[Publib] Amazon fail

[Jane Jorgenson]

I do think Amazon made a decision to de-list 
these items but didn't realize the full 
ramifications.  I'm not talking about the social 
or ethical results - which bother me mightily - 
but the business ones.  It just doesn't make any 
business sense that not only will the targeted 
items not appear in best-selling lists but don't 
come up at all when searched by title or author 
(or if they come up you have to do a lot of 
scrolling and changing of pages to find 
them).  What kind of business model calls for 
having items no one can ever know you have?

So purely on a business front it's a bad 
decision.  Nevermind the fact that it doesn't 
even take into account the bad press they are now 
getting.  And yes, that the whole thing is fairly 
repugnant.  It does worry me because I do use 
Amazon as an informal Books in Print and for RA 
purposes.  It's not that I think they're going to 
be as well-organized or methodical as the print 
BiP, but I've pretty much counted on the fact 
that as a business it would be in their best 
interest to list anything and everything 
possible.  How strange that that is not the case.

Jane Jorgenson
MPL
Madison, WI



>Policy, glitch, or troll attack, the issue is 
>troubling and worthy of being addressed by 
>librarians because (and I know that I am 
>repeating myself) the way that so many of us 
>(and I include myself in this number) rely on 
>Amazon.com *as a reference source*  -- for 
>release dates, in print status, series, and impromptu readers advisory.
>
>The vulnerabilities revealed by this – whether 
>it was deliberate, a stunt, or an accident – leave me very concerned indeed.
>
>It’s easy to dismiss this particular incident 
>because of the way it targeted  not particularly 
>popular minority interests – GLBTQ, the 
>disabled, and those who are interested in 
>non-normative sexuality.  A lot of the 
>discussion I heard yesterday spoke scornfully of 
>JUST “porn”, “crips” , and other derogatory 
>terms that would probably keep this message out 
>of most of your inboxes.  But at least one 
>hacker who has claimed credit for the “glitch” 
>(not very convincingly, it must be added) 
>attracted admiring comments that the attack 
>should have targeted conservative and religious-themed titles instead.