Aug 30, 2009

The 'Cheaper Books' Debate

Cheaper books as a result of removing import restrictions could result in local industry weakening

This debate has been going on for a couple of months now. It first popped on to my radar while working on 9AM with David and Kim (shudder). Seminal children's author Morris Gleitzman came on in opposition of the proposed changes to Australian federal law. A commission has recommended the following:

In its final report on the parallel importation of books, it recommended the lifting of all restrictions after a three-year adjustment period; the rejigging of financial assistance to the book industry; a new survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics; and a review of the brave new world after five years.

It said the current legislation, under which Australian publishers have 30 days to publish editions of books published overseas or face competing editions, stopped booksellers from importing "cheaper or better-value-for-money editions". - http://www.theage.com.au/national/publishers-fight-cheap-books-20090714-dk61.html

They're called the The Productivity Commission, and right there I point out the first problem. This recommendation comes from a group whose sole purpose is to explore how books can be made cheaper, how the industry can be more efficient, how price tags can be more satisfying for consumers. It's a commission whose inherent purpose is always going to completely ignore the content and industry of books, because it is launched from the side of the consumer.

Sometimes, if you want to maintain good quality local industry - hell, if you want 'good things' to exist at all, you need to avoid the path to cheap. Cheap doesn't mean good. It doesn't mean better quality. It doesn't mean safety or security. It just means that in the long run, some company is making more money off its consumer. If you buy something cheaper, it usually means somewhere, some corner was cut. At the end of the day, the marketplace is looking for a higher profit margin. Are TVs cheaper now? Yes. Are the more expensive ones better than a TV off Safeway's shelf? Certainly.

And just because rules are installed that allow for cheaper books to be imported doesn't equate to a consumer getting cheaper books. There is a chain of supply between the overseas publisher and you at the checkout. Let's look at an example:

Dymocks currently sells Ivory, by Australian author Tony Park for $32.99. Let's say Dymocks buys the book from its Australian supplier for $25. It's making a $7.99 profit. Now let's imagine that the parallel import law is changed, and Dymocks can buy the book from international publishers for $19. Let's also say it's been three years since the law changed, and Dymocks had been selling select books at low prices during special sales to commemorate the law change, but that slowly faded as people forgot the ruckus. They now have the opportunity to make a $13.99 profit by selling the book at the regular price of $32.99, a price we are all used to paying. Do you really think Dymocks, a large corporation who have always said they're about the price of books, a company whose directors, by law, need to do what's best for the company, are NOT going to increase their profit margin? What does history tell us? Does it tell us that large company directors do what's good for the little people? NO.

An example brought up in the debate is a very similar situation that occurred about 10 years ago with the music industry. CDs used to be protected by local copyright laws, meaning locally published versions had to be sold first. The same argument - that we can get cheaper CDs! - was put forward and ultimately won out. In the above Lateline link, a pro-change supporter said this:

PROFESSOR ALLAN FELS: I think the record industry story is very clear. We removed the restrictions a number of years ago. Prices did come down, and the local music industry is flourishing. It's flourishing like never before
Um... really? Because the way I see it, we had a massive collapse in independent music retailers (who sold far more local bands than the majors do now), our own Mushroom Records disappeared and every band who wants to make it has fled to the States or Europe while our local industry is flooded by half baked talent rejected from Australian Idol. Meanwhile, CDs are still around the $30 to $40 mark.

As an entrepreneur, I like to hope I have a bit of an understanding about industry and business. If I was running a local publishing house instead of a video production company, I'd be horrified by this turn of events. If they suddenly told me that Australian TV no longer must have x amount of hours of local content, but can freely import cheaper TV 24-7, we'd be decimated because the big companies that own and buy do not care about local content, they care about the bottom line. There's a responsibility of members of an industry, from the producer through to the seller, to actually support the local industry it's a part of. If its own members start rabidly undercutting or going overseas, the local part of the industry shrivels. It's good to have cheaper elements to keep companies going, but the sacrifice is quality and local support.

The biggest argument among all this is that books are not a bland, heartless commodity. A book isn't a TV. It isn't rice. It's a work of art that one person dedicated his or her entire soul to producing. The end result isn't a buyer or consumer, it's a reader. An audience member. This isn't a product they're buying, it's a holy tome, something that has the potential to touch them deeply, stay with them for the rest of their lives. It's also something written by an Australian, for an Australian. Gleitzman, back on 9AM, told us how overseas, they print versions of his and other Australian authors' books that change phrases, sentences, paragraphs, entire locations and settings to remove the Australianisms and replace them with more familiar American alternatives. When a foreign publisher publishes our books, they change them, then sell them back to us at a cheaper price.

So the real question you have to ask is do you want Possum Magic to be about a squirrel eating twinkies?

Aug 25, 2009

Unhappy Hiatus


I'm editing! Been thrown in a dark room for a month, got another month to go and as such, I am not able to update and add to this blog as much as possible. For the three of you who visit, forgive my tiny amount of literary jism over the coming weeks and I'll make it up with a fresh spurt later.

In the mean time: http://www.superherohype.com/
http://www.joblo.com

Aug 21, 2009

I Don't Like Mad Men

I don't like the AMC series Mad Men and I have no idea why so many people do. I sat through it and itched, scratched, waited for something to happen. I'm fine with slow. Loved 2001. But all Mad Men seems to be is a constant slow burn of men being chauvinistic and smoking a lot and women being catty back stabbers who do what they need to do by their men. The shadowy background of our main man Don Draper is tantalising at first. I remember leaning forward in my seat and exclaiming, "finally, something to latch on to," but the unfolding results are fairly mediocre, predictable plot turns. And I don't really care about him. He cheats, is harsh to his wife, they all have tenuous grips on morality, and in a world where everyone's nasty, no-one is.
Baffled, I turned to the plethora of positive reviews. The consistent point of similarity between all of them is an abundance of exhalation over the faithful and painstaking recreation of the 1960s. They all say it's the shows strongest point...not its story, not its character arcs (which don't really arc so much as say a constant plateau of rather soulless), none of the things that keep me interested. They all jism over the art direction. Big bloody whoop. Art direction's important, but in a TV series, I forget about it after the first two episodes. The world is established, I'm appropriately immersed and now I want to get down to the business of story. Great art direction doesn't make a good show. And, umm, since when was it difficult or groundbreaking to reproduce the 1960s? They've been doing it for decades, and it wasn't even that long ago to begin with.

My other, more subjective irk, is that going in to the show, I thought I'd be seeing a more thorough look into the actual mentality, process and science behind advertising. Instead, it's more a pop-psych, anecdotal handling of the business. I can't blame them for that though. That's just my own uninformed expectations.

It's just not a very strong show. Maybe it gets better in season 2. I've heard as much, but I was so underwhelmed by season 1, I just feel like I have better things to do with my time.

Aug 16, 2009

Long Live the Republic of Australia!

Simon J. Green All of my Facebook friends: how many of you want to see a Republic installed in our country? That is, to elect the President of Australia, from nominees elected by the people, not a party?

August 12 at 2:59pm · ·
Bill Irving
Bill Irving
I would. Though I wouldn't especially care if the president was installed by the party in power like the GG. Who gives a crap? A republic is a republic is a republic.
August 12 at 3:02pm · Delete
Jay Ray
Jay Ray
A constitutional republic would be ideal.
August 12 at 3:05pm · Delete
Simon J. Green
Simon J. Green
Bill: I'd say the problem with the party deciding the nominee for President is that that's what we do right now with the PM. I think one of the greatest possibilities in an Australian republic is that we can elect presidents who aim to exceed the mediocre, who seek to reach truly stupendous, world-worthy feats and push this country to greater heights. Allowing the party to choose their leader means they choose who's best for their party first, the country second. Allowing the people to choose means that nominees really need to prove who they are, what they intend to do and what they think and feel about the nation.
August 12 at 3:13pm · Delete
Jay Ray
Jay Ray
Democracy in the form of Canada and Australia is a sort of "Tyranny by Majority".
August 12 at 3:14pm · Delete
Simon J. Green
Simon J. Green
Canada: how do you mean?
August 12 at 3:23pm · Delete
Bill Irving
Bill Irving
I guess cos it's a mostly ceremonial position anyway you're probably right. It'd be fun to have someone rad being our public figurehed. But then people's definitions of rad would differ: Steve Waugh Vs Eddie Maguire Vs Julie from Masterchef.
August 12 at 3:25pm · Delete
Jay Ray
Jay Ray
Canada and Australia have similar political system. In theory the USA has certain rights that cannot be denied, no matter what. But in Australia and Canada those rights can be denied of it's voted on, in theory
August 12 at 3:25pm · Delete
Jay Ray
Jay Ray
A republics power is derived from it's charter and a democracy's is derived from the majority
August 12 at 3:30pm · Delete
Simon J. Green
Simon J. Green
Hence advocating a Constitutional Republic, rather than our current representative democracy, wherein "There is no necessity that individual liberties are respected in a representative democracy." Our current Australian constitution curtails abuse of power by our politicians, but doesn't allow for them to have to meet individual, even majority wishes.
Bill: That's the groovy thing about us getting a proper, Constitutional Republic - the true leader of our country,t he head of state, would no loner be just a figurehead. They would actually be running the country and have the final say on all matters, tempered by the rest of the government. So someone like Steve Waugh wouldn't even bother running for election, because the responsibility is too great. And even if he did, and the public voted him in, we'd learn from our mistakes and grow. He'd be the shitty President that lead us to elect the great one after him.
The other cool thing about such a republic would be the sheer amount of time and rigour nominees would have to endure. Look how long the presidential trail is in the states. All that time means those who aren't worthy are quickly weeded out and cut from the process. It also means more of us people get interested in the actual practice of politics, because we need to know more and are shown more about the people who might be our Prez.
August 12 at 3:44pm · Delete
Sean Fabri
Sean Fabri
Of course I would.
August 12 at 6:01pm · Delete
Cheryl Turner
Cheryl Turner
Do you know the cost to the tax payer it would be to change everything (money, stationery, emblems etc.) Is it worth the cost?????? What's more they would want to change our flag and I will never agree to that.
August 12 at 6:04pm · Delete
Marion Vx
Marion Vx
"All that time means those who aren't worthy are quickly weeded out and cut from the process." Pity you have to be ultra-rich and born into privilege to get that far. Ooooh well.
August 12 at 6:39pm · Delete
Kris Wilson
Kris Wilson
What do I care? I don't vote as it is! I love being an immigrant....
August 12 at 7:11pm · Delete
Lisa Purnell
Lisa Purnell
It's not necessarily true that you have to be born privileged to be a successful politician. Look at the US: Reagan, Obama and Nixon were all raised by middle-classed families; Bill Clinton's mother was a nurse and his grandparents owned a grocery store. Our own K. Rudd was raised on a dairy farm. By and large - and certainly compared to many nations - we live in a meritocracy. Hard work, education, determination and, yes, knowing the right people, all have a role in political success. Wealth is a by-product of the work necessary to become a viable and legitimate candidate (i.e. being a Congressman or MP) - and that's a whole other issue - but privilege isn't always a factor. And even when it is, the privileged often (not in the case of George W. Bush, obviously) have other stuff going for them.

That said, the long Presidential races in the U.S cost truckloads of money and waste a lot of time with empty rhetoric and propaganda, so I'm not really on board with that system, Simo.
August 12 at 7:29pm · Delete
Marion Vx
Marion Vx
'Middle class families' = case in point? They all come from bourgeois and petty bourgeois families. Rudd is one of the richest people in parliament (but I'll concede that here you don't need as much money and influence as in the US); I believe a sizable portion of this wealth is thanks to his wife. The latter goes for Obama too.

I don't think ... Read Morewealth is a by-product of the path to becoming a politician so much as being born into some amount of wealth is to start you off. Being a woman certainly doesn't help you rise within either of our two main parties (this deserves a whole new textbox, really.. but if you want a source, check out something by Marian Sawer).

Sure the privileged may have other stuff for them, but basically that opportunity is not there for many people.

Hehe, sorry for spamming your status with a fragmented rant. xD
August 12 at 7:37pm · Delete
Lisa Purnell
Lisa Purnell
Poor Simon. Spammed.



I don't agree that being born into a middle-class family automatically equates with being born into privilege. Maybe we have different definitions of privilege.



Sure, being wealthy is an inherent advantage in our society - I just didn't want to disregard that notion that an exceptional, intelligent and tenacious person can ... Read Moremake their way to political success from a lower-to-middle class background without privilege or pre-existing wealth. That's all! Many have done it before, and many will do it again. :)
August 12 at 8:18pm · Delete
Jay Ray
Jay Ray
You wouldn't be willing to change the flag? Why?
August 12 at 10:29pm · Delete
Robert Wiggett
Robert Wiggett
a long long time ago we had a republic, then some dude totally went dark side and started trying to destroy the republic with some robots and then samuel jackson tried to ruin his shit but some snot nosed douchebag screwed that up then the republic gave rise to an empire and then there was a rebellion, seems to have settled down now.
August 12 at 11:11pm · Delete
Cheryl Turner
Cheryl Turner
Being an "Old Fart" there are things I think could change with becoming a republic such as accountability of the pollies but to me there are some things that I question, as I said earlier do we need the cost of changing everything and will it change things that much? As to the flag, you cannot change our heritage and part of our history is the fact... Read More that we come from the "poms" thereby we have the union jack, we live under the southern cross and that is displayed but most of all as a very very strong patriot I think of all the people that have died fighting for the Australian flag (those people that have died over in Papua New Guinea in the plane crash had gone there to walk the Trak that so many of our people died in such horrible conditions died fighting under our flag and did so proudly.) What would you change it too?
Thu at 5:50am · Delete
Simon J. Green
Simon J. Green
This is an awesome discussion.

I understand your point on the flag my dear Aunt, and the best thing that comes from that is your passion and patriotism (I wish more Aussies gave a crap like you do). I have an Australian flag hanging up in my office at home. But, and I might be wrong, the passion you have isn't actually for a flag made of cloth and stitch, but for what the flag represents, the symbol of our nation. Same with the great men and women who fought wars so that I'm not talking Japanese right now: they weren't fighting for a flag, they were fighting for their nation, and perhaps for their Queen, which the flag represents - and THERE'S the rub. There are two distinct elements of the Australian character: our heritage and our modern way, both intertwined. They always will be. But what I think our country is ready for is to remember where we come from fondly and to move on to our next step. How long do we hold onto the Monarchy and the Queen when they actually play such a tiny role in the Australia of today? It's kind of harsh, but put it this way: if you fought for your country, you're awesome. If you fought for the Queen, then live in England. Now, I don't actually MEAN that, but do you see my point? The Queen is no longer the embodiment of Australia - she plays no active role in our Governing and when she does, it'... Read Mores at the behest of a Governor General. Why can't we transplant our love of country to a new flag, to represent the Australia we've become, rather than the Australia we once were? The new flag would be a symbol of a country that has grown admirably, without massive turmoil and who became an independent nation not through bloodshed, but through peaceful, democratic vote. Sure, the transition would be painful, but large transition always is. I'll let someone else discuss the cost.
Thu at 11:58am · Delete


Aug 8, 2009

Oldskool.TV - I got a new writing gig

I got a new gig writing for Oldskool.TV, a group of peeps who put on parties for uni students. They have a bunch of comedy blogs that I am now a contributing writer to. Check out my first two below, you sexy beasts. Beware, though, it's a little on the crude side!

Indian Witchdoctor

Michael Cera and Charlyne Yi

REVIEW: Romulus, My Father

Romulus and Raimond are father and son in the harsh, remote farmland of Rural Victoria. As immigrants, life is hard, but with the inclusion of a hectic and troubled wife and mother, Christina, the paternal bond is pushed.

A lovely Australian film by first time film director Richard Roxburgh. Some good features too.

Can the nastiest bastard cop from Blue Murder treat such a tender film like Romulus, My Father, gently? Ch-ch-check it out here.

http://www.dvdbits.com/reviews.asp?id=3538