Amazon controls a big chunk of the book distribution business but as this New York Times article indicates they are not a benevolent overlord--using a number of techniques to bully publishers for more favorable terms.
Over the years this has been a constant problem for small, specialty publishing houses (the source of many important books), but now it's also affecting the majors.
From the article:
The retailer appeared to be using three main tactics in its efforts against Hachette, which owns Grand Central Publishing, Orbit and Little, Brown as well as many other imprints.
One is simply warning that books will take a long time to show up. Amazon has been relentlessly expanding its delivery ambitions, and just this week announced Sunday deliveries in 15 more cities, including Austin, Tex., and New Orleans. Its two-day free shipping program has more than 20 million members.
But if a reader wants a Malcolm Gladwell book from Amazon, "Outliers," "The Tipping Point," "Blink" and "What the Dog Saw" were all listed as taking two to three weeks. A Spanish edition from another publisher was available immediately.
Then there is the question of price. "Outliers" was selling Friday for $15.29, a mere 10 percent discount. On Barnes & Noble, the book was $12.74.
With some Hachette authors, Amazon seemed to be discouraging buyers in other ways. On the top of the page for Jeffery Deaver's forthcoming novel "The Skin Collector," Amazon suggested that the prospective customer buy other novels entirely.
"Similar items at a lower price," it said, were novels by Lee Child and John Sandford.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thesis on Saturday May 17 2014, @06:51PM
I refuse to login to a site just to read an article. NYT can DIAF.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Appalbarry on Saturday May 17 2014, @07:55PM
I wasn't asked to log in, so YMMV.
(Score: 2) by carguy on Saturday May 17 2014, @08:45PM
OP here -- I didn't have to log in to see the NY Times article either. Does NYT enforce, "you have read too many pages today (this week, etc), now you have to log in"?
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Saturday May 17 2014, @09:02PM
Nor I (note that I have NotScripts installed, YMMV). Additionally, you may find that doing a Google search for the headline will give you a link which shows the entire article. There's some kind of marketing program at work I'm sure, and I hesitate to recommend a solution that may contribute to lock-in (recall that Google own like 85% of the online advertising market, and deals like this may be part of the reason why), but it is at least an option.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday May 17 2014, @09:24PM
i block all cookies by default, but leave NotScript turned off since it blocks far too much and as far as i can tell there's no way to whitelist sites. turning notscript on sent me again to NYT's login page, but probably because i just clicked the link with it off. i will remember to try that though since we seem to get quite a few links from NYT, and i refuse to view "accept a cookie from NYT" as a valid solution.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Angry Jesus on Saturday May 17 2014, @08:47PM
> I refuse to login to a site just to read an article. NYT can DIAF.
If you use these firefox add-ons to increase your privacy you serendipitously get to bypass a lot of paywalls:
Self-Destructing Cookies [mozilla.org] (so the paywall can't track you across visits)
RefControl [mozilla.org] (tell it to spoof the http-referrer to be google.com so the site thinks you always clicked in from google)
(Score: 3, Informative) by Appalbarry on Saturday May 17 2014, @06:59PM
Via the National Writer's Union: Amazon screwing over Print On Demand companies. [nwu.org]
Via lots of places, [salon.com] Amazon of course a pretty poor employer:
As a consumer I honestly love Amazon.com, but as a member of our society I have serious issues with how they do business.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Saturday May 17 2014, @08:54PM
I heard a comment on NPR the other day to the effect that Amazon watches sales rates of vendors in the "amazon marketplace" and if you end up doing a lot of business, they will muscle in on your business.
The example given (which my google-fu has proved too weak to locate) was of a guy selling imported vacuum cleaners - he was going gangbusters and then Amazon decided to get in on the fun and source directly from the manufacturer giving them a pricing advantage which their system puts up right next to the marketplace user's own listing which basically put the guy out of business. It really sucks that Amazon is so dominant that you have to rely on them at the same time as they are a potential competitor, the power dynamic is way out of whack.
(Score: 1) by turgid on Saturday May 17 2014, @07:15PM
Amazon treat their staff dreadfully [theguardian.com] apart from not paying taxes and bullying suppliers.
Vote with your wallet [ethicalconsumer.org] and chose a more ethical (and often cheaper) alternative [ethicalconsumer.org].
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by lx on Sunday May 18 2014, @04:45PM
Don't forget their treatment of third party merchants. In the US [seattletimes.com], UK [theguardian.com] and Germany [yahoo.com].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 17 2014, @07:30PM
Amazon wants to destroy the ability to make a profit by reducing margins to near zero. They want to put everyone else out of business. Then they'll commit suicide.
So Amazon is doing what they're supposed to do. I'm always surprised when their suppliers and investors don't seem to understand Amazon's purpose. Sure, they started with books, because it's an industry that used to have too much inefficiency and fat to cut. But they want to do it to everyone in the retail sphere. Amazon has never wanted to make money. They want to make it impossible for anyone to make money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 17 2014, @07:43PM
If that's true, then why? What would motivate an organisation to do that?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by turgid on Saturday May 17 2014, @07:53PM
If they can claim that they don't make a proft, and they have few assets, the pay very little tax.
If they can put the competition out of business, one day they will have a monopoly and can charge what they like.
Finally, what they are really about is extracting as much money from the customer as possible and getting as much of that money as possible, the maximum proportion possible, into the hands of the share holders.
Staff, logistics, buildings etc. are costs to be controlled. Providing goods and services to the customers is an inconvenience and they do it in the cheapest possible way to keep the customer satisfied enough to keep coming back.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday May 17 2014, @09:29PM
so what you're saying is they're exactly the same as every other company ever?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 17 2014, @07:50PM
(Score: 2) by starcraftsicko on Saturday May 17 2014, @10:33PM
Before we demonize Amazon here, let's remember that they are fighting to take money out of the pockets of the book publishers. They also work to take money out of the pockets of the Recording Industry (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Industry (MPAA). These last two we love to call the MAFIAA here and on other tech and freedom interested sites. All three groups represent middle-man schemes that fight to maintain their own monopolies. Amazon's efforts, historically, have benefited consumers in measurable ways. Not so with the MAFIAAs.
I do feel bad that some lady sold fewer cookbooks because the publisher she sold out to wants to keep a larger cut than Amazon wants to allow. And frankly, some of Amazon's tactics are... low. But in the grand scheme, Amazon is working for me in this one. The publisher could solve this problem instantly by lowering it's MSRP (and presumably it's wholesale prices). Instead Amazon is negotiating it down.
I think I'm OK with that.
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 1) by Corelli's A on Sunday May 18 2014, @02:20AM
From TFA:
Negotiations can be difficult if you are the less-powerful adversary, but is it reasonable to be surprised about Amazon's power now? I'm curious what tactics led to PTSD. On the other hand, hey, a talking book!
(Score: 2) by AnonTechie on Sunday May 18 2014, @07:42AM
The real reason that Amazon does this is because THEY CAN ... As simple as that.
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 18 2014, @05:30PM
...and it's very close to the reason you feel good when you get the best price for your house when you sell it or your car when you trade it in.
(Score: 1) by darkfeline on Monday May 19 2014, @02:59AM
And whose fault is it? Oh, how does that quote go again?
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!