More interesting and thoughtful discussions on the Amazon/Macmillan dispute I tweeted Saturday are here (start with this and go backwards) and here.
It seems at least that there’s a strong case to be made that Amazon is arguing that since ebooks cost (at least a bit) less to manufacture than physical books, consumers should pay less for them. By contrast Macmillan is proposing a scheme that would lead publishers keeping most of the surplus, with perhaps a bit for retailers. That said, I think Amazon is still going to emerge the popular loser from this gambit.
The reason is brand. If Amazon isn’t selling the book I want to buy, it’s violating a core tenet of its brand promise to me, to be my one stop for my media (and increasingly everything) purchases. I, loyal user, am now going to think twice before investing in something like Amazon Prime or the Kindle that locks me into buying from Amazon.
Macmillan’s brand, by contrast, basically doesn’t exist, so there’s no asset to take a hit. Think I’m being harsh? When was the last time you bought a book because of who published it? Can you name five Macmillan authors off the top of your head? Can you name one? The brands that matter are those of the individual Macmillan authors, and they’re pretty much blaming Amazon for disrupting their revenue stream.
Bottom line: even if Amazon is fighting for something people want (cheaper books) there’s no way this move ends up enhancing their brand.
(And just before I hit publish, I see that Amazon conceded this round. I suspect this was their strategy all along, and I still think it was a poor decision. But maybe later this week I’ll explain why I think poor branding is part of what got publishing in trouble in the first place.)
