Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: Why Stephen King is cool

Author:Paul Snively
Posted:7/26/2000; 12:39:21 AM
Topic:Why Stephen King is cool
Msg #:19085 (In response to 19052)
Prev/Next:19084 / 19086

Jonathan Hendry: Being a writer, King's not in the business of managing the servers required to handle all the downloads and transactions. It wasn't clear that StephenKing.com could handle it, considering the response (and problems) involved with his last electronic release.

I certainly wouldn't expect the same hosting facility that handles the StephenKing.com site to handle the transactions, nor do I expect Mr. King to be familiar with the issues involved. Quite the contrary; I feel it's up to people like ourselves to explain them to him.

Jonathan: Whether you like Amazon or not, they're clearly proficient at high-volume e-commerce.

That's debatable along at least two dimensions that come to mind off the top of my head:

  1. "Proficiency in high-volume e-commerce" to me would have to include at least a coherent plan as to how to make a profit, even if that plan were not yet executable.
  2. It would also seem to present opportunities for very pleasing economies of scale with respect to transaction costs, making the choice of clearing credit-card transactions as the only means of payment extremely unattractive. I mean, it's an extremely unattractive choice even when you don't expect to benefit from economies of scale; how could it not be simply unacceptable for it to remain the only choice once you're that huge?

The implicit assumption in all the support of the Amazon choice is that accepting credit cards is the only way to handle the transactions. As of this writing, handling credit-card transactions of $1 is a guaranteed loss-leader. Therefore, the transaction handling will have to be subsidized somehow. Therefore, the entities likely to accept the deal will have some ulterior motive for doing so. Therefore I don't trust them. This would be the case regardless of who accepted the deal. It so happens that Amazon got the deal. I no longer trust Amazon anyway, so now I trust them even less. It's simple arithmetic.

They're also well-know, and likely to help generate press. It's hard to fault King on his choice.

Note that in the above paragraph, my beginning observation is that "handling credit-card transactions of $1 is a guaranteed loss-leader." It has nothing to do with Mr. King making a good or bad choice in selecting Amazon. The economics would be exactly the same if he had selected BarnesAndNoble.com or Border.com; the only difference to me personally is that I'm not boycotting B&N or Border and could therefore pay for "The Plant" in good conscience, all the while wondering "what's in it for B&N/Border? They're losing money on this deal!" but not feeling like this was just one more control-grab on the part of an all-hungry e-commerce maw bent on justifying its (thankfully, finally, falling) market cap. I mean, I feel similarly toward Amazon as I feel toward the U.S. Justice Deptartment: in and of itself, Amazon's having the King deal would probably just raise my eyebrow, but they have this track record with their patent war that makes it impossible for me to trust them anymore. In and of itself, the Justice Department's action in Miami would probably just have raised my eyebrow, but they have this track record with Ruby Ridge and Waco that makes it impossible for me to trust them anymore. But I no more blame Mr. King for Amazon's nature than I blame a distraught parent of a kidnapped teenager who seeks the FBI's assistance for the Justice Department's nature.

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:55:51 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.