WebMink
Simon Phipps's personal commentary

Are cartels always wrong? [SocioPolitico]

Visiting the ancient city of Winchester yesterday, I visited a favourite book shop - P & G Wells. Once frequented by the likes of Jane Austen, and still offer book binding as a service, this store is located near the rear entrance to Winchester Cathedral and next to Winchester College. Inside is a splendid selection of childrens' books, an eclectic mix of fiction and many one-off selections to catch the eye and inspire reading.

It is a rarity in Britain these days - a local bookstore. They used to be everywhere - there was a fine book shop called Wiseman's nearby in Portswood once - but the end of the book publishers' cartel (the Net Book Agreement) meant that book discounters could move in and, as forecast, the degree of choice in Britain has dipped to near zero. Southampton has two branches of Waterstones, which is not a bad bookseller, but the selection they carry is impersonal and uniform with best marketing practice and the closure of Gilbert's Books means they are the only choice left. By contrast, Wells' has an invigorating selection of books I would not otherwise have encountered (I checked - Waterstone's doesn't carry them, even Amazon says 'yet to be published' on one!) as well as good, solid mainstream stuff. I'm guessing their location and history have preserved them from the same fate as Wiseman's. But Southampton is an impoverished place for the lack of choice.

Which leads me to ask: was the cartel that protected them really wrong? It wasn't like the RIAA - it was more a league of decency that allowed local booksellers to make enough profit from their business, and without it we have the joint power of Amazon and Waterstone's dominating the market. I like Amazon but I like spontaneous book-buying too. I was always sceptical of my father's defence of the net book agreement, but more and more I see its demise as damaging to society rather than as a victory for capitalism.

posted at 8:32 PM (UK) | |