Amazon Wants to Bury the Hatchette. It is to Laugh

I use Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP, Amazon’s publishing arm) to self-publish my fiction writing; and as a result I periodically receive emails from KDP regarding any manner of items they believe important to share. Sometimes it’s an interview with a self-published author who has hit it big using KDP; sometimes it’s a list of tips for getting your work discovered; and sometimes it’s a list of improvements the company has made to its service.

Generally, I ignore what I receive from KDP. That is until a few weeks ago when I received an entirely new form of correspondence from them: a plea to me, as a KDP user, to email the CEO of Hachette Publishing on KDP’s, i.e. Amazon’s, behalf.

You can read Amazon’s letter here.

In reading the letter, one brimming with passion and multiple bolded sentences, I couldn’t help but laugh.

The crux of matter: KDP/Amazon believes that Hachette Publishing (a sub-division of Legardere) is charging too much for the digital versions of their newest book releases and Amazon would like for me, along with the rest of its self-published authors, to email Hachette CEO, Michael Pietsch with the following points and requests.

• We have noted your illegal collusion. Please stop working so hard to overcharge for ebooks. They can and should be less expensive.
• Lowering e-book prices will help — not hurt — the reading culture, just like paperbacks did.
• Stop using your authors as leverage and accept one of Amazon's offers to take them out of the middle.
• Especially if you're an author yourself: Remind them that authors are not united on this issue.

The letter also details the lengths Amazon had gone to in an attempt to meet on some middle ground with Hachette and work to lower the entry prices for its digital copies. Amazon noted that Hachette was found guilty of colluding with other companies to keep digital book prices unnecessarily high, that, in fact, lowering digital-book price points creates more profits because far more sales are made, and that a “healthy reading culture” needs cheaper reading materials to compete with other popular media forms.

Hachette, the letter explains, flatly rebuffed Amazon. Digital books prices, though far cheaper than physical copies, would remain the same. 

Hachette’s refusal to work with Amazon left Amazon no choice but to place sanctions against Hachette and its authors. That’s Amazon’s belief, not this author’s.

On first blush, the matter smacked of the usual exorbitant greed companies too often seem to have. Anyone who has even a sliver of understanding about digital versus physical copies understands that the former costs next to nothing to deliver to customers. 

Again, on first blush, Hachette comes off as both greedy and flat-out wrong.

So, what made me laugh?

Well, it was taking that half moment before deciding what to do next to pause and ask: What does Amazon have to gain from this letter campaign? They want me to believe, as a customer, I’ll be part of a group that topples a heartless company and trumps a wrong. Fact is, Amazon’s real gain is more obvious:  more book sales and therefore more money for them. There is also a secondary –almost as valuable- benefit, which I share later. 

Human skepticism runs stronger and stronger each year, it seems, and I’m confident more than a few of you reading this also questioned Amazon’s true motivations. Making money is after all what companies do. A company is an insatiable money earner and I believe we all grasp this. 

What’s amusing is that Amazon didn’t quite admit this in its letter. No, the letter was saturated with noble intent and sentences possessing a tone of good versus evil. To Amazon’s credit, they listed among their many solutions to getting Hachette to crack the following.

•  authors [would] receive 100% of all sales of their titles until this dispute is resolved

• [Amazon] would return to normal business operations if Amazon and Hachette's normal share of revenue went to a literacy charity

Hard to see why Hatchette would balk at either of these offers. Amazon seems awfully sincere, dedicated even to providing the best for readers everywhere. And yet, I was chuckling quite a bit at this point. 

Amazon is not leading a revolution with their Hachette letter. They’re manipulating the propaganda machine to their benefit. 

Amazon is a company; by definition this means profits are central to its being. Leading its customers and users to believe that it’s basically a white knight fighting solely on their behalf and not its own greed is silly. [For proof of this consult with my wife who heard me laughing several times as I read and reread the letter. Weak reasoning, I know, but I couldn’t resist.] Worse is that Amazon doesn’t admit that it would stand to earn quite the altruistic shot in the arm if it can lay claim to getting Hachette to lower its prices to the benefit of readers the world around. That second, unwritten, goal is the other benefit a company like Amazon hopes to gain from its letter campaign. Of course, it’s somewhat hard to embrace Amazon’s magnanimity when it’s calling for author works to be available to all and also cutting off Hachette’s books until it gets what it wants.

And so… amid chuckles I decided to write a letter to Hachette CEO, Michael Pietsch, though not fully in the spirit Amazon asked of me. 

Hello-

As you likely know, Amazon is making a tremendous push to have independent authors(hacks, really) like me reach out to your company with the expressed aim of having you reconsider your stance of charging hardcover prices for electronic copies of the same title.

Initially, I was whole-heatedly in agreement with Amazon.

Of course, I'm not exactly balking one hundred percent either.

They are correct in noting that digital copies incur far less expense to make and send; and continuing to ask for hardcover prices in this instance is ridiculous. Amazon also correctly points out that in many instances lowering the price point results in more sales and more profit in the end.

However, that's where I begin to see altruistic flaws in Amazon's request of me.

Let's face it both of your companies are worried about the bottom line more than the customer. Amazon stands to profit a ton too with lowered price points on books coming from your publishing house and others. Honestly, I don't care which way your company goes with its prices. Business is business and I'm under no obligation to buy your product. However...

...it might interest you to know that I have in the past 3-4 years held a limit-to-what-I'll-spend-for-a-digital-copy attitude. Essentially, I'm unwilling to pay more than 9.99 for a digital book -with a very few exceptions for favorite authors. One, it is next to nothing for you or Amazon to get that too me. Two, I realize that digital amounts to "renting" not owning an item. When I buy a physical copy of something, that's forever. Not so with digital. Amazon can pull that copy right off of my Kindle or Amazon account. It's happened to others. Amazon could also go belly up. That's happened to companies too. So, I won't pay too much to rent.

In the end, the market will settle this matter. If I were a betting person, I'd say you'll end up lowering your price point. Buyers will make that happen with their dollars. 

Well, thanks for letting me drop my thoughts into your electronic well.

Somewhat sincerely,

Ralph

Yes, it’s a smart-alecky email and, no, I did not receive direct feedback from anyone at Hachette, but anyone who has half his or her sense can see through the true intents of Amazon’s letter. Or, so I hope. 

In time, I did receive a letter from Hatchette. Same form letter response, I’ll gather, every other KDP user who directed emails to Mr. Pietsch got.

You can read his reply letter here, but I bulleted the key ideas below.

Among the notable highlights of his and Hachette’s reply are:

• 80% of Hachette’s digital copies are sold below a 9.99 price point

• costs for printing, promoting, shipping physical books is off-set by higher digital price points
• digital piracy cuts into earnings

•  higher price points for specific titles come down with paperback version

• both Hachette and Amazon are big businesses and neither should claim a monopoly on enlightenment

I put the last highlight in red because I cannot help but applaud Mr. Pietsch for being truthful with me where Amazon seemed to want to avoid that.  Amazon asked me, and its users, to run off like a pitch-forked mob and demand justice for Hachette’s evil practices; and that was uncalled for.

I do feel, as I wrote in my email to Hachette, that this will all settle itself with lowered price points in the end. Money speaks loudest to companies. If nothing else, Amazon’s letter has sparked a fiery discussion, one that doesn’t fool too many, however. Customers know what companies want –dollars and more dollars.

Some final notes:

On principle, I don’t agree with high price-points for digital copies of materials –especially because I truly do not own these “books”. I won’t get into too much detail here but pretty much any digital item one buys today is simply a long-term rental of that item. Amazon has removed purchased copies from customers before and can do so at any time. Unlike a physical book, which I can hand down from generation to generation, that’s not the case with digital versions. Thus, do I make every effort to buy items I wish to read at rock-bottom prices.

Also, on principle, I don’t have issue with companies and their modus operandi of earning profits. As written, that’s what they are and do. How can I find fault this? Where I find fault, and oodles of humor, is when companies work to paint that truth away and expects its customers to now know any better. Believe me,  I would have respected Amazon’s letter request far more if they’d just written: we want cheaper price points for all books because we want make more money. Oh, and, by-the-way, you too will benefit greatly.

Any other ploy…?

Well, it is to laugh.

Teachers: Becoming Our Worst Enemies

It’s possible that I’m entirely in the wrong; that I don’t grasp what the Common Core State Standards are actually asking of me as a professional teacher. I write this because every time I open the newspaper, I see another article about how the CCSS expects teachers to give up all their creative abilities and work in lock-step to follow scripted lessons.

This perception began with an emotionally driven op-ed piece by a Connecticut teacher. In the article, “Why I Want to Give up Teaching”, Ms. Elizabeth Natale explained that the CCSS was taking the joy out of teaching. To paraphrase: she noted being forced to teach in lock-step to others, being forced to give up teaching Tuck Everlasting, and being expected to teach non-fiction to her Language Arts students. These CCSS demands proved too much for her and she voiced her frustrations.

Feeling confused by Ms. Natale's claims, not at all by her sentiments, I turned to the CCSS website in search of their mission statement and goals looking for exactly where they’d written that everyone was to work in lock-step, stop teaching the moral issues of Tuck Everlasting, and focus heavily on non-fiction reading. I found the last item. Yes, the CCSS asks for Language Arts Teachers (those who are best equipped to teach reading) to incorporate more non-fiction in their classroom instruction. But, they are not expected to carry this water alone. All the middle-school-and-up disciplines are supposed to help students read and write from non-fiction sources. The other two items on Ms. Natale’s list were missing.

Perplexed by the matter, I wrote "Common Core, Commonly Misunderstood" in response to what appeared to me to be an incorrect set of assumptions and then figured that’d be that.

Well, this morning, in addition to several inches of icy snow, I was greeted with an article from The Hartford Courant titled “Turning School into Testing Boot Camps” by Robert Koehler via the Tribune Content Agency. [Note: The Courant article is titled differently than the original article in the Tribune. Click here for “Asphyxiating Education”.] Mr. Koehler writes for the Chicago Tribune and is “a nationally recognized award-winning journalist, fiction writer and poet whose essays and columns have appeared in numerous newspapers and magazines and on public radio and the Internet.” Ah, I thought, if anyone is going to have clarity on what the Common Core State Standards are, it’d be a professional journalist from the Chicago Tribune.  

Here’s his article in paraphrased form. The CCSS “defines and scripts the lessons to be taught, the micromanagement of teaching -- and learning – [it] has reached a new extreme.” He continues with a quote from Nicholas Tampio, an assistant professor of Political Science at Fordham University, and an article he authored. The quote follows: Teachers are not allowed to use their own methods to introduce the material, manage the classroom, or share their own wisdom. Students are not encouraged to connect the material to their own lives, events in the world, or things that may interest them. The script tells the teachers and students, at all times, what to say and do.

I don’t disbelieve these events, as recorded by Mr. Tampio.  Having taught for many years, you do see and hear of instances when schools go a little crazy trying to prep their kids for their State’s common assessment. It’s very possible that the school Mr. Tampio wrote about has scripted as much as they could and laid out as many lessons as possible for their staff to follow. Reading this, I got to thinking that maybe I really have been wrong all along. Maybe there’s some fine print on the CCSS website that links all of the scripts and lesson plans teachers are expected to foist onto kids and I just plumb missed it. I am a bit of an error machine. Just those who know me even a little well.

Well… I looked. And nope. No such thing. Not a single item delineating what teachers are to do to help students meet the standards as listed within the disciplines of the CCSS.

This leads me to one conclusion. Teachers and schools made a choice to shackle themselves to scripts and lessons and lock-step approaches to instructing students. They’ve done that of their own volition –not because it’s required by the CCSS; and thus have become their own worst enemies.

What’s remarkable is how quickly schools turn to the scripted approach, when confronted with something new. They get nervous and they want a plan, scripted or not. It doesn’t help that schools are inundated with literature from companies churning out new and/or merely relabeled workbooks of exercises aimed at the CCSS.

This may seem like a small hair to split, and yet it is remains one that needs splitting. We’re trying to teach our students to read dissenting views and then make thoughtful sense of it. That’s the world we’ve always been in. It doesn’t seem correct to begin the discussion of whether or not the CCSS is a good next step in teaching reform if everyone is stepping off from an incorrect point of understanding.

I realize, this being my second article on the topic of the CCSS and what it purports to ask of teachers, makes me seem like a cheerleader for the CCSS. I am not. Like many teachers and administrators, I see problems with the CCSS. Chief among them are the expectations set forth by grade level. It seems to me that each set of standards is being introduced nearly a full school year ahead of where it should be. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe students will rise to these new bars, these higher outcomes of learning. We are asked to slow down our curriculums and go deeper. So, I’m open to seeing if we can meet the Core Standards by changing our ways. But, I have no misconceptions. It will be painful and slow going. Change in schools is always slow. It would be nice if everyone involved from the inside out could at least have some reasonable understanding of the CCSS. 

From everything I’m reading in print these days, we’re off to a poor start. As always, do not hesitate to email me and show me where I'm wrong. I'm always second guessing myself. It doesn't help that the media and I are not in lock-step on this topic. Oops! Bad choice of words?

Common Core, Commonly Misunderstood

I came across the following op-ed article “Why I Want to Give Up Teaching” in The Hartford Courant this Sunday. The author, Ms. Elizabeth Natale, is a middle school Language Arts teacher who feels that Connecticut’s move toward adopting the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) is so discouraging as to have her seriously contemplating quitting her teaching career.   

In reading her article, I’ll admit, a small part of me thought that this fellow educator may be on to something, that the Common Core when paired with the new State demands for accountability may have taken a lot of joy out of going to work. However, that was only a small part of me that felt this way; and fleetingly at that. Mostly, I couldn’t help but wonder how well Ms. Natale understands the goals and requirements of the Common Core State Standards and if she simply isn’t overreacting, much in the same way our students sometimes do when feeling overwhelmed by new and unfamiliar learning.

As interesting to me have been the comments and reactions more than a few people have given in support of her op-ed article. For the record, I haven’t bothered to follow up on these accounts myself. I learned about the support the article received on Facebook and in face-to-face conversations from my wife. Still, it doesn’t surprise me that many a teacher would rally around an article and stance such as this one, as misguided it may be.

Below is my reply to Ms. Natale’s op-ed article. I have submitted it to the Hartford Courant in the hopes that it will reach the same audience Ms. Natale’s article reached because I believe her article to be damaging to peoples’ perception of the Common Core. Her article lacks accuracy and plays too strongly on emotional, rather than factual, appeal. My modest explanation of why such an article, while passionate, needs some counterbalancing follows:

Common Core, Commonly Misunderstood

In reading Ms. Natale’s op-ed piece, “Why I Want to Give Up Teaching”, I found myself wondering if her reaction to the changing winds isn’t a bit extreme, or at least misguided. Yes, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are both different and more demanding than the focuses and assessments of the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) and the Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT), but in examining her article closely, it appears that at best she misunderstands the CCSS, and, at worst, holds a skewed interpretation of them. 

Natale writes “The Common Core standards require teachers to march lockstep in arming students with ‘21st-century skills.’". I can understand how it may appear that teachers are to move in “lock-step”, but that isn’t correct. The standards are the final outcome all students must be able to demonstrate; and how you, as a proven and effective educator, work to get them to that point is up to you and your district. 

By way of example, consider the commonly done science activity of dropping an egg from a two-story building so as to have it survive the fall unscathed. Students, for this activity, are given the same materials and the exact same goal (help Humpty Dumpty survive his fall). However, how they cobble together their materials to accomplish this feat is entirely up to their clever minds as paired to their grasp of the laws of motion, velocity, air resistance, and so on. That is not “lock-step” education, as she’s painted it, because only the outcome is the same, everything leading up to it is on the teacher to implement –however she deems it best to do so. (Interestingly, one could actually make the case that because the CCSS only provides teachers with student goals, and not the body of knowledge, skills, and materials needed to meet the goal, it is actually too vague and open to teacher creativity to be useful to a teacher.)

In the same paragraph, Ms. Natale continues with: “In English, emphasis on technology and nonfiction reading makes it more important for students to prepare an electronic presentation on how to make a paper airplane than to learn about moral dilemmas from Natalie Babbitt's beloved novel ‘Tuck Everlasting.’" True, the CCSS asks that teachers help students become more proficient with technology. Again, this seems to make sense in our technologically growing and dependent world; and, frankly, most of our children embrace technology as their preferred means of learning and communicating, but where Natale strays too far for my sensibilities is with her claim that it is more important for students to share their understanding of the paper airplane over the moral dilemmas presented in Natalie Babbitt’s wonderful classic Tuck Everlasting. It just isn’t so. 

Time spent studying the issues that can be culled from Tuck Everlasting -and any other moral dilemma presented in written fiction and non-fiction- is completely welcome within the realm of the CCSS. The CCSS devotes one of its three forms of writing and discussion to helping students learn to interpret and write in the argumentative style. Indeed, it is highly prized by the CCSS, as helping students pull complex ideas and issues like those from a text, then guiding them through discussion of them, and finally leading them to form their own well-supported opinions of them is part of the Common Core standards. As example: the key dilemma in Tuck Everlasting is one of immortality. The idea of living forever sounds great, but as students read Babbitt’s book, they begin to really wrangle with the idea of it, the pros and cons of immortality. The CCSS is very much okay with this and might only ask that a teacher bring in some real-world examples where living a long life is both good and bad: Japan’s aging population and the incredible medical advancements that are extending our lives would be two relevant and interesting examples to pair up with Tuck Everlasting, not supplant it.

This idea that the Common Core is asking teachers to stop teaching a particular book is well off base. The Common Core is blind to the specific books and articles a school or teacher uses. It wants critical thinkers that can read and write well by using any of today’s technologies as tools. 

On Natale’s comment that the CCSS emphasizes non-fiction reading and writing over fiction. This is essentially true, in part because it is the most prevalent type of reading done in college. Even in a Liberal Arts program, students will read a great deal from non-fiction. It makes entire sense to help prepare our students for this setting since we want our students to attend and graduate from a college. “College readiness” is frequently used in the CCSS documentation as rationale for the goals is has set.

Also worth considering, though it is not directly written by the architects of the CCSS as a reason for pushing more non-fiction reading into classrooms, non-fiction reading and writing are often given short-shrift by Language Arts teachers. Many a Language Arts teacher presumes their main responsibility rests in developing a love of stories, novels, plays, poetry and other fiction-focused materials with their students. On this, I completely understand where Ms. Natale is coming from, because I also hold that same framework in my head: Language Arts teacher equals reading classic stories, plays, poetry, et al., Where Natale appears to misunderstand the call for more non-fiction reading and writing in our classrooms is in her supposition that it is the sole responsibility of a Language Arts teacher to develop it. 

Nowhere is something like that written in the CCSS. In fact, the opposite is true. Reading and writing non-fiction is to be a share load, shared with the sciences, mathematics, foreign languages, technologies, and arts departments in her middle school setting. This is clearly borne out when one examines the standards for each of the disciplines covered in the CCSS. Everyone is responsible for helping our young leaners read and write well from non-fiction sources. When that notion sinks in and becomes common practice across a district, a Language Arts teacher’s work load should actually lessen.  

I can, of course, only surmise as to why Ms. Natale believes she needs to throw out much of her fiction-focused reading for non-fiction reading. Maybe she suffers from what many Language Arts teachers suffer from: the affliction of believing that all reading and writing, whether fiction or non-fiction, falls to an English teacher to develop with students, that no teacher of science could teach writing. As written already, that isn’t to be the case. Maybe she feels it won’t be addressed by the other subject-specific departments in her school? It’s a fair concern, but good leadership within her district will ensure that this charge is shared.

  

I happen to know one of West Hartford’s two Language Arts directors quite well, a former director of mine, Mrs. Catherine Buchholz, and have great trust in her ability to help Ms. Natale and similarly worried educators in West Hartford understand that all is not lost because education is taking a different tact. I’m confident that she understands that every department has a hand in meeting the CCSS goals. And, in reading another Courant article, “Learning Curve in the Schools”, (regarding how teachers, parents, and administrators are all working to understand what moving to the CCSS entails) I see that West Hartford’s other Language Arts Director, Mr. Tom Paleologopoulos, understands that the shift to the CCSS doesn’t mean fiction is dead. "We will still be reading Hamlet. We're not going to stop reading The Great Gatsby in 11th grade or To Kill a Mockingbird," said Tom Paleologopoulos, English department supervisor at Conard High School….” 

The CCSS is only asking that a little more focus be directed to developing non-fiction reading and writing than fiction. Is that worth walking away from a profession you love, and, from what I’ve read, seem to be quite dedicated to?

I suspect that Ms. Natale is dealing with a situation many of her students find themselves in when confronted with something new and daunting, the stress and fear of trying to absorb something quite foreign and novel. Teachers call that scary moment, when trying to get a handle on new instruction feels like trying to speak a language you’ve never heard before, cognitive dissonance, really just a fancy phrase for being unsettled by what isn’t immediately understood. 

Again, she is nowhere near being alone on this front. I work for the Glastonbury School system and have heard similar notes of concern and frustration from colleagues. Within our Language Arts department, which I am privileged to be a part of, many of us on the other side of the river have wondered a great deal too about how our students will perform on the CCSS assessment known as Smarter Balanced, SBAC for short. We’ve taken the practice assessments and laughed and gnashed teeth over the unfamiliar vocabulary and complex steps our students will need to work through just to complete various parts of the assessment. We’ve raised eyebrows of doubt that the results will be valid, empathized with the challenges students will face as they attempt to negotiate the test online with its small writing windows and need to move this way and that to locate questions, and we’ve even wondered a whole lot about how we’re expected to help prepare our students for an assessment that is literally being built and refined as we head into taking it this year, our pilot year. 

So, while we are as frustrated as the next Language Arts educator out there, we are also learning to step back and understand that this is new for us too. That part of our angst comes from its newness. Glastonbury teachers and administrators are also working to keep a perspective by realizing that as the next few years come to pass and all the different grades levels before and after us make changes toward implementing approaches that help our students to meet the CCSS standards, we’ll wonder how we ever taught another way. Nothing is second nature at this point, eventually it will be and the stress will lessen. (Stress never really disappears in education.)

I know that I try to maintain my focus on this change by remembering that the Connecticut Mastery Test went through four generations of changes over a period of twenty years before settling on a final assessment method that it deemed valid and reliable. SBAC will be no different. 

Ms. Natale, as a colleague across the river, know that you’re not alone in your frustrations; and, as a resident of West Hartford, please consider re-evaluating your stance regarding your professional career in light of these clarifications.

Ralph Lagana is a reading specialist for the Glastonbury School system. He works at Gideon Welles School and sometimes writes for his “semi-professional” blog Reading Teacher (CT). You can contact him at laganar@glastonburyus.org.