Slashdot Mirror


Swiss Voters Reject Book Price Controls

New submitter hinterwaeldler writes "In 2007 Switzerland abandoned book price control (which requires publishers to fix prices for their books and forbids any dealer to sell at another price), reducing prices by 30% to 50% for online buyers. The brick & mortar book stores lobbied the parliament into creating a bill to reinstate the price fixing, against which a referendum was taken by liberals and the Pirate Party, forcing a popular vote. On March 11, after an intense debate, Swiss voters decided against book price control (German-language original) with a majority of 56%."

12 of 129 comments (clear)

  1. Protectionism by any other name... by ControlFreal · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... because that is exactly what this initiative ("Buchpreisbindung") was aiming for. Protectionism is wrong, no matter what you name it.

    --
    Support a Europe-related section on Slashdot!
    1. Re:Protectionism by any other name... by willpb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It would be nice to have a functioning democracy. I just wish we could have a referendum on protectionism here in the U.S.

    2. Re:Protectionism by any other name... by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To be fair, there can be things that a society feels are more important than low prices. For instance, perhaps a subsidy is needed to provide incentive for the small Swiss market, which doesn't even have a common language. If the Swiss people thought that they needed more literature than the free market could support, then it is reasonable to subsidize it. As another example, I happen to support some kind of incentive for over-production of food, because I'd much rather over-pay than run out.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:Protectionism by any other name... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It would be nice to have a functioning democracy. I just wish we could have a referendum on protectionism here in the U.S.

      What makes you think it would help? The US would vote overwhelmingly in favor of protectionism -- it's a hugely protectionist country despite claiming to want free trade.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Protectionism by any other name... by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US would vote overwhelmingly in favor of protectionism -- it's a hugely protectionist country despite claiming to want free trade.

      The US does want free trade though. It wants free trade that benefits itself exclusively. The whole goal is to be as protectionist as possible, but allow token free trade that benefits it. For example, by allowing US companies to sell to other countries freely, but putting up roadblocks when other countries try to sell their goods in the US. The US benefits because its companies are selling more, while being protected from being undercut in other markets by what that country tries to sell the US.

    5. Re:Protectionism by any other name... by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What makes you think it would help? The US would vote overwhelmingly in favor of protectionism -- it's a hugely protectionist country despite claiming to want free trade.

      Well, to some extent, yes.

      However, I'd argue that we in the US would be a little happier if we could at least compete on a more equal basis against the countries that don't worry about pollution and don't have to mess with the added cost of environmental issues.....those countries that pay $1/hour....and those that manipulate their currency unfairly.

      I wouldn't mind a tax/tarrif on imported goods, that only brought the cost of the final product closer to what it costs to manufacture in the US based on those type of metrics. That way, all things being even for cost, quality would prevail in the US consumer's decision making.

      No, this couldn't be absolute...but as long as it made it reasonably close to equal.

      On the US side...I wish we'd get rid of a lot of the subsidies we have on food, like corn products.....so that natural sugar could compete more closely with HFCS....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:Protectionism by any other name... by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For example, by allowing US companies to sell to other countries freely, but putting up roadblocks when other countries try to sell their goods in the US. The US benefits because its companies are selling more, while being protected from being undercut in other markets by what that country tries to sell the US.

      How do you reconcile this opinion with the US trade deficit?

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  2. Majority? by DarthVain · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "...a majority of 56%"

    Still sounds pretty divided to me.

    Although I agree with the outcome. It is simply common sense. Prices at a brick and mortar store will be higher, you are paying for the convenience of buying something immediately. Online prices will of course be lower, they don't have the overhead, however you have to wait days, weeks for your order, as well as pay for shipping.

    So no I don't feel bad for the dinosaurs of industry that think they can legislate profits. @%$#^! you. If the market says we want more online stores than brick and mortar, then so be it. Quit saying the market is king on one hand and with the other lobbying government to legislate monopoly powers to manipulate the market!

    1. Re:Majority? by Another,+completely · · Score: 3, Funny

      I really wish more AC posters could speak proper English.

      and Romansch and German and Swiss German and French. We've come to expect a lot from the Swiss, and someone seems to be letting us down dammit! If you can't get an idiomatic expression in your fifth language clear enough that everyone can understand, the PISA reports must be right. Let me help: caning refers to a corporal punishment popular in the earlier part of the 20th century, and salami slicing refers to the tactic of introducing something undesirable a bit at a time, as referenced in popular culture in a "Yes Minister!" episode in the 70s. Good luck with English, whatever your first language is. You'll be able to read all of these posts one day.

  3. Freedom vs. localism by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is going to be one of those issues that ties many liberals in knots. On the one hand, they like the idea of fighting corporate greed and collusion price-fixing, on the other hand they're big on romanticizing local mom-and-pop stores (like many of the bookstores that will be hurt by online competition). But it seems to be the inevitable direction that things are going, not just for bookstores, but for a LOT of other types of retail store. If you're a retail bookstore these days and you can't answer the question "What do you offer that Amazon doesn't/can't?" then you're probably in trouble. And if price-fixing by government mandate is your only hope, you're in a LOT of trouble.

    I have to admit that I much prefer the online experience myself. But it's not just the price that attracts me, but the selection. I just bought a pair of great shoes in my weird size online that I could have never in a million years found locally. Similarly, I can find books through Amazon which would never be stocked in any of my local bookstores (which all seem to be 90% Harry-Potter-Twilight and 10% over-priced-coffee-shop these days). But your mileage may vary.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Freedom vs. localism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm Swiss, so I think I can give some insights in the vote.

      The law wasn't so much about online retailers, but more about big retail store (Walmart-like) that could sell bestseller at a much lower price than independent bookstore because of agreement they (apparently) have with importers.

      Now, in the French-speaking part of Switzerland, most books are imported from France. Basically, there is only one importer for each book and this situation allow the importers to fix outrageous prices (up to 80% more than the price in France for the same book). Now, an independent bookstore cannot put any pressure on the importer since the importer has the monopoly on a range of books. Big retail store can put more pressure on the importers because the importers somehow depend on them.

      So, this law was a way to protect the independent bookstores and allow a governement body to fix limit on the swiss price/french price ratio.

      The situation is kind of different in the German part of Switzerland, because they have some kind of regulation by the association of bookstore. Interestingly enough, all of the French-speaking county accepted the law, but all the German-speaking one refused it (so it got refused because we have more German-speaking).

      Now, there are some other way to fight against the book importers cartel and the "Swiss competition commision" said it will start an investigation about the prices and possibly illegal agreements between big retail store and monopolistic importers.

  4. More divided than that by DingerX · · Score: 4, Informative

    The German-speaking Cantons all had majorities against the ban. The French-speaking cantons all had majorities [i]in favor[/i] of the ban. Swiss-Germans outnumber everybody else by a wide margin, so they won.

    The argument for price-fixing is the same one behind the death of record stores. Remember record stores? Turns out there are a few hits out there that most people buy, and then those interested in music have wider interests, and therefore want a broader catalog to choose from. The record store business model is built on selling those hits and using some of that revenue to pay for the space to hold a broad selection and the expertise to guide customers. Even before the internet was making dents in music sales, the big labels were already running exclusive deals with Walmart and Target, sinking the record store business model. The same thing is going on with books: the competition to worry about isn't the internet; it's the big chains that can serve 80% of the market by distributing a handful of best-sellers, and screw the rest. And it's the publishers themselves, who cut deals with the big chains on their top sellers, and in so doing, contribute to killing off the market for their own books.

    And yes, it's protectionism in the same way mandating broadband to rural areas is protectionism.