The ongoing Amazon v. Hachette dispute is a fascinating train wreck of mega-corporate 'negotiations', with Amazon's latest salvo the inspired one of trying to undermine Hachette from within by suggesting that until the parties reconcile Hachette authors should collect 100% of their e-book sales via Amazon (terms that Hachette would have to agree to -- which it won't); see, for example, Amazon Angles to Attract Hachette's Authors to Its Side by David Streitfeld at The New York Times' Bits weblog.
It's an inspired line of attack, since e-book royalties are a major sore point among authors generally, with Hachette and all the majors royally screwing their authors by giving them a relatively poor royalty rate.
(Yes, yes, they have their 'reasons' and justifications -- but authors understandably aren't entirely convinced.)
Hachette of course cannot agree to these terms -- and their authors will hopefully see this as a crude bargaining ploy -- but again it's Amazon that at least looks pro-active, while Hachette just (at best) reacts.
Throughout this conflict I've been disappointed that Hachette isn't making its position more public; there are some legal obstacles to being too forthcoming about what terms one can accept, etc., but they could really use some better PR guidance as to this whole mess, especially in making the case that theirs is the more consumer-friendly position much more loudly and publicly. (Part of the problem is, of course, that they, like all the big publishers -- and just like Amazon -- , want to squeeze as much out of consumers (readers) as possible, so they don't exactly have the moral high ground here: business is business, after all, and that's what they are.) They seem to be relying far too much on the hope that, with Amazon painted as the bad guy, they'll come up smelling like roses -- but much as Amazon's position here does not look like it is in authors' and readers' longterm interest, nothing Hachette has done, in the past or currently, convinces me they care any more about either beyond to the extent that Amazon does (i.e. needing authors-as-producers, and readers-as-consumers). Neither company has convinced me yet that their focus goes anywhere beyond strictly bottom line.
Still, I'm relieved to see that they've upped their game a bit: at least Amazon has been delisted from the retailer websites Hachette suggests for readers on its site, if they want to buy their books. (A few weeks ago this was not the case.)
Hachette of course cannot agree to these terms -- and their authors will hopefully see this as a crude bargaining ploy -- but again it's Amazon that at least looks pro-active, while Hachette just (at best) reacts.
Throughout this conflict I've been disappointed that Hachette isn't making its position more public; there are some legal obstacles to being too forthcoming about what terms one can accept, etc., but they could really use some better PR guidance as to this whole mess, especially in making the case that theirs is the more consumer-friendly position much more loudly and publicly. (Part of the problem is, of course, that they, like all the big publishers -- and just like Amazon -- , want to squeeze as much out of consumers (readers) as possible, so they don't exactly have the moral high ground here: business is business, after all, and that's what they are.) They seem to be relying far too much on the hope that, with Amazon painted as the bad guy, they'll come up smelling like roses -- but much as Amazon's position here does not look like it is in authors' and readers' longterm interest, nothing Hachette has done, in the past or currently, convinces me they care any more about either beyond to the extent that Amazon does (i.e. needing authors-as-producers, and readers-as-consumers). Neither company has convinced me yet that their focus goes anywhere beyond strictly bottom line.
Still, I'm relieved to see that they've upped their game a bit: at least Amazon has been delisted from the retailer websites Hachette suggests for readers on its site, if they want to buy their books. (A few weeks ago this was not the case.)