Big Bad Amazon

My blog entry today is influenced by the article, 'How Book Pulishers Can Beat Amazon' by Bob Kohn of the New York Times. This was an eye-opening article for me, as I rarely pay attention to book publisher and book retailer news.

I know there are two sides to every story and I'd like to think Amazon would shed light from their vantage point on this topic, but my impression is that Amazon and its monopsony are going about this all the wrong way. In an effort to cling to total control of the e-book market, I don't believe they're thinking too long-term.

At least the way that Kohn wrote the article, it made Amazon to appear very reactionary and focuses on power. Its tactics of exercising the "nuclear option" and pulling off the option to buy from certain publishers seems to be very threatening and most importantly, inconvenient for Amazon's customers. In an effort to protect its ego, Amazon isn't putting its priorities in order and first worrying about it's main source of funding, its customers.

As an current Amazon customer, this makes me sick. It erodes my trust and builds up my disdain for Amazon. It makes me feel like I'd rather do business - buying my ebooks - from a retailer who puts my needs above themselves and above their competition.

When Apple joined the tablet market in 2010 and suggested to even the playing field from a retailer perspective, this action seemed to finally put the focus less on the retailer and more on the publisher, allowing them to set their own prices.

I would just like to make one more comment regarding the "nuclear option" Amazon has exercised with Macmillan publishing. The very concept of nuclear is daunting. Nuclear typically first makes people think about nuclear bombs. This was a tactic used in wartime that was absolute, detrimental and cost millions of lives, dollars and pain and suffering felt worldwide. A "nuclear option" in any regard feels like it has a similar effect; an absolute effect that could be detrimental to companies and businesses.

Only in wartime is this even an option in my mind. Only in a time when very lives and country and freedoms are threatened should this option even be considered. Kohn talks about Amazon exercising this "nuclear option," which just sounds like a horrible, attacking move as if they were trying to preserve its own existence. And what's perhaps worse is that Amazon wasn't on the brink of dying; Amazon wasn't about to go away. Rather, Amazon merely wanted to flex its muscles and bully publishers around.

I don't think that is right. I don't think that is ethical. And I don't believe that should happen again. It's not okay in human interactions and it's not okay in business interactions.

Peter Brown