November 1, 2022

"The government had a high-profile witness on its side with the author Stephen King, who testified that the merger would be especially harmful..."

"... to writers who are just starting out, and took a contrary position to his own publisher, Scribner, which is part of Simon & Schuster. On Monday night, Mr. King said in an email interview that he was 'delighted with the outcome.' 'Further consolidation would have caused slow but steady damage to writers, readers, independent booksellers, and small publishing companies,' he said. 'Publishing should be more focused on cultural growth and literary achievement and less on corporate balance sheets.'...  The Justice Department’s focus on author earnings, rather than harm to consumers, marked a shift in how the government applies antitrust law. Antitrust policy has largely been guided for decades by an effort to prevent large corporations from imposing higher costs on consumers, rather than focusing on the impact a monopoly might have on workers, suppliers or competitors.... 'The Biden administration wants to be aggressive to protect the overall market, and not necessarily to just protect consumers,' said Eleanor M. Fox, an antitrust expert at N.Y.U. School of Law...."

From "Judge Blocks a Merger of Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster/The government’s case blocked the merger of two of the United States’ largest publishers and reflected a more aggressive approach to curbing consolidation. It was closely watched by the publishing industry" (NYT).

31 comments:

TreeJoe said...

Good friend of mine just published a book through amazon publishing. On a $25-30 purchase price, she makes about $0.30 per book. So if she sells a million copies, she'll make $300k.

It's her first book. Nonetheless, I found it shocking that basically the IP owner who licenses out publication, distribution, and marketing only retains a ~1% reimbursement rate.

I support anti-monopolistic efforts (including limiting government itself!) and would love to see the publishing industry smaller and with increased competition.

Enigma said...

What a pointless war of retrenchment. Has anyone heard about self publishing? The mainstream book industry long ago dissolved into backdoor bribes (e.g., Baltimore mayor; politicians and their wives) and rarely-read recaps of the news that sit on the shelves of elderly people.

Also, Stephen King was a star witness? The guy famous for drug addiction, hackneyed pulp fiction, and rabid anti-Trumpism?

The establishment/government won't let a legal bribery funnel close...

---

Baltimore mayor gets 3 years for bribes using a children's book:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-baltimore-mayor-apologizes-over-children-s-book-scam-sentencing-n1144286

The Obamas get $65M for a joint book deal:

https://www.newsweek.com/barack-and-michelle-obama-sign-joint-book-deal-worth-over-65-million-report-562409

Stephen King's addiction issues:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1178151/Stephen-Kings-Real-Horror-Story-How-novelists-addiction-drink-drugs-nearly-killed-him.html

Ann Althouse said...

"Good friend of mine just published a book through amazon publishing. On a $25-30 purchase price, she makes about $0.30 per book. So if she sells a million copies, she'll make $300k."

Is this an expensive-to-print book — such as a hardback full of photographs? Or is this the rate they pay on a Kindle version that isn't printed at all? Does Amazon do promotion for the book?

Lurker21 said...

Good to block the merger.

Bad to give Steven King any more publicity.

And yes, I misspelled his name on purpose.

RNB said...

How would Mr. King feel about having some of his advances and royalties peeled off for a fund to subsidize and support struggling writers just starting out?

Achilles said...

I am going to point everyone to book.io.

This is an NFT site that is building a digital book ecosystem on the Cardano network.

For people that are new to Crypto assets an NFT is a "Non Fungible Token." It is basically a digital object that has a bunch of math algorithms applied to it that turn it into a moveable/tradable asset.

They are working with Authors now to "mint" new digital NFT books. They have set up a system where there are common versions and rare collectors editions of works by different authors.

Right now they are releasing popular old books in digital form as a boot strap event to pay for development. You can store these books on hardware wallets or in a digital wallet. As long as you have your seed phrase and access to the internet you will always be able to recover your wallet. As long as you have your hardware wallet you don't even need the internet.

As governments try to exert more control over what you can own and read this is the future of book publishing.

The Author of the Heretic series is currently releasing special copies of his book through book.io.

I am quite sure he is making more than 1% and some of the rare collectors editions with new are are selling for a lot of money.

Dave Begley said...

Now do airlines and social media.

wendybar said...

Dave Begley said...
Now do airlines and social media.

11/1/22, 9:05 AM

And broadcast news.

Narr said...

I have never paid the slightest attention to the works or thoughts of Stephen King. I saw The Shining because Kubrick.

Joe Smith said...

King is a commie.

Sebastian said...

"The Justice Department’s focus on author earnings"

Question for the lawyers around here: where's the law that says business may not merge if it results in reduced worker earnings?

Wince said...

Antitrust policy has largely been guided for decades by an effort to prevent large corporations from imposing higher costs on consumers, rather than focusing on the impact a monopoly might have on workers, suppliers or competitors.

The latter is called monopsony.

Tim said...

That is not the Amazon model. They do not promote the book, but the author gets 30% royalties, not .30 of 25 USD. According to the author friends I have, Amazon pays beginning authors better than any of the traditional publishes....and they will let you format and put up for sale about anything you want. If it gets a lot of complaints about bad formatting and bad editing, it can get taken down.

Aggie said...

If you talk to entertainers or authors you quickly understand that it's the promoters and purveyors of the media that make the money, and the 'talent' just gets a few crumbs, and M&Ms in the dressing room. Artistic types are typically (maybe stereotypically) bad with business arrangements.

There was a good interview with the comedian Bill Burr where he talked about the racket. He's a rant comedian, so it's entertaining to listen to him rant about something that he was personally outraged by. But it's true: Authors, musicians, performers - they are 'the talent' and it's just one small piece of the money-making enterprise machine - until they put their foot down and say otherwise.

Consolidation? Not sure it's a bad thing in this case. If Steven-sic King is against it, then my tendency leans the other way, to start with. I didn't notice: Is he putting out any of his vast wealth to help young artists, and if so, how much, in dollars and percents?

Ron Winkleheimer said...

f you talk to entertainers or authors you quickly understand that it's the promoters and purveyors of the media that make the money, and the 'talent' just gets a few crumbs, and M&Ms in the dressing room.

I've got a friend who worked as a roadie for some big name bands, he says there is a saying in the music business, "there's lots of money in the music business, except for the musicians."

Ann Althouse said...

You should see how little you get for running Google ads on a blog. That's why I don't do them anymore. It's not enough money for the visual disruption... though I can see that if I were needier, I'd accept it anyway.

Iman said...

Stephen King: voted Hottest Author of 2003.

Tom T. said...

The counter-argument to promote the merger would be that a bigger publisher is likely to have more of a profit cushion to be able to take chances on unknown authors. A small publisher won't have much margin for error.

Tom T. said...

the 'talent' just gets a few crumbs

The brutal truth is that most of the time, the talent is the part of the system that's most easily replaced. There are innumerable musicians who can play small venues, or authors who can sell a few copies. You only get bargaining power when you get big enough to have your own army of fans.

Richard Dolan said...

"The Justice Department’s focus on author earnings, rather than harm to consumers, marked a shift in how the government applies antitrust law."

In classic antitrust theory, an author's earnings are just an aspect of the cost of producing the entity's product -- same as the cost of paper, ink, etc. The goal of antitrust theory was to protect an efficient market, meaning one that delivers goods and services at the lowest price for consumers -- which is achieved by fostering a competitive marketplace. Competition, so the theory goes, delivers the desired result. When fostering competition is the goal, issues like predatory pricing or barriers to entry and the like become the usual focus of attention. Assessing mergers under the Clayton Act had a list of factors that governed the analysis, all focused on the impact of a proposed merger on market concentration. This case marks a shift in the analysis, by making a goal of the Clayton Act the protection of the earnings of one input in producing a business entity's goods or services, selected more or less for political or social reasons rather than economic ones. Doing so invites other powerful players to champion their own favorites among a business entity's inputs. So why not based antitrust theory on whether a particular transaction favors or disfavors the use of fossil fuels or otherwise advances the 'climate change' agenda, or perhaps favors or disfavors unionization efforts in a particular industry, or whatever other political/social goal may be favored by the party in power?

If this is where the Dems want to take antitrust theory, it seems a large step in the wrong direction.

Rusty said...

You know what protects markets? Consumers protect markets.
Whenever you get a third party between the buyer and the seller you get per verse outcomes. Look at health insurance.
Narr said...
"I have never paid the slightest attention to the works or thoughts of Stephen King. I saw The Shining because Kubrick."
He's been living off his reputation for decades. Since the " Dark Tower" days anyway. He's in love with his own voice.

Joe Smith said...

King is the opposite of Crichton.

King has terrible ideas (a car that comes to life and kills people) but is actually a very good writer.

Crichton has incredible ideas (cloning dinosaur DNA) but his writing is a bit flat.

Ted said...

A friend of mine had a book published by one of the big companies mentioned in this article. As a non-Stephen King author, his royalty was about 7 percent of the cover price, and there was no promotion that he didn't arrange himself. The modest advance, paid in 3 parts over about a year, was all he ever earned after an enormous amount of work.

Robert Cook said...

"Also, Stephen King was a star witness? The guy famous for drug addiction, hackneyed pulp fiction, and rabid anti-Trumpism?"

Even drug-addicted writers of hackneyed pulp fiction have their moments of clarity.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

TreeJoe said...
Good friend of mine just published a book through amazon publishing. On a $25-30 purchase price, she makes about $0.30 per book. So if she sells a million copies, she'll make $300k.

It's her first book. Nonetheless, I found it shocking that basically the IP owner who licenses out publication, distribution, and marketing only retains a ~1% reimbursement rate.

——————

She can charge more if she wants. She’ll probably sell fewer if she does.

Paper and transportation costs are way up with inflation. That $25-30 is the minimum to cover Amazon’s printing costs and related. Like her, Amazon is making practically nothing on these books.

Paper books are an area where economy of scale really comes into play. POD (Print on Demand) has gotten significantly better, faster, and cheaper; but it still can’t compare price wise to large batches on a printing press.

POD paper books are essentially a loss leader, something you offer so you can reach readers who refuse to read ebooks (which is certainly their right). You hope that they’ll become fans and build your word of mouth, but you can’t build a business plan around them.

Your friend’s choices are to raise the price (which probably won’t work), pay a printing press to print a large batch and sell them herself (I think 500 copies gets the cost down), treat the print books as loss leaders and focus on ebook revenue, or try to get a traditional deal where her royalties will be in the 10-16% range. I personally have concentrated on ebooks, and also on traditional publishing.

Robert Cook said...

"King is a commie."

What do you even mean by that comment? Are you just calling him the worst name (in your view) to call him, essentially, "King is a horrible, terrible, awful poopie bad man.")? Or do you mean it literally? If the latter, please explain.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Tim said...
That is not the Amazon model. They do not promote the book, but the author gets 30% royalties, not .30 of 25 USD. According to the author friends I have, Amazon pays beginning authors better than any of the traditional publishes....and they will let you format and put up for sale about anything you want. If it gets a lot of complaints about bad formatting and bad editing, it can get taken down

—————————

The 30% is for ebooks; and if you stay within certain rules (minimum price, a couple other things), it’s 70%. Everything else you said is right on.

But for paper books, it’s trickier. The cost of printing and shipping paper is thousands of times the cost of shipping electrons, and Amazon expects to be paid for that. My royalties for a paper book range from 25 cents to a buck or two. My royalties for an ebook range from $2 to $7. Friends tell me I should charge more for my paper books, but the prices seem too high to me as it is.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Amazon wasn’t actually part of this decision, but it has crept into this decision. I think it’s often misunderstood that there’s a difference between self publishing THROUGH Amazon’s KDP platform (or whatever it’s called these days) and traditional publishing UNDER Amazon Publishing.

KDP is a vendor. They sell you publishing services: printing, sales, and distribution, primarily. They don’t do editing, cover design, marketing, etc. That’s up to you. They take a relatively small royalty for this.

Amazon Publishing is a traditional publisher, a competitor to PRH and Simon & Schuster (with various imprints for different genres). They accept submissions, decide to purchase some of them, and then do editing, cover design, and promotion (on top of printing, distribution, and sales). In exchange for doing most of the non-writing work for you, they take 80-90%.

An author might work with both. When Amazon debuted my second novel with massive promotion, my self-published book of short stories set in the same universe shot up in sales. I sold significantly more in that one month than in the previous two years.

stlcdr said...

I rarely buy books, now. Typically, kindle stuff, or going to a second hand book store.

When I do buy new, it’s typically something very specific, and really don’t flinch too hard at spending 20 or 40 bucks or so every 3 to 6 months.

How many books to people buy, anyway? It’d be interesting to see the decline (?) over the past 30 years, since the birth of Amazon.

stlcdr said...

Will Stephen King pay 8 bucks to keep a blue check mark, though? 20 is apparently outrageous!

JAORE said...

'Publishing should be more focused on cultural growth and literary achievement and less on corporate balance sheets.'...

"Cultural growth and literary achievement"? S. King said this? Was there a grinning emoji along side? He can (or did in the dim past) write some interesting tales... but...

Plus:
It is always somebody else that is always too focused on money.