Comments on: The Many Ironies of Anti-Market Bias http://wintershaven.net/2008/01/15/the-many-ironies-of-anti-market-bias/ Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:06:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Jacob Wintersmith http://wintershaven.net/2008/01/15/the-many-ironies-of-anti-market-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-247 Jacob Wintersmith Fri, 18 Jan 2008 01:06:27 +0000 http://wintershaven.net/2008/01/15/the-many-ironies-of-anti-market-bias/#comment-247 I'd like to extend my deepest sympathies to all the authors who wish their readers were willing to pay more and wish their retailers were willing to charge them less for distributing their work; to all the independent bookshops whose customers have abandoned them for competitors; and to all the publishers who wish retailers would advertise their books for free. The previous paragraph, in case anyone was uncertain, was massive sarcasm. I have no more reason to care about the division of economic surplus between publishers and retailers than I have to care about how much paperclip manufacturers pay for metal. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to favor either party over the other, and it is completely unjust for the law to take sides in book deals, paperclip manufacturing, or any other freely negotiated transaction between private parties. You claim that changes in the business landscape have caused people to read dumber books than they did previously, yet you offer no evidence that (1) people read more "low-brow" material than they did in the past or (2) that any such changes were caused by lower prices or the increased market share of large retailers. You don't even offer a plausible story to explain why big retailers and low prices should, in principle, cause people to read dumber books. In fact, I can think of a good reason that a market dominated by larger retailers should cause people to read more high-brow material: large retailers are better able to serve the "long tail" of the market, whereas small bookshops would tend to devote their limited shelf space to a handful of popular titles. Barnes & Noble, Amazon, and Borders all have <em>much</em> better science sections than any small independent shop I've ever seen. I’d like to extend my deepest sympathies to all the authors who wish their readers were willing to pay more and wish their retailers were willing to charge them less for distributing their work; to all the independent bookshops whose customers have abandoned them for competitors; and to all the publishers who wish retailers would advertise their books for free.

The previous paragraph, in case anyone was uncertain, was massive sarcasm. I have no more reason to care about the division of economic surplus between publishers and retailers than I have to care about how much paperclip manufacturers pay for metal. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to favor either party over the other, and it is completely unjust for the law to take sides in book deals, paperclip manufacturing, or any other freely negotiated transaction between private parties.

You claim that changes in the business landscape have caused people to read dumber books than they did previously, yet you offer no evidence that (1) people read more “low-brow” material than they did in the past or (2) that any such changes were caused by lower prices or the increased market share of large retailers. You don’t even offer a plausible story to explain why big retailers and low prices should, in principle, cause people to read dumber books.

In fact, I can think of a good reason that a market dominated by larger retailers should cause people to read more high-brow material: large retailers are better able to serve the “long tail” of the market, whereas small bookshops would tend to devote their limited shelf space to a handful of popular titles. Barnes & Noble, Amazon, and Borders all have much better science sections than any small independent shop I’ve ever seen.

]]> By: Ian http://wintershaven.net/2008/01/15/the-many-ironies-of-anti-market-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-246 Ian Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:23:56 +0000 http://wintershaven.net/2008/01/15/the-many-ironies-of-anti-market-bias/#comment-246 I am a published author, who also runs a blog about the above quoted IHT, and who lives in France. If you think the French law is dumb do a little investigation into the following: the absurdly low arenthe amounts of money authors in the UK are able to earn because of royalties on heavily discounted books; how independent bookshops in the UK have been steadily put out of business as amazon and a couple of chains control the vast majority of the high street trade; how companies like Waterstones charge publishers to promote books in their stores; how even the publishers regret surrendering so much buying power to so few retailers; how all this has led to a gross dumbing down of the books on offer in the UK - if you want proof visit www.amazon.co.uk and check out the top 100 sellers, most of which are celeb bios, cook books or mass market fiction. I dont think the French are quite as dumb as you think. I am a published author, who also runs a blog about the above quoted IHT, and who lives in France.

If you think the French law is dumb do a little investigation into the following:
the absurdly low arenthe amounts of money authors in the UK are able to earn because of royalties on heavily discounted books;

how independent bookshops in the UK have been steadily put out of business as amazon and a couple of chains control the vast majority of the high street trade;

how companies like Waterstones charge publishers to promote books in their stores;

how even the publishers regret surrendering so much buying power to so few retailers;

how all this has led to a gross dumbing down of the books on offer in the UK – if you want proof visit http://www.amazon.co.uk and check out the top 100 sellers, most of which are celeb bios, cook books or mass market fiction.

I dont think the French are quite as dumb as you think.

]]>