Skip to main content

A dark day for the future of books

By Mark Coker, Special to CNN
April 16, 2012 -- Updated 0201 GMT (1001 HKT)
People looking at an e-book reader app on the Apple iPad.
People looking at an e-book reader app on the Apple iPad.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • The Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple and five publishers
  • Coker: Government's intention to protect consumers could end up harming consumers
  • He says threat to the agency pricing model hurts retailers, authors and publishers
  • Coker: Pricing decisions should rest with authors and publishers rather than retailers

Editor's note: Mark Coker is the founder of Smashwords, an e-book publishing and distribution company. Follow him on Twitter.

(CNN) -- Wednesday was a dark day for the future of books.

The Department of Justice charged Apple and five large book publishers with conspiring to raise e-book prices. Three of the five publishers quickly capitulated rather than face the risk and expense of a protracted legal battle.

Much of the case revolves around the decision of five of the largest six publishers to simultaneously adopt the agency pricing model immediately before Apple launched the iPad and iBookstore in April 2010. At that time, Amazon commanded about 90% of the e-book market. Amazon priced many books at $9.99 -- which was below the cost at which Amazon was paying the publisher -- in an effort to drive e-book adoption among consumers and capture market share.

Mark Coker
Mark Coker

Publishers balked at Amazon's strategy out of concern that low prices could cannibalize their print sales, set unrealistic expectations in the minds of consumers, and lead Amazon to demand e-book price concessions from publishers.

When Steve Jobs offered Apple's proposed agency pricing model to publishers, large publishers welcomed Apple's market entry because they wanted a strong counterbalance to Amazon's market dominance. Under the agency model, publishers set the prices and retailers don't discount.

Critics of the agency model viewed it as an attempt to raise e-book prices. They believe retailer discounting serves an important public service. I see it differently.

While I'm a big fan of discounting and price competition, I think the responsibility for pricing decisions should rest with authors and publishers. If they price fairly and competitively, customers will reward them. If they price too high, customers will migrate to lower-cost books.

Most important, the agency pricing model levels the playing field for e-book retailers. It prevents deep-pocketed retailers or device makers from engaging in predatory price wars to harm competitors or discourage formation of new competitors. It would enable the marketplace to support more retailers, which would mean more bookstores promoting the joys of reading to more readers. And it would force retailers to compete on customer experience rather than price. Customers are best served when we have a vibrant e-book retailing ecosystem.

For authors and publishers, the agency model provides them with greater control over the timing of their promotions and higher per-unit earnings of 70% of the list price as opposed to 50% for the conventional wholesale pricing model. It allows publishers to price their books lower -- to the benefit of customers -- and yet earn the same or greater profit.

There's already indication that some publishers and authors who use the agency model are dropping prices as they compete for customers. At my company, where we distribute over 100,000 e-books on behalf of 40,000 self-published authors and small publishers, the average price of our books is about $3.41, a drop of 25% over the last 18 months.

If the Justice Department prevails with its antitrust lawsuit, the decision might have unintended negative consequences for those who write, publish, sell and enjoy e-books. The government's intention to protect consumers could end up backfiring on consumers by harming retailers, authors and publishers.

It could inadvertently hasten the downfall of the world's largest book publishers by forcing them to comply with onerous conditions outlined in the Justice Department's Competitive Impact Statement. These conditions -- including restrictions on collaboration with fellow publishers and increased federal auditing and reporting requirements -- will increase publisher expenses and slow their business decisions at the very time when publishers need to become faster, nimbler competitors.

I'm not normally a defender of big publishers. They price their books too high, while most of their authors earn poverty wages. They take 12 to 18 months to publish a book -- an anachronism in today's world of instant self-publishing. They often reject talented writers who don't offer the celebrity platforms of more marketable "authors" such as Snooki or Justin Bieber.

Despite the mistakes of the largest publishers, I don't want them to go away. I want them to thrive by becoming more responsive to their customers and authors.

Unfortunately, the self-inflicted wounds of large publishers have already begun to render their businesses less relevant to the future of publishing. Authors are beginning to turn their backs on traditional publishers in favor of self-publishing. Authors are now hiring their own editors, cover designers and marketing consultants. By assuming responsibility for the roles once played by publishers, authors are earning up to 70% of the list price as their e-book royalty versus the 17.5% paid by traditional publishers. They're publishing low-cost e-books that are hitting all the bestseller lists. The all-important access to distribution -- once exclusively controlled by publishers -- is now available to all self-publishing authors.

The next time you see an overpriced e-book, blame the publisher but not the agency pricing model.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mark Coker.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
December 25, 2014 -- Updated 0633 GMT (1433 HKT)
Danny Cevallos says the legislature didn't have to get involved in regulating how people greet each other
December 23, 2014 -- Updated 2312 GMT (0712 HKT)
Marc Harrold suggests a way to move forward after the deaths of NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos.
December 24, 2014 -- Updated 1336 GMT (2136 HKT)
Simon Moya-Smith says Mah-hi-vist Goodblanket, who was killed by law enforcement officers, deserves justice.
December 24, 2014 -- Updated 1914 GMT (0314 HKT)
Val Lauder says that for 1,700 years, people have been debating when, and how, to celebrate Christmas
December 23, 2014 -- Updated 2027 GMT (0427 HKT)
Raphael Sperry says architects should change their ethics code to ban involvement in designing torture chambers
December 24, 2014 -- Updated 0335 GMT (1135 HKT)
Paul Callan says Sony is right to call for blocking the tweeting of private emails stolen by hackers
December 23, 2014 -- Updated 1257 GMT (2057 HKT)
As Christmas arrives, eyes turn naturally toward Bethlehem. But have we got our history of Christmas right? Jay Parini explores.
December 23, 2014 -- Updated 0429 GMT (1229 HKT)
The late Joe Cocker somehow found himself among the rock 'n' roll aristocracy who showed up in Woodstock to help administer a collective blessing upon a generation.
December 23, 2014 -- Updated 2115 GMT (0515 HKT)
History may not judge Obama kindly on Syria or even Iraq. But for a lame duck president, he seems to have quacking left to do, says Aaron Miller.
December 23, 2014 -- Updated 1811 GMT (0211 HKT)
Terrorism and WMD -- it's easy to understand why these consistently make the headlines. But small arms can be devastating too, says Rachel Stohl.
December 22, 2014 -- Updated 1808 GMT (0208 HKT)
Ever since "Bridge-gate" threatened to derail Chris Christie's chances for 2016, Jeb Bush has been hinting he might run. Julian Zelizer looks at why he could win.
December 20, 2014 -- Updated 1853 GMT (0253 HKT)
New York's decision to ban hydraulic fracturing was more about politics than good environmental policy, argues Jeremy Carl.
December 20, 2014 -- Updated 2019 GMT (0419 HKT)
On perhaps this year's most compelling drama, the credits have yet to roll. But we still need to learn some cyber lessons to protect America, suggest John McCain.
December 22, 2014 -- Updated 2239 GMT (0639 HKT)
Conservatives know easing the trade embargo with Cuba is good for America. They should just admit it, says Fareed Zakaria.
December 20, 2014 -- Updated 0112 GMT (0912 HKT)
We're a world away from Pakistan in geography, but not in sentiment, writes Donna Brazile.
December 19, 2014 -- Updated 1709 GMT (0109 HKT)
How about a world where we have murderers but no murders? The police still chase down criminals who commit murder, we have trials and justice is handed out...but no one dies.
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 2345 GMT (0745 HKT)
The U.S. must respond to North Korea's alleged hacking of Sony, says Christian Whiton. Failing to do so will only embolden it.
December 19, 2014 -- Updated 2134 GMT (0534 HKT)
President Obama has been flexing his executive muscles lately despite Democrat's losses, writes Gloria Borger
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 1951 GMT (0351 HKT)
Jeff Yang says the film industry's surrender will have lasting implications.
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 2113 GMT (0513 HKT)
Newt Gingrich: No one should underestimate the historic importance of the collapse of American defenses in the Sony Pictures attack.
December 10, 2014 -- Updated 1255 GMT (2055 HKT)
Dean Obeidallah asks how the genuine Stephen Colbert will do, compared to "Stephen Colbert"
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 1734 GMT (0134 HKT)
Some GOP politicians want drug tests for welfare recipients; Eric Liu says bailed-out execs should get equal treatment
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 1342 GMT (2142 HKT)
Louis Perez: Obama introduced a long-absent element of lucidity into U.S. policy on Cuba.
December 16, 2014 -- Updated 1740 GMT (0140 HKT)
The slaughter of more than 130 children by the Pakistani Taliban may prove as pivotal to Pakistan's security policy as the 9/11 attacks were for the U.S., says Peter Bergen.
ADVERTISEMENT