I've suddenly started looking at hardcover buyers with more respect. These people aren't suckers, or at least they aren't mere suckers. They are the patrons, the hardcore fans, that are keeping my favorite writers in business.
For years I felt proud of that -- as I mentioned yesterday, I used to buy hardcovers pretty indiscriminately. I'll happily pay extra for quicker access. That's why I shelled out $350 for the machine which teleports books directly into my hand. When I hear publishers talking about windowing books on my Kindle to protect their no-longer-relevant-to-me hardcovers and physical distribution systems, I get a little upset. I mentioned so on my blog.
This morning, I woke up to an inbox full of mail from people who profess to be professional communicators telling me that I "stabbed them in the back" and was a "useless parasite" and "tightwad" for expressing my desire to continue paying them thousands of dollars in return for fastest possible access. I think of myself as a patron. They clearly think of me as a sucker. Did the Medicis ever have to put up with this? Of course not: in addition to hiring artists they also had assassins on the payroll. I'm strangely tempted.
It seems like six authors have a radically different understanding of the patronage relationship than I do. In a not totally unrelated turn of events, today my To Read list got shorter by two books.
> When I hear publishers talking about windowing books on my Kindle to protect their no-longer-relevant-to-me hardcovers and physical distribution systems, I get a little upset.
It's important to note that Macmillan was only considering windowing books on the Kindle because Amazon was forcing them to sell their books at a price below what they believed was profitable. Had Amazon been more flexible in allowing publishers to set prices for the content they own, then this never would've happened.
Here's what I'm hearing from Macmillan: whine whine whine, blah blah blah, windowing. Whine whine whine, blah blah blah, price increase. Whine whine whine, blah blah blah, most books will be released simultaneously.
(When I hear that I start speculating on what books a hit-driven industry will make into the exceptions from simultaneous release. Oh, right: the ones they think I'm most likely to want to read.)
I understand on an intellectual level that Macmillan has business model problems, but their problems are not my problems. Attempting to make them my problems does not endear them to me.
To be clear, publishers can set any price they want on the content they own. Amazon never set (nor could it) the price at which Macmillan was selling their content. Amazon was just asking for the freedom to determine what price they could sell it to their customer at - even if it was below they price they were purchasing it at.
You don't think Amazon/WalMart/Target forced Scribner to sell "Under the Dome" for $9, do you? Hardcover releases are typically sold at a 47 percent discount, Under the Dome has a list of $35, so amazon probably paid around $18.00 for that, and turned around and sold it to their customer for $9.
That's what Amazon was trying to get the rights to do with eBooks. Macmillan didn't want Amazon discounting books to their customers.
For years I felt proud of that -- as I mentioned yesterday, I used to buy hardcovers pretty indiscriminately. I'll happily pay extra for quicker access. That's why I shelled out $350 for the machine which teleports books directly into my hand. When I hear publishers talking about windowing books on my Kindle to protect their no-longer-relevant-to-me hardcovers and physical distribution systems, I get a little upset. I mentioned so on my blog.
This morning, I woke up to an inbox full of mail from people who profess to be professional communicators telling me that I "stabbed them in the back" and was a "useless parasite" and "tightwad" for expressing my desire to continue paying them thousands of dollars in return for fastest possible access. I think of myself as a patron. They clearly think of me as a sucker. Did the Medicis ever have to put up with this? Of course not: in addition to hiring artists they also had assassins on the payroll. I'm strangely tempted.
It seems like six authors have a radically different understanding of the patronage relationship than I do. In a not totally unrelated turn of events, today my To Read list got shorter by two books.