Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

Monday, November 9, 2009

Amazon Tried to Woo Literary Agents

Posted by Paul Constant on Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:56 PM

I had heard that Amazon flew a bunch of high-profile New York City literary agents into town last week, but Amazon, as per usual, refused to comment on the matter. I was contacted by several people who were concerned that Amazon was going to start trying to publish authors on their own, removing publishers from the equation entirely. That didn't sound like Amazon to me, but I couldn't get anyone to confirm or deny the rumors. Crain's New York today reports on what happened in a post titled "Amazon sucks up to literary agents."

Amazon flew a dozen agents out to Seattle for a daylong conference in which they basically pitched the Kindle as a source of profit for publishing.

The agents wanted specific information about sales of Kindle editions and devices, which could help them in negotiations with publishers. Amazon executives, famously tight-lipped about all Kindle-related data, said that for competitive reasons they could not give out that information.

The two sides agreed that publishers stood to make a lot more money selling e-books than hardcovers.

Of course, publishing could also make a metric shit-ton of money by abolishing the hardcover and publishing affordable paperbacks at ten bucks a pop or less, too, but that doesn't mean that they're going to.

Still, this attempt to woo agents represents a remarkable change of policy on Amazon's part. They usually don't play ball with the New York big-shots, and putting agents like Melanie Jackson, Ira Silverberg, Charlotte Sheedy, Nicole Aragi and Melanie Jackson at the Hotel Andra is a big deal for the company. And there's a positive angle for the local literary scene too: If Amazon keeps trying to play with the big dogs this way, shipping them out here for conferences and fancy dinners, Seattle will finally get the attention it deserves from the major publishers. I've heard that publishers were going to send fewer big touring authors to Seattle in an attempt to save money. Amazon's increased profile, at least, should remind them that there's more to Seattle than they can monetize in a simple cash transaction from a reading: With the exception of New York City, we're the most important book town in America.

Share via

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Newsvine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Email
 

Comments (5) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
devilsmoke 1
Re: "publishing could also make a metric shit-ton of money by abolishing the hardcover"

I figured hardcover sales helped prop up publisher profits the same way SUVs and first class seats create a disproportionately large profit for the automotive and airline industries. Why *do* publishing houses do hardcover?
Posted by devilsmoke on November 9, 2009 at 5:05 PM
KingofQueenAnne 2
#1 is right, creating a hardcover book in and of itself is not *terribly* more expensive than producing a paperback book. However, you are paying a premium for quick access to the work as soon as it is available. Like a movie you're dying to see as soon as it opens, you pay the $11 premium to see it in the theater, whereas once it has been out for awhile, it's no longer worth $11 per person, but maybe $4 at Hollywood video.
Posted by KingofQueenAnne http://blingeejesus.blogspot.com on November 9, 2009 at 6:20 PM
3
The publishing industry is at an interesting point right now, just like the music industry was a few years back. Their "product" is not the content we know and love, but the delivery of that content to the masses. Just like the music industry, there are creative folks who create and edit the content, and consumers who want it. The publishers are the middlemen. In the past, it was necessary to have them around to get the content from the creators to the consumers, but we're rapidly approaching a time when basically an entire industry is going to be made obsolete by new technology. Text content is already imminently transferable digitally, and it's just awaiting the hardware for digital text distribution and consumption to take off. The iPod did this for music, and a device similar to the Kindle will end up doing it for text.. probably within the next 2-4 years. The difference is that it will happen much faster for text, as the consumers are already used to shopping for digital content, the distribution channels are already in existence, and the file sizes are small. (To be fair, ebooks need their own file format (similar to the mp3) that captures tag information, but this is a fairly minor detail.)

Right now, publishers are making a cash grab on e-books, charging the same for a digital file as for a hardback book but not having to pay to print or distribute it (beyond the negligible cost of the bandwidth). Eventually authors will realize that all they need is an editor and an iTunes account to deliver books to their fans; authors will be able to charge less while pocketing more, and the big publishing houses will come tumbling down.

Jason F
Posted by Jason F on November 10, 2009 at 8:44 AM
4
I actually agree on your take on hardcover vs. paperback, Paul. When I decide to buy a book (after seeing that it's not available through the library, or after reading part of it and deciding that I simply must own it), I almost never buy hardcover. Investing $20, $25, sometimes $30 (even if discounted) on a hardcover book when you could buy two or three new paperbacks (or more used) for the same money simply doesn't make sense to me. There are plenty of books out there to read, and so waiting for a book to come out in paperback is usually just a matter of being patient, and occupying yourself with something else.

If publishers want to keep up the hardcover thing, they should really reserve it for big releases (the new Dan Brown, the new Deepak Chopra, whomever), as opposed to every book. Some books would sell more coming out as paperbacks, initially.

I think if publishers want to continue doing the hardcover thing, they should shorten the time between hardcover and paperback releases, possibly to six-nine months. They could start phasing out the hardcovers or print less of them as the paperback nears release. I think the momentum maintained by doing so will more than make up for any losses from the hardcover edition.
Posted by bookworm on November 10, 2009 at 9:27 AM
5
I think any one who considers himself a writer does not need to use the term "shit-ton". It is not only offensive, it is lazy!
Posted by keeps2busy on November 11, 2009 at 7:11 AM

Add a comment

 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use