Macmillan Response to Wylie Exclusive Publishing Deal
I said I would write here occasionally, when I felt it was important to do so. It is important now. Andrew Wylie has decided to become a publisher.
Welcome, Andrew. In today’s world job functions, channels of distribution, and age-old relationships are constantly shifting. Combining the functions of agent and publisher raises serious issues that I feel strongly about, but if Andrew wants to attempt to disintermediate publishers, that is his right.
I’ll be knocking on his door shortly, asking him for dues to the AAP.
I am appalled, however, that Andrew has chosen to give his list exclusively to a single retailer. A basic tenet of publishing is that our function is to reach as many readers as we can. We disseminate our books and the ideas within them as broadly as possible. I understand why Amazon wants an exclusive deal with Andrew. They have asked us too for exclusive product, as has every major retailer we deal with. This is smart retailing, and a great deal for Amazon. But it is an extraordinarily bad deal for writers, illustrators, publishers, other booksellers, and for anyone who believes that books should be as widely available as possible. This deal advantages Amazon, which already has the dominant share in this market.
Independent booksellers across the country are making plans to launch their e-bookstores this Fall. Now they will not have these books available and Amazon will. These are the very folks who helped make many of these books bestsellers in the first place. And what of Barnes & Noble, Borders, Books-A-Million, and others? As they promote the frontlist books for which Andrew is the agent, they are not going to be able to sell his publishing backlist in digital form . . . while their competitor can?
This move further empowers the dominant player in the market to the detriment of their competitors and creates an unbalanced retail marketplace.
In short, the exclusive-to-Kindle aspect of this deal has no strategic value at all for authors and publishers. Given the advantage for Amazon, I’m sure the deal has been financially attractive for Andrew Wylie’s new venture. In the long run, though, making literature exclusively available digitally to a single retailer will be damaging to the whole book community: authors, agents, publishers, and readers.
Thanks for listening!
37 Comments to “Macmillan Response to Wylie Exclusive Publishing Deal”
Leave a Reply
[...] a publisher—and he isn’t exactly thrilled about the news. “Welcome, Andrew,” he writes in a blog post that hit the Web around 2:00 this afternoon. “[I]f Andrew [Wylie] wants to attempt to [...]
Savvy post, Mr Sargent.
[...] via Macmillan Blog » Macmillan Response to Wylie Exclusive Publishing Deal. [...]
One thing drives Mr Wylie. Sponduliks.
“In the long run, though, making literature exclusively available digitally to a single retailer will be damaging to the whole book community: authors, agents, publishers, and readers.”
Why is this damaging to he whole book community, exactly?
[...] are the puzzling one. I’ve read the post that John Sargent left on the Macmillan blog, and I’m concerned about the tenous grasp he has with reality. I’m going to take his [...]
[...] the result of panic by a traditional publisher who may start losing major writers, but he’s got a point: I am appalled, however, that Andrew has chosen to give his list exclusively to a single retailer. [...]
Sounds like a VERY sound business deal to me. First, Wylie probably got asbout 70% royalties for his company/author. Second, the sale price of the ebooks are reasonable (unlike so many of youer company’s prices). Third, if you wanted to publish these books, why didn’t you do so already?
The point is, Wylie acted for his clients in dealing with the present/future and getting them very good money. MacMillan et als? They sat on their hands and overpriced them, with LOW LOW royalties to the authors.
Basically, Wylie trumped the Agency 6 at their own game. And you don’t like it? My heart weeps for you. And Random House threatens litigation saying they own the ebook rights when a court in NY has aleady said that they don’t.
Again, wake up to the 21st century.
So when is *Macmillan* going to make its e-books available from the smaller e-book stores, and via public libraries?
As far as I an tell, right now the only places an American can buy a Macmillan e-book is from Amazon, B&N, Apple, Sony, Borders, or Kobo. Macmillan cut off all of the other e-book stores back in April.
You ask “What of… Books-A-Million?” Yes, what of them? Macmillan won’t sell e-books through Books-A-Million.
[...] de Macmillan a la decisión de la Agencia Wylie: A la larga, sin embargo, hacer que la literatura esté [...]
John, while I agree it’s limiting to the authors, agents, wouldn’t you also agree the author & agent have a right to seek out any publisher who embrace like-minded distribution methods?
If Wylie is wrong in this approach, he’ll have trouble attracting writers toward this flawed distribution model, thereby limiting his own clout in the industry, right?
I don’t know if his tactic is right or wrong, but I feel it’s a self-correcting one. So what is it we’re really worried about here?
- George Burke
CMO, BookSwim.com
John is worried that in a few years nobody will want to buy his buggy whips any more, so he’s doing anything he can to stop those new-fangled automobile things.
But he does have a point, although not necessarily the one he thinks he’s making. When a publisher publishes a work, typically it was a collaborative effort between the author and the editor. So when that backlist gets published as an ebook, morally they may have some sort of right to it (though not legally at this point unless the contract stated so). So they’re going to need to specify their contracts carefully going forward. Or otherwise they may want to provide the editing services as a charged line item that has to be directly paid for.
[...] Macmillan blog post [...]
Sorry Mr Sargent, but your article is missing two vital elements. The two reasons behind why Andrew Wylie is really doing this.
1. This is symbolic of the breakdown in trust between authors/agents and publishers. This erosion of trust (trust being so important in this business) due to bullying and tricks from big publishers such as yourselves.
2. Publishers have categorically failed to protect the value in books whether print or digital. Especially digital. People love good books, they will pay for them.
Andrew Wylie is responding to protect the value in things he is passionate about – authors and books. In this respect you have to salute Mr Wylie.
The sad thing is, I think many of your principles are right John. It is a shame you and other leaders of publishing didn’t wear your principles on your sleeves all along and across your businesses as a whole before now.
This is a wake-up call.
So long as Amazon sells 50% to 80% of all e-books, having an exclusive deal with them — and all the attendant publicity and Amazon promotion that entails — very well might lead to GREATER distribution and sales of those books than if they were just released to all channels with no fanfare.
People can only buy iPhones from Apple, but they sold 100 million of them.
And remember, people can read Kindle books on Kindles, PCs, Macs, iWhatevers, Blackberries, and Android devices.
Even if these books do end up with less distribution and fewer total sales, earning 70% (instead of the 25% or so most large publishers offer for e-book royalties) probably still makes the most financial sense for this agent and the authors he’s representing. Surely you don’t expect agents or authors to sign less lucrative deals “for the greater good”? Doesn’t your business seek to maximize its profits?
P.S.: If Amazon wanted an exclusive deal for my e-books and offered me this kind of publicity and product placement in return, I’d be crazy to turn it down.
[...] Macmillan Response to Wylie Exclusive Publishing DealJohn Sargent of Macmillan responds to Andrew Wylie’s new publishing company. Some humor, some self-serving publishing industry posturing, and some good comments about exclusive deals. [...]
Although a good business decision for Wylie personally, I agree that it’s short-sighted for the book industry as a whole. This only benefits Wylie in the short term because no one else is really granting exclusivity to Amazon yet — if everyone went exclusively to Amazon, then book publishing would be in deep trouble. Reducing Amazon’s competitors’ ability to compete, by reducing their access to the big titles, is very harmful to the market. It inches Amazon even closer to a monopoly over the retail market, which in turn reduces any publisher or author’s leveraging power on issues like pricing and title availability. Wylie is (smartly) taking advantage of the fact that other publishers and authors refuse to so powerfully give Amazon a competitive edge over all other retailers.
The key for publishers in the future isn’t going to be granting exclusive rights to one or two retailers. The key will be to grant rights as widely as possible and create as diverse a marketplace as possible. A diverse marketplace will let publishers balance one retailer off another instead of being at the complete mercy of a notably uncaring behemoth like Amazon.
Anyway, the point is that this is Scary Stuff for publishers, authors, and anyone who wants a healthy and diverse retail marketplace. Thanks for posting.
[...] that clear. A legal challenge could happen down the road.Macmillian’s US Chief, John Sargent, was clearly not happy about this deal either:I am appalled, however, that Andrew has chosen to give his list exclusively to a single retailer. A [...]
Thank you, Mr. Sargent, for putting the author first.
“for writers, illustrators, publishers, other booksellers”
“at all for authors and publishers”
KC Kendricks
author
Thank you, Mr. Sargent, for once again having the courage to speak up about another bad move for books, writers, and readers.
Once amazon brokered a deal with major publishers to set e-book prices at 9.99 (formerly known as price-fixing), the capitulation to which Mr. Sargent successfully resisted, authors were locked into a revenue model that kept publishers whole while giving authors HALF what they make on hard-copy sales. In one way you can’t really blame Wylie, because that put a dent in his own take.
When Macmillan refused to go along with amazon, amazon removed all their books from their buy button. Few seemed to care that a bullying monopoly so willingly soiled the proposition of free expression.
Can you imagine what people would say if bookstores were to remove Wylie’s authors’ books from their shelves?
Amazon may have rewarded Wylie richly for this move, but he has put himself next in line for obselescence and taken quite a risk for “his” authors in the process.
You’re scared.
As a published author, and now a self-published Kindle author, I’m making more via Amazon than I did at a big six publisher.
Also, you might have had the old tech down (hot type, then cold type), but you and all the other publishers never got the web. You don’t know how to use the new tech. You don’t have a vision. So you’re not helping writers (or readers).
Amazon is doing something and they’re doing it right. Their publishing platform is working. It happens to also make you obsolete, but you had your chance.
[...] Sargent, the US head of Macmillan, posted to his blog a statement that, when read coldly, is so weak, so full of fear, and so full of misinformation, [...]
Why praise Wylie for shifting exploitation of his authors from a publisher to himself?
IF he did this solely for his standard 15 percent commission, he’s a hero. Otherwise, in two years he’ll be writing whiny blogs about why his authors abandoning him are “bad for literature.”
There is NOTHING about this that is bad for authors. For the first time in history, authors have a little power. More importantly, readers will have a LOT of power.
Scott Nicholson
http://www.hauntedcomputer.com
I refuse to buy a Macmillion book until it comes into the real world and prices its digital content fairly. Overpriced, with a management that just is plain out of touch with the world.
I loved reading The Naked and the Dead on my Kindle last night, as well. I plan on hitting the other 19 offerings from Odyssey as well.
[...] “It is an extraordinarily bad deal for writers, illustrators, publishers, other booksellers, and for anyone who believes that books should be as widely available as possible. This deal advantages Amazon, which already has the dominant share in this market,” Sargent wrote on his blog. [...]
I’d observe that last week one could not get Rabbit Run on an eBook. This week one can get it on Amazon. That appears to be a net benefit to everybody. Making an eBook version of an existing manuscript is trivial. The publishers didn’t do it, and now they complain someone else had the iniative to dot it. This is not a sign of a vibrant industry.
[...] Macmillan Response to Wylie Exclusive Publishing Deal And here's the Macmillan response. The general tone and a couple of comments tell you all you need to know. Nasty. [...]
I agree completely with Richard Askenase, above. Macmillan couldn’t stop preening over putting Amazon in its place with the agency pricing model for e-books with Apple, and now Amazon has struck back. It doesn’t feel so great being told you’re not needed, does it, Mr. Sargent? I think it’s wonderful that an agent got the best deal for his writers, and if that means publishing with someone outside the Big 6 cabal, then so be it.
“our function is to reach as many readers as we can”
With respect Mr Sargent, no it clearly isn’t! I live in Australia and have consistently found that I am unable to buy ebooks from almost every online retailer that I’ve visited. Most are unwilling to discuss the restriction, but those who are willing say that publishers have forbidden it.
I gather that it comes as a result of existing contracts and the geographical restrictions included in them. I’m sure that’s true, and it’s more frustrating than I suspect you can imagine. However, for you to claim that your interest is to reach as many readers as possible is clearly not the case.
For the record, the reason indies can’t sell Macmillan e-books (among many other titles) has more to do with a deal being negotiated by the distribution company that we sell them through… it’s a pain for us, but at least one day we’ll EVENTUALLY have them – unlike these at Amazon that we’ll never have access to.
[...] followed up by MacMillan CEO John Sargent, champion of the Big Six version of the little guy, with a public statement on the MacMillan website: I understand why Amazon wants an exclusive deal with Andrew. They have [...]
[...] out. Macmillan CEO, John Sargent, posted this rather passive aggresive entry to the company’s blog earlier this week: I said I would write here occasionally, when I felt it was important to do so. [...]
John,
I completely agree with your point about the limitations of exclusivity for the reader as, now more than ever, a consumer wants ubiquitous access and choice as to where to buy it and how to read it (physically or digitally on various devices).
That said, you say in your post:
“A basic tenet of publishing is that our function is to reach as many readers as we can.”
I would encourage you to bring your digital content to a new channel partner/etailer like Zinio, as we have a global ecommerce platform, http://www.zinio.com, with premium magazine and book content across languages, currencies and devices. We will offer up tens of thousands of illustrated books via our popular reading app come this Fall for iPad/iPhone and many of your peers are on board for categories such as cooking, children’s picture books, gardening, travel, house/home, crafts, and much more. What’s more, you can reach incremental distribution via a magazine consumer and utilize our marketing expertise to cross-sell or upsell not to mention make it interactive should you have rich media to include in the eBook.
I look forward to reading your next post.
Best,
Andrew
“A basic tenet of publishing is that our function is to reach as many readers as we can.”
What a joke. Your agency pricing model established this spring has raised ebook prices to the point that many readers cannot afford them. So you should rephrase that to “A basic tenet of Agency 5 publishing is that our function is to reach as many wealthy readers as we can.”
I’m completely on Wylie’s side here, and happy I can buy these books for $10.
And here’s another thing. I can’t even find your email address! You keep it hidden from this blog. You don’t put it on your site. Even a Google can’t find it. You’re not interactive. You are out of date, a read-only outlet in a new read-write world. How do you expect to stay relevant?
[...] famous for, and why Wylie is called ‘The Jackal’. HarperCollins condemns the move, as does Macmillian, while Penguin Books claim they don’t mind as much (of course, they have less to lose in this [...]
[...] Sargent, CEO of MacMillian called the exclusive nature of Wylie’s deal with Amazon “appalling.” The Author’s Guild’s believes publishers brought this nuke (my word) upon [...]