones?

veinglory
02-02-2012, 08:41 PM
I don't think so. I see it as being exactly like any other retailer with their own name-brand goods, which can only be bought at that retailer's stores.

I can't buy Sainsbury brand orange juice at Tesco. I can't buy Starbucks brand coffee at Costa. I can't buy Marks & Spencer brand shoes at Clarks.

Why would I expect to buy Amazon brand books at Waterstones?

The difference is that orange juice is orange juice, they all buy from the same growers.

Each book is unique, and a book buyer should be able to get a mainstream popular author's books from any bookstore, just like they can get orange juice from any supermarket.

Stacia Kane
02-02-2012, 09:39 PM
Read this article (http://www.examiner.com/literature-in-lexington/barnes-noble-will-not-sell-amazon-published-titles). Thoughts?


My thought is that the author clearly doesn't understand what she's talking about, and perhaps she should do more research.





Each book is unique, and a book buyer should be able to get a mainstream popular author's books from any bookstore, just like they can get orange juice from any supermarket.

Yes, but in this case they can blame the author who deliberately excluded them by signing an Amazon/Kindle-exclusive deal, knowing full well that it means readers without Kindles won't be able to read their books.

Richard White
02-02-2012, 09:46 PM
Yes, but in this case they can blame the author who deliberately excluded them by signing an Amazon/Kindle-exclusive deal, knowing full well that it means readers without Kindles won't be able to read their books.

This is the part I do NOT understand. Why would a person voluntarily cut off part of their reading audience to go exclusive with any one retailer?

I didn't understand it when people started making deals like this back in the 90's with comic distributors. We used to have 13 - now there's Diamond or nobody, and if they don't like your comic, good luck getting someone to sell it in their store. Sure, it's great for Marvel, DC, Dark Horse and Image. But if you aren't working for them, good luck.

Why would authors cannibalize their market by helping ANY retailer gain complete dominance of the industry? People have to know once Company A has no competition, then they can pretty much dictate what your books going to sell for and what kind of royalties you're going to get. The publishers might as well be subsidiaries of Company A then.

Then again, that might be the over-all strategy, eliminate the retail competitors and then, over time, absorb the publishers too - until ONE company decides who gets published or not. And self-pubbing won't help then if they're the retailer too. Where else are you gonna sell your book?

Sometimes a touch of paranoia isn't a bad thing.

James D. Macdonald
02-02-2012, 10:05 PM
After what Amazon pulled with Hatchette, and Macmillan, and POD indie presses in general, they don't have any room to complain.

veinglory
02-02-2012, 10:09 PM
Yes, but in this case they can blame the author who deliberately excluded them by signing an Amazon/Kindle-exclusive deal, knowing full well that it means readers without Kindles won't be able to read their books.

Possibly, although I read those books and don't own a Kindle (I have a generic reader on my laptop). Nor did they (if non-"select") sign on to not be carried by retailers that their contracts does permit, and enable, and offer standard terms for.

This story is not about those who chose to go exclusive, but those who used Amazon as a generic publisher and are being excluded from channels they would otherwise qualify for. (See also: Amazon not stocking Lightning Source etc)

MarkEsq
02-02-2012, 10:17 PM
This story is not about those who chose to go exclusive, but those who used Amazon as a generic publisher and are being excluded from channels they would otherwise qualify for. (See also: Amazon not stocking Lightning Source etc)

I think that's a good point, if I was an author who'd signed with Amazon to publish my book, I'd be very upset that the leading chain in America wouldn't stock it.

That said, anyone signing with Amazon should probably have seen trouble brewing. They way they've behaved in the market invited a response from another big player. I guess this is the response, and maybe not the last one.

Alpha Echo
02-02-2012, 10:40 PM
Wonder how that affects eBooks published simultaneously through Smashwords and Amazon? Interesting to see how this plays out.

I'm curious about this also, since that's what I want to do.

Torgo
02-02-2012, 10:43 PM
I'm curious about this also, since that's what I want to do.

Again: this only affects books where Amazon IS THE PUBLISHER. If you are SELF-PUBLISHING via Amazon's SP program and also through Smashwords, it's irrelevant.

James D. Macdonald
02-02-2012, 10:53 PM
And, as I read the story, what's happening is that B&N isn't going to shelve Amazon's physical books. BN.COM will still sell them.

Kindle books aren't affected (they were never available from BN.COM to start with).

Shadow_Ferret
02-02-2012, 11:03 PM
I'm on B&N's side.
Yes. I read the quote by B&N's CEO and agreed completely.

Alpha Echo
02-02-2012, 11:04 PM
Again: this only affects books where Amazon IS THE PUBLISHER. If you are SELF-PUBLISHING via Amazon's SP program and also through Smashwords, it's irrelevant.

Sorry.

*hangs head in shame and walks away*

Sheryl Nantus
02-02-2012, 11:09 PM
There is a link where they talk about their reasons for going with Amazon publishing.

The link: http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/06/ebooks-and-self-publishing-part-3-yet.html

And a couple quotes by Eisler (http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/06/ebooks-and-self-publishing-part-3-yet.html), but I think Konrath agrees in general with him.



Also by Eisler in that post (http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/06/ebooks-and-self-publishing-part-3-yet.html):



This post is well worth reading to see why they went with Amazon Publishing.

Jodi

I wonder if they're offering all those perks to *all* the authors they're signing up.

If it's too good to be true - it probably is. I doubt these "fantastic" terms will last over time. As soon as Amazon figures they've got the majority of authors under their control things will change.

And a publisher is a publisher is a publisher. At some point the authors will make demands that won't meet with Amazon's dream and then what happens?

Just a wee bit two-faced, imo.

ios
02-03-2012, 08:09 PM
I wonder if they're offering all those perks to *all* the authors they're signing up.

I don't know. I kinda doubt the contract is going to be the same for all writers at Amazon Publishing--just as they aren't the same for all writers of a NY commercial publishing house.


Just a wee bit two-faced, imo.

I'm afraid I don't understand the above. Can you explain?

As you said, a publisher is a publisher is a publisher. I don't see the difference between a person who is happy with his NY commercial house and one who is happy with her Amazon Publishing house. Something pleased each author about the contracts and setup.

Jodi

ios
02-03-2012, 08:15 PM
Sorry.

*hangs head in shame and walks away*

Don't be. I was confused by the same. Amazon has a business name for its publishing branch, doesn't it? If so, the article should have used it and all would have been far clearer.

Jodi

Sheryl Nantus
02-03-2012, 08:36 PM
What I mean by two-faced is Konrath's ranting and raving about how only idiots would go with "legacy" publishers while he's signed with Amazon.

Meanwhile, it's being reported that Books-a-Million will also refuse to stock Amazon books.

Tirjasdyn
02-04-2012, 01:16 AM
The thing I found most interesting was how the B&N rep refered to the stores as showrooms.

I don't know about anywhere else but B&N has gutted their stores in the denver area. They've removed shelves and whole sections to put in couches tables and chairs. They emphasize starbucks or other cafes attached to them and allow food throughout the store. Nooks, games and gifts have more space than books in the one near me. So what if they don't carry it? If people want to read it, they'll buy it elsewhere.

gothicangel
02-04-2012, 01:49 AM
Meanwhile, it's being reported that Books-a-Million will also refuse to stock Amazon books.

I imagine that Waterstone's will soon be doing the same.

aadams73
02-04-2012, 01:54 AM
Interesting. Last time I was in B&N they had Eisler's latest release (Amazon's Thomas & Mercer imprint) on the shelves.


Good for B&N, I say.

Agreed. It's their little red wagon; they can pull it however they choose.

scoutxx
02-04-2012, 11:05 PM
Why would a person voluntarily cut off part of their reading audience to go exclusive with any one retailer?

Because that one retailer controls 75% of all books sold in the US, and 60% of all ebooks. They have more marketing muscle than all the big 6 combined, and you'll be able to make a hell of a lot more money with them than anyone else in the industry.

It is better to have wide exposure in a limited market than limited exposure in a wide market. And in this case, the limited market is huge.

As far as B&N not selling Amazon Publishing books, who cares? They're only hurting themselves. Also, they know what's coming, and that's why they want to split the Nook from the physical stores and make them two different companies. B&N physical will be out of business in 5 years, and that's being generous.

Print sales are dismal across the board, and they're only getting worse. If you had a chance to go with Amazon, even if it meant turning your back on physical stores, you'd be a fool to say no.

willietheshakes
02-05-2012, 12:26 AM
Because that one retailer controls 75% of all books sold in the US, and 60% of all ebooks. They have more marketing muscle than all the big 6 combined, and you'll be able to make a hell of a lot more money with them than anyone else in the industry.

It is better to have wide exposure in a limited market than limited exposure in a wide market. And in this case, the limited market is huge.

As far as B&N not selling Amazon Publishing books, who cares? They're only hurting themselves. Also, they know what's coming, and that's why they want to split the Nook from the physical stores and make them two different companies. B&N physical will be out of business in 5 years, and that's being generous.

Print sales are dismal across the board, and they're only getting worse. If you had a chance to go with Amazon, even if it meant turning your back on physical stores, you'd be a fool to say no.

Cites on the bold, please.

bearilou
02-05-2012, 12:54 AM
I read the story and now I'm confused.

B&N not selling those books from Amazon's publishing arm I understand.


But with the refusal to sell those books published through Amazon's KDP, CreateSpace, and the various imprints, authors are losing sales to another portion of the book buying public.

Did I miss where B&N said they were doing that? I thought it was just the physical books from Amazon's publishing section.


We donít get many requests for Amazon titles, but If customers wish to buy Amazon titles from us, we will make them available only online at bn.com."

Is there somewhere else in the article where it says B&N won't sell ANYthing coming out of Amazon? They just said
Barnes & Noble has made a decision not to stock Amazon published titles in our store showrooms.

So...where does this claim come from? Why are the indie authors upset by this move if it's not going to affect them? If Amazon has picked them up through their publishing arm, then they aren't really indie, are they?

This whole business is moving faster than I can keep up with.

MysteryRiter
02-05-2012, 01:33 AM
I completely misunderstood this article, I guess. :) I thought it meant that B&N wasn't publishing books self-published through Amazon and Createspace. No wonder... So it really has no impact on me then.

gothicangel
02-05-2012, 01:38 AM
So...where does this claim come from? Why are the indie authors upset by this move if it's not going to affect them? If Amazon has picked them up through their publishing arm, then they aren't really indie, are they?



I suspect they are upset because it does affect them, that they still want their presence in the high street book store. James Daunt is correct B&N and Waterstone's are publishing's store window. Without that presence in actual shops, who except those who are already fans going to know you have a book out?

bearilou
02-05-2012, 02:19 AM
I suspect they are upset because it does affect them, that they still want their presence in the high street book store. James Daunt is correct B&N and Waterstone's are publishing's store window. Without that presence in actual shops, who except those who are already fans going to know you have a book out?

Was that not the case before? Did B&N stock books available from CreateSpace in their brick and morters ...sorry...showrooms? I guess that's where my disconnect comes from.

They'll still be available through B&N.com, or that's how it reads to me.

Unless I'm confusing terminology here, which is highly likely.

Bogna
02-05-2012, 03:51 AM
I completely misunderstood this article, I guess. :) I thought it meant that B&N wasn't publishing books self-published through Amazon and Createspace. No wonder... So it really has no impact on me then.

Same here. At first I was freaked out, thankfully I read all of the posts in this thread and now have a much better understanding of what is going on.



I don't know about anywhere else but B&N has gutted their stores in the denver area. They've removed shelves and whole sections to put in couches tables and chairs. They emphasize starbucks or other cafes attached to them and allow food throughout the store. Nooks, games and gifts have more space than books in the one near me. So what if they don't carry it? If people want to read it, they'll buy it elsewhere.

Same here (I'm in Clackamas, Oregon). The store near me is full of self help books and how too guides with a small kids section. I feel like I have to squint to see the fiction sections.

James D. Macdonald
02-05-2012, 04:02 AM
Because that one retailer controls 75% of all books sold in the US,


Print sales are dismal across the board,

Neither of these things are true.

willietheshakes
02-05-2012, 04:26 AM
Neither of these things are true.

See, I was trying to be all subtle about it.

Cyia
02-05-2012, 04:39 AM
People have to know once Company A has no competition, then they can pretty much dictate what your books going to sell for and what kind of royalties you're going to get.


Which has been the ultimate goal/result of every monopoly in history. Google any man ever addressed as [commodity] baron -- 1st, you amass enough cash to live on for a long period of time without profit coming in. Then, you undercut all of your competition by an insane margin, making it impossible for them to compete with you while staying in business. Then, you lure their greatest assets from them with promises of lucrative deals/breaks/perks, etc.

Once the competition folds, prices go higher than they ever were in the competitive market, perks bottom out, and there's no longer anywhere else to turn for those suddenly unhappy with the situations they helped create.

amyashley
02-05-2012, 05:58 AM
Anyone in a panic over any of this should carefully do some research on what Amazon has been doing in the past year, what they do to lure in and market self-published authors, how it profits them (Amazon), and what they are doing currently.

Cyia is very correct, and I fear that anyone who feeds into the creation of a publishing and book selling monopoly would only be creating profits for themselves for a short while.

What I, personally, find interesting (though not very encouraging) is that Amazon is not in this business to promote literacy or create better books. The company originated as a multi-functional internet seller, and this is just another business opportunity for them. They're in this for profit. That does not bode well for readers any more than it does for writers, publishers, or anyone else nervously watching this unfold.

Bogna
02-05-2012, 10:58 AM
Do you (or anyone) have any links to articles explaining Amazon's monopolization and what they've been up too? I'm a bit lost.

Old Hack
02-05-2012, 11:20 AM
Do you (or anyone) have any links to articles explaining Amazon's monopolization and what they've been up too? I'm a bit lost.

Here are a few to get you started:

Amazon tries to force POD publishers to use Amazon's POD service when making sales through Amazon (http://writersweekly.com/the_latest_from_angelahoycom/004623_04092008.html). (2008)

Amazon removes "buy" button from Hachette titles (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/business/media/16amazon.html). (2008)

Amazon tries to dictate to publishers the price of their e-books (http://heylady.net/2010/08/06/why-i-hate-amazon-and-will-never-ever-ever-buy-from-them-again/) (2010)

Scottish booksellers accuse Amazon of bullying. (http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/comedy/bookshops_hit_back_at_amazon_bullying_1_1365556) (2010)

Amazon pulls the "buy" button from Macmillan's books (http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/comedy/bookshops_hit_back_at_amazon_bullying_1_1365556) (2010)

gothicangel
02-05-2012, 01:34 PM
Was that not the case before? Did B&N stock books available from CreateSpace in their brick and morters ...sorry...showrooms? I guess that's where my disconnect comes from.

They'll still be available through B&N.com, or that's how it reads to me.

Unless I'm confusing terminology here, which is highly likely.

As a Brit I couldn't speak for B&N. But I have certainly seen titles from Matador and Strategic Publishing stocked in Waterstone's.

I will be interested to see how they will be stocked. Will they be stocked, or will they be available through a second party?

*What I mean by 'showroom,' is a book attracting the attention of a casual customer who hadn't headed into town intending to buy that book. Lets face it, Amazon have become very successful from customers who refuse to pay full price when they see a book in-store, and have ran straight home to get it cheaper from Amazon. Losing that highstreet presence will harm the author.

DCDaugherty
02-05-2012, 04:24 PM
Here are a few to get you started:

Amazon tries to force POD publishers to use Amazon's POD service when making sales through Amazon (http://writersweekly.com/the_latest_from_angelahoycom/004623_04092008.html). (2008)

Amazon removes "buy" button from Hachette titles (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/business/media/16amazon.html). (2008)

Amazon tries to dictate to publishers the price of their e-books (http://heylady.net/2010/08/06/why-i-hate-amazon-and-will-never-ever-ever-buy-from-them-again/) (2010)

Scottish booksellers accuse Amazon of bullying. (http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/comedy/bookshops_hit_back_at_amazon_bullying_1_1365556) (2010)

Amazon pulls the "buy" button from Macmillan's books (http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/comedy/bookshops_hit_back_at_amazon_bullying_1_1365556) (2010)

But, ironically, the publishers are the ones under federal and European antitrust investigation.

bearilou
02-05-2012, 05:01 PM
I will be interested to see how they will be stocked. Will they be stocked, or will they be available through a second party?

I really don't mean to be dense, GA, I'm really trying to understand.

If an author goes the self-publishing route of CreateSpace, was there ever a time -- before B&N's decision -- that those books would ever see a shelf presence in the physical sense?

Because if there wasn't, I'm not sure how not doing it now is going to hurt them more if it wasn't being done in the first place.


*What I mean by 'showroom,' is a book attracting the attention of a casual customer who hadn't headed into town intending to buy that book. Lets face it, Amazon have become very successful from customers who refuse to pay full price when they see a book in-store, and have ran straight home to get it cheaper from Amazon. Losing that highstreet presence will harm the author.

Again...if it's a self-published title that wasn't going to be in the store to begin with, how is it harming them that it won't be now either?

That's my disconnect.

It's my understanding that many self-published authors usually have an online presence. They go through the online retailers and B&N has not threatened that.

Then again, maybe I'm misunderstanding what is meant by 'indie' authors considering many self-published authors have co-opted that for themselves instead of it referring to small presses.

From my current understanding, self-published authors who use Amazon's self epub services are upset their books won't be sold through B&N. But when have any self epubbed books had an easy time getting their books physically on the shelves to begin with?

randi.lee
02-05-2012, 05:27 PM
This is a real downer for me, then again bearilou is right... it's near impossible to get your book on the B&N shelf when self publishing.

Terie
02-05-2012, 07:04 PM
But, ironically, the publishers are the ones under federal and European antitrust investigation.

Citations for these claims, please.

Terie
02-05-2012, 07:08 PM
Again...if it's a self-published title that wasn't going to be in the store to begin with, how is it harming them that it won't be now either?

That's my disconnect.

I think the disconnect you have is that you're still thinking about self-published books for Kindle.

That's not what the article is about.

The article is about Amazon's new commercial publishing arm. B&N has decided, with damn good reason IMO, not to carry books published by a competitor's commercial publishing arm in their brick&morter stores.

This isn't about online shopping or about self-publishing.

It's about one retailer choosing not to carry in its shops products commercially produced by one of its competitors.

gothicangel
02-05-2012, 07:58 PM
From my current understanding, self-published authors who use Amazon's self epub services are upset their books won't be sold through B&N. But when have any self epubbed books had an easy time getting their books physically on the shelves to begin with?

What I think it comes down to, Amazon's SP authors have been lauding Amazon as their saviour. Now that Amazon are seeking to place their commercially published titles in bookstores, they feel a bit cheated.

Why them and not us, mentality.

DCDaugherty
02-05-2012, 08:12 PM
Citations for these claims, please.

About the Antitrust allegations:

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/us-competition.dy1

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/eu-antitrust-probe-e-book-104743496.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203501304577084331269336926.html

About the proposed class action lawsuits:

http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2011/10/did-apple-collude-with-publishers-to-fix-prices-on-e-books276.html

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/01/20/amended_class_action_complaint_alleges_apple_publi shers_engaged_in_price_fixing_conspiracy.html

bearilou
02-05-2012, 08:27 PM
I think the disconnect you have is that you're still thinking about self-published books for Kindle.

That's not what the article is about.

The article is about Amazon's new commercial publishing arm. B&N has decided, with damn good reason IMO, not to carry books published by a competitor's commercial publishing arm in their brick&morter stores.

This isn't about online shopping or about self-publishing.

It's about one retailer choosing not to carry in its shops products commercially produced by one of its competitors.

Which I did get from reading the article. I suppose what threw me was within the article:


Indie authors themselves are now taking the protest straight to B&N, because all in all, Amazon isn't the one getting hurt here. Amazon is doing just fine and bending over backwards to promote those authors and books within its stable, and the sales numbers are racking up. But with the refusal to sell those books published through Amazon's KDP, CreateSpace, and the various imprints, authors are losing sales to another portion of the book buying public.

So it does make me question my initial understanding that CreateSpace is the self-publishing arm of Amazon and not their trade publishing imprint (and I may be using that term incorrectly. Still learning here).

I guess if I understood what CreateSpace really is in that context, I will stop conflating all the wrong arguments. :)

amyashley
02-05-2012, 10:06 PM
More links of what has happened recently:

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-as-goodreads-ends-agreement-with-amazon-users-fear-lost-books/

And I found this pertinent in reference to the above if you read it carefully:

https://affiliate-program.amazon.com/gp/advertising/api/detail/main.html

Several links within this post sum up the situation well. This is worth reading:

http://accrispin.blogspot.com/2012/02/authors-guild-on-amazon-publishings.html

juniper
05-05-2012, 04:27 AM
Same here (I'm in Clackamas, Oregon). The store near me is full of self help books and how too guides with a small kids section. I feel like I have to squint to see the fiction sections.

That's the B&N I go to now, since the local Borders closed. The upstairs is more bookstore-ish than the downstairs but yeah, it's got a lot of non-book stuff going on, with toys and cafe (which I don't mind, coffee and books go together) and gifts/stationery section etc.

Have you been to Powells in downtown Portland? Now *there's* a great bookstore. One of the big independents still alive, even though they've had recent financial problems too, and laid off staff last year.

thothguard51
05-05-2012, 06:00 AM
What is more of a problem for Amazon, more so than B&N's decision, is the fact that Wal-Mart and Target have stopped selling Kindles in their stores. Apple is now the main focus.

Why?

Because Amazon is in direct competition with both Wal-Mart and Target and its not about e-readers only...