In this article, Publisher’s Weekly discusses the Amazon statement issued yesterday and Ingram’s response to the issue.

I still take issue with Amazon saying

“It isn’t logical or efficient to print a POD book in a third place, and then physically ship the book to our fulfillment centers. It makes more sense to produce the books on site, saving transportation costs and transportation fuel, and significantly speeding the shipment to our customers

For some orders, that might be true. Might. But Lightning Source does not physically ship the book to Amazon’s fulfillment services. They ship the book directly to the buyer, in Amazon packaging! Amazon is deliberately misleading people with this statement, and I hope more people call them on it.

Furthermore, I have yet to see any indication that BookSurge can print these books at the fulfillment centers. How is it logical or efficient for BookSurge to “print a POD book in a third place” (namely, the BookSurge printing facility), “and then physically ship the book to our fulfillment centers”?

In terms of saving transportation costs and transportation fuel, A=B. Both BookSurge and Lightning Source would be shipping directly from their printing facilities, in separate packaging from items shipped from Amazon’s fulfillment services. And shame on Amazon for trying to imply that this strategy is somehow environmentally inspired.

A statement from Ingram, owner of Lightning Source and a major wholesaler, says “publishers are telling us they feel Amazon.com’s actions are not appropriate” and that attempts to get Amazon to clarify their POD policy have not received a response.

Apparently Lulu.com, AuthorHouse, and iUniverse have signed some sort of agreement with Amazon, although that’s all secondhand info and unverified.

Google+

Stacia Seaman