#AmazonFail and the problem of monopolies
April 14th, 2009 by Vanessa
Over the last few days there has been huge amounts of debate and uproar about the way in which the sales rankings of various books with ‘adult’ content were removed from Amazon. It affected an odd range of titles – not just pornography but Oscar Wilde, Jeanette Winterson and Gore Vidal’s books. This isn’t good, largely because books with LGBT subject matter tend to sell in smaller numbers and the sales ranking can affect where you come in the search results.
As several people pointed out, certain items* that Amazon sell of a distinctly ‘adult’ nature were still there with their sales rankings intact which shows how utterly barking this policy was. If it was a policy that is – Amazon have now back-tracked and said that it’s a “ham-fisted error” and it sounds as though they’re not going to proceed with this sort of screening. Apparently it was all the fault of some beleagured French programmer… Cue lots of people cheering that Amazon has seen the error of their ways and are going to be open and honest and egalitarian in future.
But why should they be? Amazon is a business – not a government department or a library or a school so why should there be uproar about what they choose to stock and how they choose to promote it (or not in this case)?
I can hear your intake of breath, but bear with me for a minute. Most shops choose what they do and do not stock. For example, Jordan Katie Price’s books will never pass our threshold because they’re drivel and quite apart from this quality issue there are books on other subjects that we probably wouldn’t stock – misery memoirs, fundamentalist religious books and the like; books that make us uncomfortable or which we passionately disagree with or whatever. And we have that choice because it’s our business and we can run it how we see fit.
What Amazon is doing is no different. Leaving aside the fact that they seem to be targetting the LGBT community, which is unfair and whose books rely on Amazon sales because they are less likely to be stocked by mainstream bookshops, it’s entirely up to Amazon’s shareholders how the company is run and how it chooses to operate in the same way that no-one can force us to stock Katie P’s pony books.
What this furore demonstrates though is the danger of letting any company become a monopoly. When that happens, the company thinks that they can start dictating how the industry works, how we use their business, even how we live. They don’t have to worry about our needs because we don’t have many other options. You can see it in the way that Microsoft are ending support for the XP operating system because they want us all to upgrade to Windows 7; how Google appear to have abandoned their fluffy egalitarian beginnings in favour of attempted world domination; how £1 in every £7 spent on the high street in the UK is spent in Tesco.
People, we’re reaping what we’ve sown and if we don’t want to see this kind of censorship and disregard for our opinions become more common then we need to change the way we see businesses and the way we do business. Go and use your local greengrocer, fishmonger, baker and bookshop. Take back your autonomy. You see, I don’t think that Amazon want to be the best bookshop in the world any more; I think they just want to be the most powerful company in the world and if we’re willing let to them or anyone else do that then we’re just giving away our autonomy simply so that we can have the instant, transient, gratification of ordering a product with a click of a button. We’re better than that.
* and some of those were things I’m not sure Amazon should be selling if they’re going to become prurient about Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit.
I think it’s a little different from how you phrased it as ‘promoting’ books; they were leaving books out of a list of sales ranks which was an inaccurate depiction of their customers’ purchases. I’m with you in that Amazon is a business monster and thus should promote whatever they want (I mean, we do that too) but they shouldn’t lie. As you say, we’re lovely; we don’t lie.
Oh, Amazon *tuts* perhaps if you were censoring Twilight I’d be more sympathetic…. Excuse me whilst I go to Waterstones and put huge warning stickers on all copies of ‘Breaking Dawn that say ‘OI, CAREFUL, VAMPIRE!SEX AHOY! S’EVIL AND BAD.’
I see your point Jen, but sales rankings are a means of promoting books and that they use them as a way of suggesting possible additional purchases to customers is another form of marketing. I think we agree; it’s just the semantics we’re differing on.
The books were all there; you just had to actively look for them which means you had to know they were there in the first place. And Amazon can do that – it’s their business and they can concentrate on selling the most profitable books and other products.
It is censorship and it’s wrong and I disagree wholeheartedly with Amazon excluding these books but I think people are getting outraged about this when it’s part of a bigger problem and that’s what we should be thinking about.
But censoring the rubbish would be a positive step – if they need a list I’m sure all of us at Fidra can put one together for them.
No, I totally agree with you and indeed it should be the bigger picture that people are looking at; I’m just a little on the LGBT offensive here ;) I think I’m just perplexed as to why they think that Oranges etc would be an undesirable book to promote; they promote a lot of non best-sellers as it is, and if it is a ‘category error’ then exactly what category are these books in and how did they get there?
Ie. If they’re saying they wanted to effectively ‘hide’ LGBT ’smut,’ which is what their spokesperson was implying, then how does Oranges get onto that list? It boggles really, considering Oranges is, as you say, outrageously tame, plus it is in the top 5,000 of their fiction sales rank (no pun intended ;) ) anyway. The mind boggles; I thought we were over gay censorship, but then I remembered why Carol Ann Duffy didn’t make poet laureate. *sigh*
But back on track: come to independent book stores (which certain best selling authors actually favour *cough*), where we place books ahead of sales charts and stock everything from Harry Potter to picture books on gay penguin adoption. Ftw.
NB: that cough should probably be a ‘wink’; I feel as a ‘cough’ it makes me look shifty.
Also, watch Jeanette’s sales rank go up as people buy it to see what all the fuss is about. There’s always an upside ;)
Well yes Vanessa we do use the local people when we can – it’s called ‘minding the carbon imprint’ and ‘watching out for our neighbours’ – and friends in far off Scotland!
I was sort of hoping that Amazon might condemn Victoria’s “Girl’s Guide to Kissing Frogs” as promoting bestiality.
Excellent post Vanessa. In a sense we get the webretailers, and high street retailers we deserve.
I’m enduring the sadness of seeing this at a micro level, over here in my part of Edinburgh – Stockbridge – where lots of individual shops may have to close, following the demise of the local Woolies, which means a Sainsbury’s outlet is due to open in its old premises. Not the fault of local shoppers – most of them passionate supporters of local tradespeople. But Sainsbury’s – I imagine – represents a reliable income stream as a tenant to the site owners. Will be a death knell for the many local delis and shops in the area – many family-owned – that my family and I have loved visiting.
As usual an excellent post. I grew up in Stockbridge and am very sad to see how it has declined; I’m even more appalled by Princes Street! I almost never use anything other than specialist retailers for any purchase (other than things like washing powder), but I have the advantage of living in a part of London where this is possible within a fairly short (~km) walk. I do agree however that Amazon should in principle attract no more opprobium than Fidra for what it stocks and promotes; the point excellently put, is its approaching monopoly of the retail market volume.