Is Everything We Thought We Knew About Publishing a Lie?

Conspiracy theories may be common with Mulder and Scully, aliens, the Illuminati, and Bigfoot, but we don’t often get them in the erudite world of books and publishing. This week, however, we did.

As you are probably aware, in 2014-2015, Amazon engaged in a negotiation showdown with Traditional Publishing, most prominently Hachette. The common view was that the Big 5 wanted the right to set prices for their products when sold on Amazon–agency pricing. Everyone thought the outcome was that the Big 5 won the right, increased their prices, and made more money.

This week, several stories broke suggesting that everything we thought we knew was wrong.

Mike Shatzkin is a prominent publishing analyst who writes the Idea Logical blog. Based on conversations with publishing executives and even a source at the Department of Justice, Shatzkin claimed that although the Big 5 publishers wanted agency pricing in 2010, by 2015 they realized it was not to their advantage but were forced to accept it–by Amazon.          “[T]he big publishers had no choice about sticking with agency. Amazon insisted that they stick with agency.” Amazon also wanted and got a more favorable split of revenues.

Another analyst, Phillip Jones, agrees. Quoting other industry sources, Jones says that since Amazon dominates the eBook market, allowing publishers to overprice their books was a smart strategy that shifted sales from Big 5 eBooks to Amazon eBooks, allowing Amazon to rapidly grow its self-publishers and Kindle Unlimited market. Conversely, another blog, The Passive Voice, says this “revelation” is just propaganda designed to smooth over an imminent publisher reversal on agency pricing.

Perhaps even more startling is Shatzkin’s claim that the articles claiming “print sales rising in the US” last year was simply based on the fad for adult coloring books–which some people wouldn’t even consider books.

I will admit that Shatzkin’s “revelation” makes sense to me. I expected Amazon to fight to the death for what they wanted and to have the clout to win. Instead Amazon seemed to grant agency pricing to any publisher that wanted it. The story makes more sense if Amazon wanted the Big 5 to set their prices (higher) and focused instead on revenue stream. In any case, one thing seems clear–the agency pricing that seemed like such a must-have before looks like an albatross now.

What do you think?

See the debate continue at Idea Logical: http://www.idealog.com

Nate Hoffelder: http://ow.ly/Z7XRh

Philip Jones: http://ow.ly/Z7XNe