Bookstore Demands Publisher Payola For Stocking Books In Store
from the the-fight-for-survival dept
Similar to the RIAA's attempt to get radio stations to pay it for playing songs, it appears that another struggling industry is demanding payments from partners instead of adjusting to the changing market. BoingBoing points us to the story of a large Australian bookstore that apparently demanded that certain publishers pay it a fee to continue stocking their books. The publisher in this case sent back a rather caustic and mocking letter, calling the bookstore's bluff. We all know that the market for bookstores has changed drastically, thanks to the internet, but the answer clearly is not about stocking fewer books that people want or by artificially limiting what books you stock. Since the internet already has unlimited shelf space, you're only making things worse if you do that. Other booksellers have realized that they need to change and play up what makes them valuable beyond their shelf space -- doing such things as becoming destination sites, publishing their own books and playing up the expertise of the staff. Instead, this Australian bookseller has simply resorted to a weak and unsustainable payola scheme that will likely only hasten its demise. In fact, as this story becomes more well known, even fewer people will be interested in going to Angus & Robertson's bookstores, since they'll now know that the books aren't chosen by popularity, but by who will pay off A&R.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: book publishers, bookstores
Companies: angus and robertson, tower books
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Bookstore payola
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
got it backwards
That being said, I think it is a valid point that brick & mortar bookstores are already facing an uphill battle with their online competitors, and this move seems like shooting themselves in the foot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
playing up the expertise of the staff? WTF?
sure, once in a while you will find someone interested in helping you or who knows how to check the stock of a given item, but for the most part, the only difference between the people at barnes and noble (or best buy) and the tards at mcdonald's is that one smells like french fries when he fails to do his job, and one does not.
hiring competent people might cost more, and when your industry is getting killed by the web (thanks to everyone's perception that your employees are incompetent), spending more just isn't a option. that's big box retail thinking at it's finest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: playing up the expertise of the staff? WTF?
My daughter and most challenged kids like her are happy, enthusiastic, and willing workers. They bring 100% effort every day, and rarely whine or complain.
It is lack of work ethic and not lack of intelligence that you are focsedon, so call it like it is -- self-centered laziness with a heavy dose of entitlement.
Off topic, but damn I get riled up about this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: playing up the expertise of the staff? WT
very true, but it's easier and makes me feel better to say retard. i feel entitled to say things like that when i make sweeping generalizations :-)
seriously, if your daughter is mentally or physically challenged, but is still capable of looking in a computer to tell me that that a given item is in stock, or understands that "no onions" means "don't put onions the thing he ordered", i would assert that she might not be handicapped at all.
i mean, she is capable of doing what a good deal of the american retail/food service workforce is not. in that context, she might actually be considered "superhuman".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's called slotting fees
I don't think the same model applies to bookstores, but it's wouldn't be unprecedented.
I bet some form of this is already common in smaller bookstores (like mall stores) with limited shelf space.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's called slotting fees
The same applies to radio stations and record companies. If a record company wants a particular song played more often, they should be free to pay for that privilege.
Payola, like the terms "price gouging" and "overcharging" are man made concepts that are created and defended as a means of protecting some disenfranchised group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's called slotting fees
No, this is quite different. I actually used to work in the catalog business where co-op advertising was everything. But this isn't co-op advertising. This is demanding to pay to be shown in the bookstore at all. In the grocery business co-op and endcaps are for preferential treatment, not to be carried in the first place.
Even worse, this isn't a negotiated deal, this is simply telling the publisher that it needs to pay up to be carried at all -- even if customers are demanding the book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
co-op
Co-op is a fund based on the total sales of a bookstore of a publisher's product that the publisher pays into to split costs of promoting a book locally. Placement fees are paid to get a book sitting on, say, the new release table. If a publisher doesn't offer co-op for a book or pay a placement fee, the bookstore will still take the book, but likely not as many copies. This will render the book less visible, but it is still available.
What this bookstore is trying to do is get publishers to pay for availability, which is the retail version of vanity publishing. What this scheme reveals is just how much trouble the store is in. If they had customers for the publishers' books, there would be no need for the scheme. And if they had customers for the larger publishers' books, then they would just not carry the smaller publishers' books. Clearly, though, they have no customers, which means they now how to try and make their money off their suppliers. This chain is doomed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure, it hurts the small publishers, but isn't that what the Internet is for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Angus and Robinson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ultimately the consumer will make its choice. Like I said before, there is always the Internet for publishers that don't want to play ball. I have a feeling that this bookstore isn't demanding any money from the Harry Potter publishers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
already happening
But as far as I know, payola for display has been happening already. It's just been more disguised before now, using things like discounts, incentives, etc., which are somewhat less pimp-worthy than simply demanding cash up front.
I'm pretty sure that huge "walls" of the latest lame-o bestseller don't occur due to a bookstore's generosity or their worry that you won't notice the book unless there being six hundred copies in your face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Payola, indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't see anything wrong with this from a libertarian point-of-view. A business is free to decide what they sell, where they place those products and so on. But given the plethora of alternatives, I can see this backfiring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]