As I said to Dan earlier, things went okay for Macmillan over the weekend because of the support of the author community, and I agree that Sargent’s letter was a good one. However, as a model for conveying information, this can be a dicey game. You’re relying on others to be your champions. As an example, check out these recent comments from Macmillan authors:

http://twitter.com/JoeFinder/status/8526442879

http://twitter.com/jchutchins/status/8527698134

http://twitter.com/doctorow/status/8534021171

http://twitter.com/GrammarGirl/status/8509385233

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2010/02/01/seriously-now-theyre-just-being-dicks/

Sounds like people are starting to get a little frustrated, right? Maybe wanting a little information about what’s going on up top? Unfortunately, in the system Macmillan has set up, communications with their authors aren’t quick and easy. There isn’t a system in place for the CEO or a company representative to quickly pop in and say, ‘I know it’s hard. I assure you we’re working on it. When something is decided, you’ll be the first to know.’

Taking out a full-page ad in Publishers Lunch works when you want to make a splash. Day-to-day communications with authors and, hell, even with employees, is a different animal.

Macmillan’s statement got out quickly because it was persuasive and they made it available fast and people who were interested (authors, editors, journalists) tweeted and posted about it. Authors, editors and journalists are in fact ALL OVER social networks like Twitter, and a referral from any of them is far more persuasive and effective than Macmillan themselves tweeting and FBing about the mess. Who would follow a publisher’s twitter feed, honestly? I don’t even follow my own publisher’s twitter feed or any other company’s feed because I prefer to hear from people.

The real reason this round went to Macmillan is because Amazon very, very stupidly stopped carrying the company’s *print* books, which was so screamingly retaliatory and unfair to writers and readers who have no role in the dispute that they could not thereafter cast themselves as the victim. Their mistake was 1) doing this in the first place and 2) thinking, apparently, that it wouldn’t get out or be noticed when they already knew from last year’s GLBT books scandal that authors would raise the alarm when their book sales are impacted.

Guy: I think Amazon did what it needed to do. It was effective — especially in the way it turned the tables on Macmillan (e.g. calling THEM a monopoly) and they preached to choir — but it was not, in my opinion, as classy a Sargent’s letter and I do not think that publishers could imitate their strategy (can you imagine if that had been a post by Macmillan?).

“Kindle is a business for Amazon, and it is also a mission. We never expected it to be easy!”

Macmillan won this battle, but Amazon is still fighting the war.

My concern is that while *this* time Macmillan came off at little bit better that their competitor in the public sentiment, this is in no way a guarantee for any future dust ups the company gets into. Even in the posts of supportive authors, there was some concern over whether this pricing model would be the right one, or over the handling of ebooks in general. The next move the company makes might result in a flood of negative coverage from the same pundits they relied upon on for support over the weekend, and what communication options would they have then?

I also think that publishing houses would do well to begin to throw some light on their insular decision-making process. I’m not saying completely opening the doors of their negotiations, but engaging with bloggers who are misinformed or who lack understanding of a basic part of the publishing industry could go a long way towards keeping public sentiment on the side of the publisher. As @Victoria said below, social media is a way to humanize a company, one that currently appears very distant from its customers.

It seems like the move into selling ebooks is going to be a siege rather than a skirmish, and one of the weapons publishers will need to wield is public sentiment. With no social media presence, they’re allowing others to make decisions about how the company is seen online–a dicey game.

I totally hear you about Amazon’s response, though. Sargent’s letter struck a much better tone.