• On CBS MoneyWatch: 5 Things You Should Buy at Walmart
March 31, 2008 3:28 PM PDT

Amazon puts the squeeze on print-on-demand publishers

by Adam Richardson
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 1 comment

Quite a kerfuffle has erupted over news in the last couple of days that Amazon is going to make print-on-demand (POD) publishers use Amazon's own internal printing service if they want to sell their books on the site.

Printing-on-demand has become a popular method for authors to bypass the large publishing houses with more niche or personal titles. And apparently the university presses have embraced it as well. So Amazon's announcement has some fairly wide-reaching effects.

Cries of "monopoly" are ringing out, with Amazon getting compared to Microsoft and the tactic being called a "landgrab".

Whether it rises to the level of being a true monopoly (and it's still a bit unclear exactly what the details of the change are), it does make clear how Amazon has shifted from being just a retailer to taking on some aspects of being a publisher. In so doing it blurs what has traditionally been a distinction and in this particular case makes me worried about the chilling effect on the nascent POD market. With a major channel potentially effectively closed off, will the other popular players like Lulu and Blurb be able to survive, along with the budding authors they have helped bring to the public eye? These companies have relied on the prestige of being able to seamlessly get a book published on Amazon in order to attract authors. If that option is removed, their appeal would seem to be dramatically reduced for an author who wishes to sell more than a handful of copies.

If you want lots more detail, here's a lengthy article and plenty of links at Writers Weekly. I'm guessing that the blow-back has only just begun.

Adam Richardson is the director of product strategy at Frog Design, where he guides strategy engagements for Frog's international roster of clients, envisioning and creating new products, consumer electronics, and digital experiences. Adam combines a background in industrial design, interaction design, and sociology, and he spends most of his time on convergent designs that combine hardware, software, service, brand, and retail. He writes and speaks extensively on design, business, culture, and technology, and he runs his own Richardsona blog. Adam is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET.
Recent posts from Matter/Anti-Matter
The future will be...
Time for marketing innovation 2.0
A new way to see the Internet: the Google Chrome videos
Tracking deforestation in real time
"The people have tweeted": the Trident Layers ad
Tracking deforestation in real time
What good is design research?
The logic behind the consumer device economy
Add a Comment (Log in or register)
by scotth92 March 31, 2008 4:33 PM PDT
I'm your largest distribution channel and you are going to slowly siphon away revenue by another channel that may blow up in some unknown period of time.

Yep, I'm going to require you to use me for that service, too.
Reply to this comment
advertisement

Five New Year's resolutions for Google

Stakes are high as Google attempts to maintain one of the Internet's greatest cash machines while pushing into new and risky markets.
• Android event set for Jan. 5

For eBay sellers, a holiday hamster hangover

The gift frenzy over Zhu Zhu Pets leaves some power sellers feeling like they've just run a marathon--but the steep price tags lead to some impressive profits.

About Matter/Anti-Matter

Tim Leberecht and Adam Richardson both work for Frog Design, a consulting firm specialized in designing innovative products and services for Fortune 500 clients. On the Matter / Anti-Matter blog, they engage in a debate around questions they face day-to-day in their work, using convergence/divergence as a lens through which to look at the pressing issues in business, culture, and technology. What makes a successful convergent product or a successful divergent innovation? Is convergence a myth that users don't really care about, or is the current state of convergence just not satisfying enough for them to embrace? How much divergence of innovation is good, and when does it just become confusing? How do you stay on top of people's ever changing needs and wants?

They are members of the CNET Blog Network and are not employees of CNET.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Matter/Anti-Matter topics

advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right