Through the merger, it would have gained roughly another 50 imprints from Simon & Schuster. Penguin Random House has about 100 imprints that collectively publish more than 2,000 new titles a year. “Authors’ advances would fall - advances that they use to pay their bills and that reflect compensation for their work.” “One entity’s control of almost half of the nation’s anticipated top-selling books threatens competition in multiple ways,” the Justice Department wrote in a post-trial brief. In seeking to block the merger, the government argued that the deal would leave authors with fewer options for getting their work published, lead to lower advances for writers and even cause a reduction in the number and diversity of titles published. “Publishing should be more focused on cultural growth and literary achievement and less on corporate balance sheets.”Įxecutives from other major publishing houses, among them the heads of Hachette and HarperCollins, also testified against the deal. “Further consolidation would have caused slow but steady damage to writers, readers, independent booksellers, and small publishing companies,” he said. King said in an email interview that he was “delighted with the outcome.” ![]() The government had a high-profile witness on its side with the author Stephen King, who testified that the merger would be especially harmful to writers who are just starting out, and took a contrary position to his own publisher, Scribner, which is part of Simon & Schuster. Executives from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster spoke in support of the deal, arguing that the merger would benefit writers, because combining the publishing houses would lead to cost savings, allowing the company to spend more on books. Industry luminaries, among them powerful literary agents and best-selling authors, testified. It was closely watched by the literary world for what it revealed about the inner workings of the industry and about the effects of consolidation on publishing, which has already been significantly reshaped by mergers in recent years. District Court for the District of Columbia, was a test case for the government’s new, more aggressive approach to curbing consolidation. The trial, which unfolded over three weeks in August in the U.S. ![]() “The proposed merger would have reduced competition, decreased author compensation, diminished the breadth, depth, and diversity of our stories and ideas, and ultimately impoverished our democracy,” said Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter of the department’s antitrust division. In a statement on Monday, the Justice Department hailed the ruling as a win for authors and readers. Judges have ruled against several of its previous challenges to corporate deals, including UnitedHealth Group’s purchase of a technology company. The victory is a notable one for the Justice Department. In a statement, Penguin Random House called the decision “an unfortunate setback for readers and authors” and argued that “the Department of Justice’s focus on advances to the world’s best-paid authors instead of consumers or the intense competitiveness in the publishing sector runs contrary to its mission to ensure fair competition.”
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |