James Patterson wants the government to bail out publishing

As a Brit, this stood out to me:

In England, they’re more involved in world book day. The government did get involved. The government did sponsor giving coupons to every kid in England, and bookstores lowered their prices on books that day. Every kid in England could buy a book.

Click to expand...

It's fine to mention World Book Day, but let's not pretend a shit load of libraries haven't closed here or, at the very least, had their opening hours cut back hugely.

It looks to me more like an expression of his frustration and confusion. The world is changing and he doesn't like the way things are going.

But in the article he admits it's not really a bail-out, and says he doesn't really know what he wants:

I haven’t thought about it but I’m sure there are things that can be done. There might be tax breaks, there might be limitations on the monopolies in the book business. We haven’t gotten into laws that should or shouldn’t be done in terms of the internet. I’m not sure what needs to happen, but right now, nothing’s happening.

Click to expand...

He sees bookstores closing and libraries being poorly funded and... it seems like an awareness issue, not a request for funds as such.

A really simple thing that could be done is that government competition watchdogs could stop going after publishers and start going after monopolistic retailers.

Torgo said:

A really simple thing that could be done is that government competition watchdogs could stop going after publishers and start going after monopolistic retailers.

Click to expand...

This is just what I was thinking.

All I've heard about James Patterson on here is how terrible a writer he is, and I don't necessarily agree. Or disagree. I'm not a huge fan of his work, but it works for him.

That said, this article actually impressed me. I had no idea he did so much for education and learning. I think that's fantastic. He SHOULD do something good with all the money he makes.

I agree he seems frustrated and is using media to express that. To express his ideas that something needs to be done to protect writers and publishers as well as reading and learning and growing. I think he may be a bit nervous about it all, just like the rest of us. It's an interesting time to be alive, and a lot of things could go wrong. But they could go really right too. If we're aware of issues like this and take action to make sure we aren't shoved to the wayside like they're trying to do with music.

Unfortunately, the art of writing isn't the only art being shoved aside as technology takes over.

I am really tired and not sure any of this makes sense.

Torgo said:

A really simple thing that could be done is that government competition watchdogs could stop going after publishers and start going after monopolistic retailers.

Click to expand...

So we are back to "it's all Amazons fault anyway"?

Publishing isn't in any trouble. Amazon is as evil as it gets, but publishing is getting along just fine, and the last thing anyone needs is government paying for anything else it can't afford.

PulpDogg said:

So we are back to "it's all Amazons fault anyway"?

Click to expand...

Nope.

Yeah, seems to me Patterson is venting his frustration, and it's a furstration many of us share. Even with Ebooks, who wants bookstores and libraries to close down? Most people I know don't.

Torgo said:

Nope.

Click to expand...

Ok - now that we have gotten that out of the way, let me contribute a bit more to the discussion.

I think the article and Pattersons general point go in the direction of Scott Turows recent articles and opinions. Not quite as bad - but the same general thrust.

He makes ebooks responsible for the Borders closing? Wasn't there a whole lot of mismanagement involved?

A bailout for publishing houses? Why? The paper book is a format. It is the medium, not the message. Or did the music industry call for bailouts when we switched from Vinyl to CD?

He mentions Germany as a country where the government is involved in protecting publishing - but the fixed prices we have in Germany is a) based on an increasingly outdated principle and b) is completely irrelevant when it comes to ebooks.

This whole thing just looks like someone who doesn't like change, yearns for the "good old days" and thinks technology is the devil.

In short - why should we take this any more seriously then Scott Turows "get off my lawn" speeches?

Susan Littlefield said:

Yeah, seems to me Patterson is venting his frustration, and it's a furstration many of us share. Even with Ebooks, who wants bookstores and libraries to close down? Most people I know don't.

Click to expand...

If they don't, they'll choose to patronize those businesses and those businesses will make money and remain in business.

Preferences seem to be changing (on the whole.) I used to buy my music in brick and mortar stores. I liked browsing for music. Now I buy it online. I prefer that. Price and selection have improved. Most people seem to feel the same way about it. Physical stores are almost non-existent now. It hasn't stopped anyone from listening to music that I'm aware of. The number of bookstores will self-balance to the size of the audience that truly wants them. I hope that balance keeps one within driving distance of me, because I like browsing through books, but if it doesn't I certainly don't want the government intervening somehow.

Torgo said:

A really simple thing that could be done is that government competition watchdogs could stop going after publishers and start going after monopolistic retailers.

Click to expand...

This.

And the DOJ could have helped publishers and booksellers and libraries at once, instead of helping Amazon.

PulpDogg said:

Ok - now that we have gotten that out of the way, let me contribute a bit more to the discussion.

I think the article and Pattersons general point go in the direction of Scott Turows recent articles and opinions. Not quite as bad - but the same general thrust.

He makes ebooks responsible for the Borders closing? Wasn't there a whole lot of mismanagement involved?

A bailout for publishing houses? Why? The paper book is a format. It is the medium, not the message. Or did the music industry call for bailouts when we switched from Vinyl to CD?

He mentions Germany as a country where the government is involved in protecting publishing - but the fixed prices we have in Germany is a) based on an increasingly outdated principle and b) is completely irrelevant when it comes to ebooks.

This whole thing just looks like someone who doesn't like change, yearns for the "good old days" and thinks technology is the devil.

In short - why should we take this any more seriously then Scott Turows "get off my lawn" speeches?

Click to expand...

Watch your "we", friend - I, for one, happen to think very highly of Turrow's missives, and think they deserve a lot more respect than they've received.

J. Tanner said:

Physical stores are almost non-existent now. It hasn't stopped anyone from listening to music that I'm aware of. The number of bookstores will self-balance to the size of the audience that truly wants them.

Click to expand...

I dunno, bookstores and libraries are pretty much the only place to actually experience the books before buying. I mean, you can look at the first few pages of a book on Amazon or other retail sites, but it seems different somehow. In a bookstore I can browse down the rows and pick up stuff I wouldn't usually look at, but I don't do that online. I just go to look for a specific item or author.

Used to do that with music stores - pick up an album (ha, revealing age there) and see if the owner would pop it onto a turntable to listen to. Or they'd have different stuff playing in the background. Radio stations and other such things also serve as introductions to music that I might not normally hear - and may wish to buy. Used to be only a few radio stations I could pick up - now I can listen to anything online, see videos etc. So the physical music stores aren't as important.

For books, there aren't such outlets. I think bookstores and libraries are still really, really important for that reason. And libraries - for those who can't afford to buy books, and a lot of people fall into that category.

I certainly don't have any answers on the big picture of How to Fix the Publishing Industry, only questions. And fears of a bookstore wasteland. I used to have a Borders 2 miles away - now it's 13 miles to the closest B&N or big independent. I'm really fortunate to live in a county with a large, well-run library system with many neighborhood branches. Recently one opened up about a mile away. But so many libraries are closing ..

I haven’t thought about it but ...

Click to expand...

But I wonder how much Salon paid him to write an article about something he hasn't thought about.

Or, maybe rather than ask the government to aid an industry that is not grasping the technological advances around them and instead resorts to collusion to fix prices to prop up their inflexibility, maybe those industries could start competing with someone who beat them at their own game: better prices, better service, better technology, better treatment of those who fuel the industry.

Norman D Gutter said:

Or, maybe rather than ask the government to aid an industry that is not grasping the technological advances around them

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm a bit drunk. But ah, what are you on about. We're selling millions of ebooks. The Big Six outsell independents around 8:2 at present, and the growth in sales is steady and strong. I don't know what you think we've been doing the last few years, but we've all been grafting our asses off.

and instead resorts to collusion to fix prices to prop up their inflexibility,

Click to expand...

Now, I ain't no big-city lawyer *hooks thumbs in suspenders* but it seems to me that Amazon's strategy of buying ebooks on a reseller model and selling them at knock-down prices to increase its market share and entrench the Kindle technology and ecosystem before its competitors could mobilize was partly calculated to train customers to expect said knock-down prices, which of course would slash publishing company margins to the bone; with the second phase of the operation being to set up publishing imprints within their business to compete directly with their suppliers for authorial talent. And thus the idea of agency pricing became a way for publishers to reassert some control over the pricing of ebooks in a world where Amazon controlled 80-90% of the market.

Amazon controlling the entire ebook trade, and thus having the option to soak everyone in the supply chain until the pips squeak, seems like it would be the sort of thing that competition legislation should be there to prevent. For reasons that probably include a bunch of publishing executives being monumental dumbasses and discussing stuff they didn't seem to understand might be illegal over company email, the DoJ decided that agency pricing was an illegal scheme cooked up to prevent retail price competition. Well, maybe. Maybe it was. I ain't no big-city lawyer, nor judge neither. I jest know what's fair, and I reckon you and I know jiggery-pokery when we see it, whichever side of the chicken-coop it's comin' from.

I just think the effects of the decision, whatever the legal merits of it are, are pretty obvious: Amazon gets to continue its strategy of massively discounting stuff and not making a profit for basically as long as it likes, until it's in control of everything. It's a very clever and patient beast and it likes to eat things and grow fat in market share. Feel free to picture it as the snake from Anaconda that ate Jon Voight, and us publishing giants as plucky J-Lo and Ice Cube and Eric Stoltz etc. It gets me through the day.

maybe those industries could start competing with someone who beat them at their own game: better prices, better service, better technology, better treatment of those who fuel the industry.

Click to expand...

Having already been duffed up by the Anaconda, what's our move? Better prices? We don't control those. Amazon do, now. They can dictate terms to us. Fifty percent discount? Screw you, publisher! Let's make it seventy five percent. You can have three dollars for your ebook, we'll sell it for four. Hell, we'll sell it for two dollars, and the one Apple is selling for four will look like crap! Let's race to the bottom and see who runs out of oxygen first!

Ah, sod it anyway, I should turn in.

What I'm on about with that statement is your Post #4 and Medievalist's Post #12 above, where I believed you were implying that Amazon is a monopolistic retailer that the government should go after. Possibly you meant something else. And Medievalist's reply I interpret as a statement that the DOJ exists to help select industries, not to enforce the law. Or maybe someone can make a clear case of what law Amazon was guilty of breaking. That would be something the DOJ could look into. Maybe the beef should be with the US Congress, not the DOJ.

Amazon "controlling the entire e-book trade" was because they built a better mousetrap. IMHO. They were the first to have an e-reading device of acceptable quality at an affordable price that was effectively marketed.

NDG

The whole point of my tediously-prolonged bit about not bein' no big-city lawyer was that God help me I don't actually know Federal competition law, and so I couldn't tell you about any laws that Amazon have broken. The email stuff that came out of the trial suggested that our CEOs ain't no big-city lawyers neither.

So basically I'm just looking at a market where one retailer has 80-90% of retail and is looking to absorb its suppliers, too, so that there's only one place to buy and sell books. Amazon built a better mousetrap, that's great! How's anyone now supposed to compete with THEIR better mousetrap? Price? Amazon doesn't give two shakes of a dead dog's cock, or what we in England call a 'Piers Morgan' for price. You will suffer the death of a thousand undercuts. Another ereader? Your setup costs will be in the tens of millions and you can't sell one to anyone Amazon already has in their ecosystem, because who wants a fragmented library? (Which of course militates against every other form of competition, too.)

The war was over before the Charge of the Light Brigade that was five of the Big Six in the DoJ case.

Now, I suppose one thing the DoJ might have done instead would have been to say that DRM is inherently anti-competitive. That it locks customers into platforms. If I see a book on Kobo that is cheaper than it is on Amazon, why can't I read it on my Kindle? (Apple don't lock their hardware down in this way. You can read Kindle or Kobo or whatever you like on an iOS device.) I want to buy the book, not the DRM.

It would foster competition in the ereader market, with it suddenly becoming attractive to try to out-engineer and out-perform Kindle if people could transfer their Kindle libraries over. It would foster competition in the app market, with people trying to produce innovative ways to visualise and manage libraries, share notes, or run book clubs on the fly. It would allow real price competition between resellers competing to offer the lowest prices to customers, and to secure the best deals from suppliers. You know - free markets and competitions and stuff. A proper book trade.

I admit quite a lot of fault lies with us for not actually angling for any of that. D'oh! But if we're just thinking about how to stimulate healthy competition in the world of books I don't think the DoJ picked the right side.

juniper said:

I mean, you can look at the first few pages of a book on Amazon or other retail sites, but it seems different somehow. In a bookstore I can browse down the rows and pick up stuff I wouldn't usually look at, but I don't do that online. I just go to look for a specific item or author.

Click to expand...

It's different, but I've adapted some already. I've found several authors through free ebooks/shorts and some places like Smashwords and author sites offer more extensive previews.

For books, there aren't such outlets. I think bookstores and libraries are still really, really important for that reason.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about bookstores as we know them today (the big-sellers are in general purpose retailers anyway), but agree about libraries. The ball is in trade publishing's court here I think. They need to find an equitable and consistent way to distribute ebooks to libraries. I expect it will happen. Just a matter of time.

I used to have a Borders 2 miles away - now it's 13 miles to the closest B&N or big independent.

Click to expand...

Count yourself lucky. I'm in the SF suburbs and I had a B&N and two Borders within 5 miles, one right across the street from B&N. The Borders drove the B&N under, and then they both disappeared. All I've got left is a couple small used bookstores.

Torgo said:

Another ereader? Your setup costs will be in the tens of millions and you can't sell one to anyone Amazon already has in their ecosystem, because who wants a fragmented library?

Click to expand...

The dedicated e-reader seems to have peaked already given the recent holiday sales in favor of the general purpose tablet as the e-reader of choice. That should mitigate Amazon's advantage considerably. (I think they're still winning on customer service even without the hardware advantage they've built. And I disagree with the masses--I love my Kindle e-ink but would never want to read fiction for pleasure from a backlit screen. I'd return to paper-only first.)

PS. The Peirs Morgan joke got a snicker.

Norman D Gutter said:

Or, maybe rather than ask the government to aid an industry that is not grasping the technological advances around them and instead resorts to collusion to fix prices to prop up their inflexibility, maybe those industries could start competing with someone who beat them at their own game: better prices, better service, better technology, better treatment of those who fuel the industry.

Click to expand...

1. The Big Six created the ebook industry and were selling millions in ebooks before Amazon or the 'net existed.

2. The Big Six helped create the UI for all ebooks, via supporting the first serious ebook software company in the early 1990s.

3. Amazon is the problem; not the publishers. Amazon isn't making or creating anything. Even the Kindle file format was created elsewhere.

4. The DOJ is so antediluvian and ignorant it is mind-boggling.

5. If you read the DOJ's filings they don't even understand what DRM is, never mind what a file format is, or what it is that Amazon actually sells. They seem to think Amazon is making ebooks.

Two particularly smart things:

Torgo said:

Now, I suppose one thing the DoJ might have done instead would have been to say that DRM is inherently anti-competitive. That it locks customers into platforms. If I see a book on Kobo that is cheaper than it is on Amazon, why can't I read it on my Kindle? (Apple don't lock their hardware down in this way. You can read Kindle or Kobo or whatever you like on an iOS device.) I want to buy the book, not the DRM.

It would foster competition in the ereader market, with it suddenly becoming attractive to try to out-engineer and out-perform Kindle if people could transfer their Kindle libraries over. It would foster competition in the app market, with people trying to produce innovative ways to visualise and manage libraries, share notes, or run book clubs on the fly. It would allow real price competition between resellers competing to offer the lowest prices to customers, and to secure the best deals from suppliers. You know - free markets and competitions and stuff. A proper book trade.

Click to expand...

And don't overlook this:

Torgo said:

I admit quite a lot of fault lies with us for not actually angling for any of that. D'oh! But if we're just thinking about how to stimulate healthy competition in the world of books I don't think the DoJ picked the right side.

Click to expand...

The DOJ fights on the side of the heaviest checkbooks.