Do you approve?

Do you disapprove?

Are you simply reporting?

If I read it literally, it seems to say one thing. But the language is so hyperbolic in places that I can’t help but think you are trying for irony.

I read and reread the article and basically it sounds like you are saying ‘Huh . . look at that. Doesn’t really affect me, but you know, whatever . . . . ”

Is that the point?

The problem is that monopolies like Standard Oil, Microsoft, etc. were providing essential goods and people tended to get ticked off if they used their monopoly to fix prices.

Amazon, by comparison, is providing a luxury good to people that they can still get elsewhere if they don’t like Amazon’s practices. And when they do stretch their supposed monopolistic muscle from time to time it’s usually in the name of providing lower prices to the consumer so far.

I don’t see anyone but publishers and authors getting upset about Amazon’s practices in the near future. The power and the PR is on their side for now.

The removal of the buy button on the Kindle books: Amazon says to IPG, “Set your prices for your ebooks.” (Which is what the uploader must do under the agency model).

IPG says, “No.” (Because agreeing to set those prices means it agrees to the agency model).

Now we are at an impasse. Amazon cannot set the price for IPG titles, because that would be saying that Amazon agrees to continue the wholesale model. IPG won’t agree because it doesn’t want the agency model.

Amazon has no choice but to remove the buy buttons, simply because those titles are no longer priced. IPG can simply go in and set their prices and the buy buttons would reappear.

Allow me to give you the truth.

IPG had a contract with Amazon that paid IPG wholesale prices for ebooks. Basically, this is what the BIG 6 publishers had before the agency model.

Because IPG’s clients were fine with the wholesale model, they allowed IPG to distribute ebooks for them, and IPG would take a cut of the profits. IPG was happy because it got paid. IPG’s clients were happy because they received near-agency model percentages for doing nothing.

So that contract runs out. Amazon says to IPG, “We’re placing you on the agency model.” (Which is what EVERYONE is now on).

IPG doesn’t want this. Since IPG is a distributor, it knows that after it takes its cut of the sales, its clients will not be happy with what is left. In other words, client is asking, “Why should I lose that much of a percentage when I can distribute this myself?”

Basically, IPG knows it is not worth what it charges in fees for ebook distribution. Those small publishers can do this themselves and keep the full 70% (agency model take). This is why you see IPG asking for its colleagues to support it.

In summary: IPG had a good deal that ran out. Amazon placed them on the SAME terms as everyone else. IPG doesn’t like this because it makes their services look like a ripoff. Basically a middleman is whining because it got marginalized.