# A silly rumor or another Amazon upset?



## Maggie Dana (Oct 26, 2011)

I just saw this post on another writer's forum. If it's already been debunked, I'll take this post down or ask the mods to.

*"The end of Perma-Free on Amazon?*

I just heard from an author friend of mine that Amazon is talking about ending the perma-free option.

He is trying to get something in writing from them as he has several books that are perma-free now.

The gist of the this was that Amazon will start removing books that have been free for more than 5 days in any 90 day period rather than price match free books listed on other sites indefinitely.

Anyone else hear anything about this?

This would make "Free on Amazon" match their KDP Select program I suppose."


----------



## D-C (Jan 13, 2014)

I don't know if it's true, but considering how Amazon want everyone to use KU (which essentially tricks readers into thinking the books they borrow are free) this wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## sarahdalton (Mar 15, 2011)

Thanks for the heads up. If it's a silly rumour - yay - but if not, it's good to have a little warning to prepare. My entire marketing plan rests on one permafree book and if that is going to change, I need to start thinking up a back-up plan now.


----------



## Donna White Glaser (Jan 12, 2011)

My backup plan would be to simply make it 99c. If everyone's permafrees disappear, then 99c will be the new permafree. 
But as far as that goes, I don't see how AMZ could do that given their price-matching policy. Either way, it's important to not become dependent on one tactic.


----------



## 69959 (May 14, 2013)

It wouldn't surprise me. But if they do, I hope they remove the exclusivity from KU. I'm not going to hold my breath, though. What would suck would be if they didn't let us have perma-frees elsewhere. With Kobo and now Apple having the First Free in Series features, we'd have to leave Amazon to take part.

I'm sure that just like every other wrench thrown at indies, we'll find new ways to market and make it all work.


----------



## Molly Tomorrow (Jul 22, 2014)

Maggie Dana said:


> I just heard from an author friend of mine that Amazon is talking about ending the perma-free option.


I'm extremely skepitcal about this based on the fact that Amazon never talks about this kind of stuff. They just do it.


----------



## 69959 (May 14, 2013)

Molly Tomorrow said:


> I'm extremely skepitcal about this based on the fact that Amazon never talks about this kind of stuff. They just do it.


That's true, but this wouldn't be the first time I've heard of rumors before Amazon did make a change. On the other hand, this definitely wouldn't be the first false "the sky is falling" Amazon rumor I've heard either.


----------



## Adrian Howell (Feb 24, 2013)

Donna White Glaser said:


> My backup plan would be to simply make it 99c. If everyone's permafrees disappear, then 99c will be the new permafree.
> But as far as that goes, I don't see how AMZ could do that given their price-matching policy. Either way, it's important to not become dependent on one tactic.


This.

We're indies. It's in our nature to adapt and survive.


----------



## Bob Stewart (Mar 19, 2014)

Molly Tomorrow said:


> I'm extremely skepitcal about this based on the fact that Amazon never talks about this kind of stuff. They just do it.


Yes. If it is true, someone must have something in writing from Amazon. Have they posted it? Or is the origin some circular, "I saw in another forum..."


----------



## Lady Vine (Nov 11, 2012)

Seeing as the sell-through on my permafrees has dropped dramatically over the past couple of months, this doesn't affect me in the least. But I don't think they'd do it like this. I think they'll do a Google and reduce the visibility of freebies, make it a real chore to locate them, remove permafrees from the Top 100 Free lists, that sort of thing. There are more effective ways of killing freebies than actually _killing_ them.


----------



## NoahPorter (Sep 15, 2013)

Rumor. Nothing more. Besides, they already killed permafrees with the KU algo change.


----------



## John Donlan (Sep 20, 2014)

I don't have any permafree at all at the moment, since both my books are in select. If it's true though, it could be interesting, in that it might make the select free days more worthwhile if they go down that route.

On the other hand, it would seem to be rather silly of Amazon to do this because they are already upsetting a lot of people with the KU payouts, exclusivity and so on, and this would likely just exacerbate the situation further. Until there is confirmation, I would suggest taking it with a grain of salt.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

DaCosta said:


> I don't know if it's true, but considering how Amazon want everyone to use KU (which essentially tricks readers into thinking the books they borrow are free) this wouldn't surprise me.


You're not giving much credit to 'readers'. I know there are a number of high volume readers here who pay $9.99 a month for membership in Kindle Unlimited. Some also have memberships with Oyster or Scribd. They are Well AWARE that they are paying nearly $120 a year and budget accordingly. They also BUY books that interest them but are not in the program.

As to the rumor: It's always, frankly, surprised me that Amazon has been willing to match prices on ebooks that people set to free on other outlets. They do price match, to some extent, on physical items, but the 'free' price point has always felt weird to me. After an initial blitz of downloading everything free I could find -- it was such a _new_ concept to me when I first got a kindle -- it was soon confirmed to me that 'free' absolutely didn't mean I could count on the same quality as when I bought a book. It meant taking a _real risk_ that the book would be not something I'd enjoy, and, in some cases, not even well produced. My time is worth something, so it's been a long time since I downloaded something free _only because it was free_. If I couldn't find something to recommend it to where I'd be willing to spend money on it -- even a nominal buck or two -- I don't download it.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

DaCosta said:


> I don't know if it's true, but considering how Amazon want everyone to use KU (which essentially tricks readers into thinking the books they borrow are free) this wouldn't surprise me.


Not sure how I'm being tricked? I pay to be part of a membership program and can read all I want within that program for no additional charge. Free books. In many cases, free audiobooks. Just like, with Amazon Prime I get free shipping, free Prime Music, free Instant Video and a free book each month for being part of that program.

I looked at what I was paying to buy books each month that were Kindle Daily Deals, most of which are in KU, and decided that KU was a better deal, and that yes, I would end up reading books for free vs what I was spending on KDD books.

And, as Ann said, I also buy non KDD books within my budget.

Betsy


----------



## Mystery Maven (Sep 17, 2014)

Stacy Claflin said:


> It wouldn't surprise me. But if they do, I hope they remove the exclusivity from KU. I'm not going to hold my breath, though. What would suck would be if they didn't let us have perma-frees elsewhere. *With Kobo and now Apple having the First Free in Series features, we'd have to leave Amazon to take part.*
> 
> I'm sure that just like every other wrench thrown at indies, we'll find new ways to market and make it all work.


How do you take part in these features? Aside from having a free first in series there, of course?


----------



## 69959 (May 14, 2013)

Mystery Maven said:


> How do you take part in these features? Aside from having a free first in series there, of course?


Post on this thread for the Kobo one: http://www.kboards.com/index.php?topic=185364.0

Apple, I believe is invite-only at this point.


----------



## Mystery Maven (Sep 17, 2014)

Stacy Claflin said:


> Post on this thread for the Kobo one: http://www.kboards.com/index.php?topic=185364.0
> 
> Apple, I believe is invite-only at this point.


Thanks, Stacy!


----------



## RubyMadden (Jun 11, 2014)

I have heard this and will be surprised if it happens and here's why...

The reason Amazon price-matches to begin with, is when customers notify them that they've discovered the title for free at a competitor. Currently, PLAY, iBooks, Kobo, & B&N (via 3rd party) will allow authors to post titles for FREE. So, AMZN has a price-match guarantee. For the customer. Which leads to more sales (typically), keeps the customer at the Amazon website instead of going to a competitors' website, and promotes customer loyalty.

Since we know Amazon is all about the customer, does this make sense for them to stop price-matching? Nope. It doesn't.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

Donna White Glaser said:


> My backup plan would be to simply make it 99c. If everyone's permafrees disappear, then 99c will be the new permafree.
> But as far as that goes, I don't see how AMZ could do that given their price-matching policy. Either way, it's important to not become dependent on one tactic.


Exactly. The industry is constantly changing, and we must be prepared to change with it.


----------



## D. Zollicoffer (May 14, 2014)

RubyMadden said:


> I have heard this and will be surprised if it happens and here's why...
> 
> The reason Amazon price-matches to begin with, is when customers notify them that they've discovered the title for free at a competitor. Currently, PLAY, iBooks, Kobo, & B&N (via 3rd party) will allow authors to post titles for FREE. So, AMZN has a price-match guarantee. For the customer. Which leads to more sales (typically), keeps the customer at the Amazon website instead of going to a competitors' website, and promotes customer loyalty.
> 
> Since we know Amazon is all about the customer, does this make sense for them to stop price-matching? Nope. It doesn't.


I agree. Totally don't see this happening.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

RubyMadden said:


> I have heard this and will be surprised if it happens and here's why...
> 
> The reason Amazon price-matches to begin with, is when customers notify them that they've discovered the title for free at a competitor. Currently, PLAY, iBooks, Kobo, & B&N (via 3rd party) will allow authors to post titles for FREE. So, AMZN has a price-match guarantee. For the customer. Which leads to more sales (typically), keeps the customer at the Amazon website instead of going to a competitors' website, and promotes customer loyalty.
> 
> Since we know Amazon is all about the customer, does this make sense for them to stop price-matching? Nope. It doesn't.


Yup.



Maggie Dana said:


> I just heard from an author friend of mine that Amazon is talking about ending the perma-free option.


Where exactly is Amazon doing this talking? To him personally?


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

> The reason Amazon price-matches to begin with, is when customers notify them that they've discovered the title for free at a competitor. Currently, PLAY, iBooks, Kobo, & B&N (via 3rd party) will allow authors to post titles for FREE. So, AMZN has a price-match guarantee. For the customer. Which leads to more sales (typically), keeps the customer at the Amazon website instead of going to a competitors' website, and promotes customer loyalty.


I'll take the other side of the argument behind this point.
Price match wasn't put in place to augment free items. The only reason the permafree exists is because people are manipulating price match. Amazon bears the cost of delivery of permafrees ( bandwidth ) for the vendors and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they didn't want to bear that cost anymore. And before anyone says cost, scost, would indies be willing to pay the delivery cost of the permafree, ie 2 or so cents a book? I bet not. Personally I think it is a matter of time before Amazon closes this manipulation hole down. It costs them money and Amazon, as a whole, runs on a very low profit margin.


----------



## Avis Black (Jun 12, 2012)

I could see Amazon doing this since a bunch of KULL's best-selling authors are leaving the program due to dropping income.  Amazon would want to keep KULL viable, and they undoubtedly see KULL as a real boon to Kindle sales, which in turn is a way to establish massive market share.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

Stacy Claflin said:


> It wouldn't surprise me. But if they do, I hope they remove the exclusivity from KU.


They won't. They can't. If they give up the exclusivity so authors can sell those books on Scribd and Oyster, as well as others, what would be the purpose of subscribing to KU?

The purpose of exclusivity is to attract customers and keep them coming back to Amazon by offering titles readers can't get anywhere else. It's smart business. I hope they never get rid of the exclusivity requirement for Select/KU.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

Someone said:


> I'll take the other side of the argument behind this point.
> Price match wasn't put in place to augment free items. The only reason the permafree exists is because people are manipulating price match. Amazon bears the cost of delivery of permafrees ( bandwidth ) for the vendors and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they didn't want to bear that cost anymore. And before anyone says cost, scost, would indies be willing to pay the delivery cost of the permafree, ie 2 or so cents a book? I bet not. Personally I think it is a matter of time before Amazon closes this manipulation hole down. It costs them money and Amazon, as a whole, runs on a very low profit margin.


That is another excellent point!


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Someone said:


> I wouldn't be at all surprised if they didn't want to bear that cost anymore.


Why?


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

vlmain said:


> The purpose of exclusivity is to attract customers and keep them coming back to Amazon by offering titles readers can't get anywhere else. It's smart business. I hope they never get rid of the exclusivity requirement for Select/KU.


I'd be curious to see authors embrace the exclusivity concept and do exclusives with vendors in addition to Amazon. Movies and video games often do exclusive packages for different vendors, such as special content or goodies if you buy something from Target vice Amazon vice Best Buy, etc. Write something and make it available only on Amazon for a period of time, and write something else and make it available on Kobo only for a little while, etc. Experiment. Then go wide.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Let's see.  How much did Amazon really lose by me picking up a free book?  
Sun visor for my garmin,  several styli (styluses), a Mahjongg game, pot strainer, 2 movies, charging station, flat iron for steaks,  assorted accessories for my tablet, cell phone case etc.  

Easier to shop at Amazon because I am already there.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

Monique
Because it isn't a planned business cost - known cost within the business model - and instead is a vendor manipulated cost shift, it's a business cost that is very hard to justify the benefit in. Besides being a worthless cost, the bean counters could very well could argue that the very large number of freebies costs them purchases, ie there are so many freebies that a reader has no reason to buy a book. It's obvious that Amazon looks at offering free days in a tit-for-a-tat manner. With permafrees they aren't getting their tat and they are bearing of it too. There is no benefit to Amazon. So when it comes to Amazon, I've always permafreebie as too good to be true. Why continue something that offers no benefit to you, you bear the cost of, and may hinder people from buying other items you are selling? IMO there is no reason for Amazon not to cut down the permafreebie.

This is actually a point I've wanted to make for awhile but, due to the popularity of permafreebie, I've been skeert to say it.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

Someone said:


> I'll take the other side of the argument behind this point.
> Price match wasn't put in place to augment free items. The only reason the permafree exists is because people are manipulating price match. Amazon bears the cost of delivery of permafrees ( bandwidth ) for the vendors and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they didn't want to bear that cost anymore. And before anyone says cost, scost, would indies be willing to pay the delivery cost of the permafree, ie 2 or so cents a book? I bet not. Personally I think it is a matter of time before Amazon closes this manipulation hole down. It costs them money and Amazon, as a whole, runs on a very low profit margin.


But Amazon knows that permafrees are loss leaders and it is highly likely the few cents it cost them to deliver an ebook will be more than offset by future purchases. Especially for free first of a series books.


----------



## Claudia King (Oct 27, 2012)

RubyMadden said:


> I have heard this and will be surprised if it happens and here's why...
> 
> The reason Amazon price-matches to begin with, is when customers notify them that they've discovered the title for free at a competitor. Currently, PLAY, iBooks, Kobo, & B&N (via 3rd party) will allow authors to post titles for FREE. So, AMZN has a price-match guarantee. For the customer. Which leads to more sales (typically), keeps the customer at the Amazon website instead of going to a competitors' website, and promotes customer loyalty.


My thoughts as well. If Amazon were to get rid of permafree they'd be taking a big risk. Would the potential increase in revenue from forcing authors into KU make up for the loss of customers getting all their free books (and the not-so-free sequels) from competitors instead?

To me it sounds like a very difficult set of figures to ballpark, with the negatives having potentially significant and long-lasting effects. At the bottom line this would be a pretty anti-consumer move, and for a business to make those they have to be pretty darn sure the payout is going to be worth it.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Someone said:


> Monique
> Because it isn't a planned business cost - known cost within the business model - and instead is a vendor manipulated cost shift, it's a business cost that is very hard to justify the benefit in. Besides being a worthless cost, the bean counters could very well could argue that the very large number of freebies costs them purchases, ie there are so many freebies that a reader has no reason to buy a book. It's obvious that Amazon looks at offering free days in a tit-for-a-tat manner. With permafrees they aren't getting their tat and they are bearing of it too. There is no benefit to Amazon. So when it comes to Amazon, I've always permafreebie as too good to be true. Why continue something that offers no benefit to you, you bear the cost of, and may hinder people from buying other items you are selling? IMO there is no reason for Amazon not to cut down the permafreebie.
> 
> This is actually a point I've wanted to make for awhile but, due to the popularity of permafreebie, I've been skeert to say it.


I believe Amazon knew full well that permafrees could happen and planned accordingly. They've clearly made them part of their current business plan. I also disagree with the notion that there is no benefit to Amazon. Amazon does nothing that doesn't benefit it. Freebies draw readers. Readers buy other things and not just books. That's the heart of Amazon. Amazon embraces permafree for the same reason authors do - people go on to buy other things. I have oodles of reviews that say things like "Got this for free. Loved it. Off to buy the rest of the series." Now that doesn't hold true for everyone or every book, but Amazon hasn't shown any signs that they're planning to end permafree. It could happen, of course. But, as others have pointed out, those free books will be available elsewhere and buyers will follow them. It's a very small price to pay for Amazon to stay competitive.

Don't be afraid to be the dissenting voice! Discussion is good.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

It's hard to argue that a vendor manipulated shifted cost - vs a planned business model cost - is of any advantage and, because the 0 price is being manipulated by pricematch, there is no argument that permafree is not a vendor manipulated cost shift.

When Cin brings up her purchases, if they even address the argument, the devil's advocate is going to argue she was already a well-established Amazon customer thus the freebie has nothing to do with the other purchases. However they may not even address the point because the argument violates a basic business principle. That principle being Amazon, like any business, retains the right to chose what marketing and advertising costs they will pay. Distributors don't let their vendors make those choices and, when one argues "_because of permafreebie, I bought X_" the baseline of their argument is that vendors have a role in making advertising/marketing decisions for the distributor. Now to be clear, I am not saying a distributor won't chose to continue to bear a marketing/advertising toll that came about via cost shift; I'm just saying it is the business' choice of which advertising and marketing cost they are going to pay so arguing a scenario where the baseline places the vendor as a party in those decisions is a flawed argument.

Pricematch has been around since Amazon's first days. Permafreebies are more of a by-product of it and could easily be seen as the redheaded step-child of Pricematch. Permafreebies and Preicematch certainly aren't sisters. IDK. Maybe they are all about it or maybe it was something that was an annoyance they tolerated but with the recent explosion of permafreebie being part of the vendor's business model, they don't want to do anymore. IDK, IDK. I just know that when Amazon uses free days for program incentives - Amazon saying we will bear the cost of this, if you, as a vendor, do that - it is very reasonable for them to lower the boom in what they coould view as their incentive being manipulated so they don't get anything out of the deal. If they didn't use free days as an incentive, I'd feel better about the stability of pricematch/permafreebie manipulation.

I have no idea. I'm just saying I don't count on permafreebiee - that which I knew was a manipulated cost shift - as one of the legs of my stool because I realize it isn't a preplanned business cost in my distributors business model. Without it being that, it lacks stability and, IMO, could be cut away at any time.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

Jim Johnson said:


> I'd be curious to see authors embrace the exclusivity concept and do exclusives with vendors in addition to Amazon. Movies and video games often do exclusive packages for different vendors, such as special content or goodies if you buy something from Target vice Amazon vice Best Buy, etc. Write something and make it available only on Amazon for a period of time, and write something else and make it available on Kobo only for a little while, etc. Experiment. Then go wide.


That's a great suggestion and one way of making exclusivity work for you. I'd love to see more discussions on the positive aspects of Select/KU and exclusivity, and how they can be used to our benefit. Maybe we should start a brainstorming thread.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Oh devil's advocate, 
I will give you that I may or may not have been an already established customer.    That is one that cannot really be measured.    It could have been Monique's permafree that brought in.    Or it may have been I needed a book 20 years ago.  You don't know.
Now did you know there are also free apps and free music?    

One other little point:
The next author that says there are so many free books on Amazon that the reader does not need to buy a book is going to get a bill for all the books I bought at Amazon in 2014.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

vlmain said:


> That's a great suggestion and one way of making exclusivity work for you. I'd love to see more discussions on the positive aspects of Select/KU and exclusivity, and how they can be used to our benefit. Maybe we should start a brainstorming thread.


Works for me. I'll get it started.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

I'd be more than happy to charge 99 cents on Amazon and have it free everywhere else.  If that's what they force us to do.
Modified to add:
However, I do all kinds of promoting my free book, and the majority of those include a link to Amazon. This is #FREE advertising for Amazon. I'm doing all the work of trying to lure in readers to Amazon. Multiply me by tens of thousands of other authors.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

Jim Johnson said:


> Works for me. I'll get it started.


Awesome! Off to work but will post later.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I would end up reading books for free vs what I was spending on KDD books.


I'm probably one of the few in the world who looks at it this way, but.... I pay $9.99 for KU and read about 20 books a month through the program. That means I'm paying $.50 a book instead of probably an average in the $3.99 area, or $80 a month (I don't keep track of the price of the KU books I read, but very few of them are $.99 and an occasional one is $7.99 or $9.99). Last night I read _The Unforgiven_ by Alan LeMay (author of _The Searchers_), price $2.00, and right now I'm reading a collection of his short stories, price $3.99.

The big difference for me is that I'm eliminating those books I used to download based on samples and recommendations that I didn't finish because the plot or characters failed somewhere beyond the sample. I actually download more like 40 books a month and those that fail don't add to the monthly toll. So KU is saving me what I used to waste on unsatisfactory reads.

Since I never put a book up for free, permanently or otherwise, if Amazon made such a change it wouldn't affect me as an author. As a reader I never sought out freebies, so it wouldn't make much difference there either.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

> Oh devil's advocate,
> I will give you that I may or may not have been an already established customer. That is one that cannot really be measured. It could have been Monique's permafree that brought in. Or it may have been I needed a book 20 years ago. You don't know.


Whether you are a customer or not is immaterial. The _"the manipulated permafreebie cost shift is good for them because people buy stuff"_ argument is flawed because it is based on the vendor having a say in the distributor's marketing/advertising decisions.

It'd be much better to point out the "freebie may need to other purchases" using another baseline argument because a baseline of - we did this by manipulating one of your long-standing tools for your betterment - isn't going to be a distributor crowd pleaser. Instead is going to come back with the response of "since when did you acquire the right to decide what is better for OUR business". It's a valid point, it just needs a valid, non-violating, baseline argument.

Who knows how Amazon views it. The fact that they use free days as tit-for-tat program incentives just makes me feel uneasy about the idea that a tat-for-free manipulation, and one that also comes with costs shifted onto the distributor nonetheless, has stability and staying power. With their incredible narrow margin, they don't have a lot to give away and thus need to be very selective in what they will give away. It comes down to whether they see as a cost worth bearing and, with the recent changes decreasing permafree visibility, one has to wonder which way they will come down. The best case scenario for all is the bean counters not having premafreebie and the analysis of it in their sights. When something could go either way and only one way works for ya', it's better for that something to stay on the down low as long as it can.

I know there are many, many authors who have had wonderful results with permafreebie and who have a lot riding on permafreebie. I totally get that. 100% get it. I have it in consideration while I post every word about this. My intention isn't to worry people or raise alarm. Not at all. I just think it is wise to look at everything from both views and permafreebie is something whereas a possible and negative view hasn't been discussed. I weighed expressing it vs not and I think pointing out the devil's advocate view on this is important. If everyone woke up one day to discover this possible and negative view went from possible to reality, it would be devastating to a lot of people. The thought of saddens me and because it would be so very, very bad, I think it is wise to talk about this. With permafreebie being an unknown when it comes to how Amazon views it rather than being a known, discussing it raises that point, may cause people to examine just how dependent their model is on an unknown, and decide if and how they want to address that.

I do not mean to be any kind of a doomsayer nor have any issues with permafreebie. I'm just arguing the point because I think there is a lot of benefit to be had by people thinking it and their situation, you know?  Just don't think I'm the step mother to the redheaded step-child of permafreebie, I'm not.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

Stacy brings up this point


> What would suck would be if they didn't let us have perma-frees elsewhere. With Kobo and now Apple having the First Free in Series features, we'd have to leave Amazon to take part.


Eghads. That would be a quite the dilemma - one of those there's no good options decisions you gotta make. Geeze, the more I think about this scenario, the more the "oh that would suck" builds.

I think discussing this topic is a good discussion to have if the discussion isn't primarily a "will they or won't they" discussion. While interesting, "will they or won't they" is out of our control. Although it hasn't occurred, because of the very popular dependency/semi-dependency on the permafreebie model, dilemmas like Stacy presents, and the general unknown aura surrounding permafreebie, the "without permafreebie" topic is worth brainstorming IMO. When I think of all the permafreebie based wonderful success stories I have heard with many of them including was-able-leave-the-9to5gring-and-am-now-writing-full-time stories... I shudder to think if Amazon abruptly stopped permafreebie. Just boom, no warning, permafreebie no more. Ouch, that would be devastating to a lot of people. It is a horrible thought. Considering the fallout if Amazon pulls the reins on permafreebie, brainstorming about this now - brainstorming that when I think back on all those great stories of success, I hope turns out to be a waste of time - could never be a bad idea.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Just had another thought on the freebies.  Amazon has always offered free books.    Ellora's Cave has always had free books there.  68 right now.  Plus all the public domain books.
So what is the difference between those being free especially the public domain and a few permafrees.


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

Someone said:


> Stacy brings up this pointEghads. That would be a quite the dilemma - one of those there's no good options decisions you gotta make. Geeze, the more I think about this scenario, the more the "oh that would suck" builds.


Well, it's a way of reading the TOS that they aren't currently enforcing but easily could. You did already agree not to post your stuff for lower elsewhere.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

I've done the math. The 'Free Costs Amazon Money' argument holds no water. You know why? Because the 'delivery cost' they take from us on top of their actual cut is enough to serve up 100K+ average sized ebooks using the absolute most expensive webservice I could find on the web.

So no. It costs them nothing.

I highly doubt they would throw away as much money as permafree brings them both in terms of loss-leaders to other books AND the thousands or millions of dollars we're paying to point links to Amazon.

If they do however, it will be the last attack on indie writers I'll be subsidizing and I will leave Amazon altogether. They're my worst channel in terms of service and third place in earnings. If they want to take away the only promotional tool they 'give' me that actually WORKS, there's no reason to me believe either situation will improve. In the long run, not making them anymore money will be better for me and the industry as a whole if they fire that last salvo.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Is there not a clause in our TOS that states that Amazon must have the lowest price anywhere?

So, if they ditch permafree they could just ditch our titles entirely if we insist on offering them for free at other vendors and at 99 cents at Amazon.

In any case, if this were to come to pass, it still won't force me into KU. That's just silly. I'd rather make my current permafree 99 cents at all locations.


----------



## Lionel&#039;s Mom (Aug 22, 2013)

I'm glad you posted, Vaal, I was trying to find where you'd made this argument before, that it costs them nothing to host our permafrees.

I guess if something so horrible happened, I'd go back to perma99 and make less money, or work harder or something. This is my full time livelihood so I'll have to figure it out. But I'm praying this is the dumbest of dumb rumors because permafree is still most definitely working for me.


----------



## Donna White Glaser (Jan 12, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> I highly doubt they would throw away as much money as permafree brings them both in terms of loss-leaders to other books AND the thousands or millions of dollars we're paying to point links to Amazon.


And if ANYONE understands loss leaders, it's Amazon.


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2014)

Price matching:

If Amazon TAKES DOWN a perma free book, then what does Amazon have to price match?
Nothing. That book is no longer in its catalog


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Okey Dokey said:


> Price matching:
> 
> If Amazon TAKES DOWN a perma free book, then what does Amazon have to price match?
> Nothing. That book is no longer in its catalog


The question is: Does Amazon NEED that book in its catalog?


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Quiss said:


> The question is: Does Amazon NEED that book in its catalog?


Amazon pretty much wants everything and your Uncle Murray in their catalogue.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Just to put the math out there again:

The worst possible hosting package you can get is $1/GB a month.

1GB = 1024MB
1 MB = 1024kb
1GB = 1048576kb

Average ebook size = 400kb

2621.44 ebook/GB

'delivery charge' for average ebook - $.04

Amazon's 'cut' of $2.99 ebook: $.94

Total for Amazon per $2.99 ebook: $.98

So for ever $2.99 ebook sold, Amazon can afford to process 2621 ebooks with the absolute worst webhosting deal.

Buuut, Amazon also owns most of the internet's infrastructure including their own servers. I obviously can't find Amazon's own internal access costs because they are supervillains, but the number I've seen is $.10/GB.

That makes the free book per $2.99 book number 26,210.

The LOWEST cost I've seen is $.05/GB.

In which cast, it's 52, 420.

Now, the delivery cost goes up the bigger the book is, so for my $8.99, 1.2MB book, it's $.12 delivery cost and $2.69 cut for a total of $2.81.

That's 7365 free books at worst, 73,650 books at the corporate rate, and a stunning 147,300 free books paid for by that one sale.

In the end, if you sell even one $2.99 book, you're looking at automatically recouping the 'cost' of your permafrees for Amazon assuming you promoted it with anything less than BookBub.

With that one book alone, I have paid for over a million free books to be served this month and all of those sales were precipitated by giving away ~500 free books last month. That's a hell of a return on their 'costs'.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

LisaGrace said:


> I'd be more than happy to charge 99 cents on Amazon and have it free everywhere else.  If that's what they force us to do.
> Modified to add:
> However, I do all kinds of promoting my free book, and the majority of those include a link to Amazon. This is #FREE advertising for Amazon. I'm doing all the work of trying to lure in readers to Amazon. Multiply me by tens of thousands of other authors.


Yep. In fact, _we_ pay mailing lists to send Zon-links to tens of thousands of in-boxes.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Some thoughts.

1.) Every time we set a book free at another site, we are breaking Amazon's rules. If they wished to, Amazon could require us to change the price on the other site or remove the book from Amazon.

2.) While permafree helps us as writers, it really does nothing for Amazon. Helping me increase sales doesn't really increase sales for Amazon. If people didn't spend money on my book, they'd spend it on someone else's book.

3.)If Amazon continues to allow permafree, and I think they will, it's because of Google. At this point, me and many other indy authors make more from Play than we do at Amazon. If Amazon stops allowing permafree, they'll do it by requiring us to change our free books on Play. This won't be an option for a lot of authors, and when faced with the decision to change the free book on Play or remove the books from Amazon, we'll choose to remove them from Amazon because it makes more financial sense. 

Google is the only true competitor of Amazon. They've shown that they're willing to engage in the same tactics that Amazon used to destroy Apple and BN, and as long as Google allows us to post our books for free, Amazon will as well.


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2014)

Quote:

*"While permafree helps us as writers, it really does nothing for Amazon"*

Consider this:

Even for a freebie, the reader has to give Amazon an email address.
That is pretty valuable for Amazon's promotions.


----------



## Lionel&#039;s Mom (Aug 22, 2013)

Briteka said:


> Some thoughts.
> 
> 2.) While permafree helps us as writers, it really does nothing for Amazon. Helping me increase sales doesn't really increase sales for Amazon. If people didn't spend money on my book, they'd spend it on someone else's book.


It does if they buy the book(s) on amazon. And the second part of the statement can't really be proven, especially when someone is deep into a series they originally started from getting the first one free. So, if they want to find out how it ends, then they will buy the sequel(s) rather than just randomly choosing another book.

Oh, I just thought of something else! I use affiliate links, so I can see that people are buying books other than mine too, like shifter, cowboy, billionaire romances, etc. They've come for my freebie and bought those books, so if I know that's happening, you can bet zon does.


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2014)

Quote:
*"Amazon pretty much wants everything and your Uncle Murray in their catalogue"*

If that is true, then Amazon would not take down perma free.
Right?

Either Amazon wants the listing, regardless of price, or free. Or Amazon doesn't want the listing.
It can't do both.

Unless Amazon can create another dungeon.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Lionel's Mom said:


> It does if they buy the book(s) on amazon. And the second part of the statement can't really be proven, especially when someone is deep into a series they originally started from getting the first one free. So, if they want to find out how it ends, then they will buy the sequel(s) rather than just randomly choosing another book.
> 
> Oh, I just thought of something else! I use affiliate links, so I can see that people are buying books other than mine too, like shifter, cowboy, billionaire romances, etc. They've come for my freebie and bought those books, so if I know that's happening, you can bet zon does.


Amazon is not an unknown entity. If people buy their books from Amazon, then they buy their books from Amazon. If you have a permafree, your book is likely free on all other channels. This isn't something that's going to get people to become new Amazon customers. They'd simply go to their regular store and get the free book there.

The only way any of us would create new Amazon customers is if we advertise our Amazon-only free book to people that don't buy their books from Amazon. Which is probably exactly what Amazon wants us to do, and is exactly what they'd accomplish if they removed permafree.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Briteka said:


> 2.) While permafree helps us as writers, it really does nothing for Amazon. Helping me increase sales doesn't really increase sales for Amazon. If people didn't spend money on my book, they'd spend it on someone else's book.


Every ~10 of my free books goes on to sell ~$12 worth of books of mine on Amazon plus the other stuff they buy.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Briteka said:


> Amazon is not an unknown entity. If people buy their books from Amazon, then they buy their books from Amazon. If you have a permafree, your book is likely free on all other channels. This isn't something that's going to get people to become new Amazon customers. They'd simply go to their regular store and get the free book there.
> 
> The only way any of us would create new Amazon customers is if we advertise our Amazon-only free book to people that don't buy their books from Amazon. Which is probably exactly what Amazon wants us to do, and is exactly what they'd accomplish if they removed permafree.


*looks at all the people earlier in the thread that said they're just go to 99 cents*

Really?


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

wtvr said:


> Well, it's a way of reading the TOS that they aren't currently enforcing but easily could. You did already agree not to post your stuff for lower elsewhere.


They do enforce that element of the TOS -- just not for permafree. Try selling your book for $3.99 on Amazon and $.99 on Google. Amazon will price-match to $.99; then Amazon will send you the nastygram telling you to fix your price or be unpublished.

The willingness to price-match to permafree sans nastygram is a clear sign that Amazon actively wants permafree. The other clear sign is that you can email them and ask them to price-match your book to $0.00, and often they will do just as you ask:



> Hello,
> 
> Thanks for writing to us with your concern and I'll be glad to assist you.
> 
> ...


But might Amazon get rid of permafree? Yeah. It might well. If it wants KU to work, and it feels that permafrees are cutting into KU's attractiveness to readers, maybe permafree will go. It'd probably depend on Amazon's long-term vision of the book market. If it feels ebook sales are going to migrate strongly toward subscription services, I can imagine it wanting to go all-in to dominate that sector. Crushing dominance is Amazon's way, right? So, I could see it doing whatever it takes to make KU super-attractive.

But getting rid of permafree would be a risk for Amazon, since every other ebook platform except XinXii allows you to list your book for free, either directly or through Smash/D2D. If outfits like Apple and Google continued allowing $0.00 pricing, that would put Amazon at a disadvantage. Some writers might choose to forgo Amazon in favor of the others. Some readers might migrate as well -- $10/month is a good deal, but in the eyes of many, free is better. Given the prevalence of ereading on i/Android devices, the risk seems significant. With Google Play and iTunes already loaded on everyone's devices, most people have to make an extra effort to get their books from Amazon.

Maybe we can invent some secret code for our Amazon blurbs for seconds in series: B1MFOS (Book 1 MOBI free on Smashwords)? B1FOOP (Book 1 free on other platforms)?

Then again, maybe these other companies would just breathe a sigh of relief and also stop allowing $0.00 pricing. Seems like that'd be a missed opportunity, on their parts ... but greed.


----------



## RubyMadden (Jun 11, 2014)

Someone said:


> I'll take the other side of the argument behind this point.
> Price match wasn't put in place to augment free items. The only reason the permafree exists is because people are manipulating price match. Amazon bears the cost of delivery of permafrees ( bandwidth ) for the vendors and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they didn't want to bear that cost anymore. And before anyone says cost, scost, would indies be willing to pay the delivery cost of the permafree, ie 2 or so cents a book? I bet not. Personally I think it is a matter of time before Amazon closes this manipulation hole down. It costs them money and Amazon, as a whole, runs on a very low profit margin.


I would agree that authors and self-publishers have used this tool to enhance ebook sales. Perhaps, manipulation is one way of looking at it. As for costs, Amazon is far more inclined to reinvest it's profits and does so at their shareholders chagrin. They're one of the few businesses that go against the grain when it comes to the typical 'cost of doing business' tactics. They will take huge declines and allow their stock to tumble almost quarterly, due to ongoing investments. They've been playing the long-game for a long time. And, as for the cost of delivering a free eBook, they could simply decided to deduct that expense from author's total earnings, _but they don't_. What does that tell you?

It's a cost they're okay with.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> *looks at all the people earlier in the thread that said they're just go to 99 cents*
> 
> Really?


They CAN go to .99, but I think they'll quickly find that first-in-series at .99 everywhere will equal less sales than Select free days. It will also likely equal less sales than if they pulled their books from Amazon and remained permafree at all other sites. Having a book at .99 will do absolutely nothing sales-wise. You lose the entire marketing apparatus that free allows.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Select Free Days stopped working years ago.

By Amazon's own hand no less.


----------



## BillSmithBooksDotCom (Nov 4, 2012)

Eliminating perma-free would make no sense for Amazon.

If they just stopped price-matching, the marketing pitch everywhere on the Internet would be "This book is free eveywhere EXCEPT Amazon, where you have to pay."

And if they threatened to de-list books that are permafree elsewhere, the pitch would become, "This book is free everywhere EXCEPT Amazon, where it's not available at all."

Amazon built the Kindle platform on free and low priced ebooks. There is no way it is going to actively drive customers to other vendors.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

> I've done the math. The 'Free Costs Amazon Money' argument holds no water. You know why? Because the 'delivery cost' they take from us on top of their actual cut is enough to serve up 100K+ average sized ebooks using the absolute most expensive webservice I could find on the web.
> 
> So no. It costs them nothing.


That's as absurd as arguing a mark up on cat food should result in free litter.
There is a cost in delivering the freebie; you stated as much when you followed the above quoted post with a post with numbers. Unless you are going to argue there is no cost in delivering a file, and you can't because you just acknowledged there is a cost, your argument is nothing but arguing Amazon should play for vendor manipulated cost shifting by cost shifting Amazon's profit margin to cover it. Cost shifting doesn't make a cost disappear; it just places it elsewhere. There is no such thing as a free lunch.



> The willingness to price-match to permafree sans nastygram is a clear sign that Amazon actively wants permafree.


If Amazon wanted to send a clear sign that it actively wants permafree books, permafree would be a pricing option in KDP. But it isn't.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

> Eliminating perma-free would make no sense for Amazon.
> If they just stopped price-matching, the marketing pitch everywhere on the Internet would be "This book is free eveywhere EXCEPT Amazon, where you have to pay."
> And if they threatened to de-list books that are permafree elsewhere, the pitch would become, "This book is free everywhere EXCEPT Amazon, where it's not available at all."
> Amazon built the Kindle platform on free and low priced ebooks. There is no way it is going to actively drive customers to other vendors.


When you have hoards of people that cost you money to do business with them, sending them off to a competitor to do that business and cost the competitor money is sound business. Where is the harm in that? Customers buy something while OTOH people who only frequent your business to get "free" stuff are just people who want "free" stuff. I don't think it would bother Amazon at all if there was a message that said "we aren't a provider of free stuff". 
Many authors will tell you there is a difference between a freebie customer and a book buying customer. In fact, it is getting to be such a well-established fact that, when a mailing list reaches numbers which come with higher cost, discussions about segmenting one's mailing list in a free stuff vs paid stuff manner start to take place. Relatively speaking, authors are quite behind when it comes to mailing lists, however many are learning there are hoards of free loaders out there and their presence makes the difference between a quantity driven mailing list and a quality driven one.

If one insists permafreebies offers an overall no loss, no cost and even positive benefit, then they should have no problem bearing the delivery cost. Would you be willing to pay the delivery cost of your permafreebie? I'll even make that question more beneficial to authors and change it up to bearing the cost of your first in a series permafreebie. If you will not, how can argue that it is beneficial for Amazon to do so?


----------



## dgrant (Feb 5, 2014)

Look, Amazon already did. 

Many of you will remember when Pixel of Ink was THE top site to get your book listed. This was when putting your book free and getting a huge rankings boost would translate over to a significant ranking boost when you set your book back to paid. Free days were the absolute best way to catapult a book up the charts, resulting in higher visibility and sales for that particular book. Series not required! $0.99 was the hot sales price for indie stories, too, moving lots of early ebooks.

One day, the world we knew changed. Amazon announced it was changing the affiliate program so that you can't have more than X% of your click-throughs go to a free download and still get money. Roughly the same time, the ratings boost no longer carried over if you went from free to paid; you had to start all over from scratch if you switched. 

These days, BookBub is THE top site - and they make you pay through the nose, instead of making money off affiliate sales. And people either went to the permafree camp, or they migrated to an entry-level cost of $0.99 USD. The general prices of all indies went up, as the best-sellers left the $0.99 range for $2.99, $3.99, $4.99... creeping steadily upward. 

So when you say Amazon might do something drastic about free books - that's like standing here in December 2014 and saying that the NSA might start spying on American citizens. They've already made epic changes and radically different incentives to alter the market in the direction they want it to grow, and what free books are left are now there only as loss leaders. Welcome to the aftermath.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Someone said:


> If Amazon wanted to send a clear sign that it actively wants permafree books, permafree would be a pricing option in KDP. But it isn't.


I disagree. By handling permafree the way it does, Amazon preserves its flexibility. It can always pull out the "hey, it's in the TOS" argument when it wants either to stop or limit the number of permafrees. They'll take less of a PR hit because they won't be changing their policy; they'll just be choosing to tighten enforcement of a policy we've already all agreed to.

But for now, it very clearly is embracing permafree. More so than it used to, actually, since now they've started responding to directly emailed requests for $0.00, which they did not used to do.

Total win-win for Amazon. They get to milk the addictive series-buying permafree provokes while not tying their own hands anymore than they need to.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> Just to put the math out there again:
> 
> The worst possible hosting package you can get is $1/GB a month.


Except Amazon doesn't use $1/GB hosting. They own banks of servers, all of which are very, very expensive, and they're paying the people who run them, provide security to make sure our credit card numbers and identity aren't stolen, and all the other expenses that go along with running a network of their size. Their costs are not remotely comparable to the examples you gave.


----------



## SB James (May 21, 2014)

Since Apple started putting the iBooks app on all their new iThings, I've been seeing more activity there. If Amazon wants to stop price matching my permafree book, it will almost hardly matter soon. My permafree downloads have dwindled on Kindle anyway. I could always just take that one down and leave the other books in the series up since I'm not breaking any rules then, am I? 
Of course, many authors can't afford to take a book off Amazon, but my particular permafree was designed to _enhance_ book 1, rather than_ be_ book 1, so if Amazon doesn't have it, it will make little difference if anyone wants to read book 1 from Amazon. BUT, if a reader downloaded the book free from Google Play or Apple, how likely is that reader going to be to download the next book in the series from Amazon? The answer, IMO, is very unlikely. 
Unless I put some books into KU, I'm going to be doing less and less business with Amazon in 2015...


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Someone said:


> That's as absurd as arguing a mark up on cat food should result in free litter.
> There is a cost in delivering the freebie; you stated as much when you followed the above quoted post with a post with numbers. Unless you are going to argue there is no cost in delivering a file, and you can't because you just acknowledged there is a cost, your argument is nothing but arguing Amazon should play for vendor manipulated cost shifting by cost shifting Amazon's profit margin to cover it. Cost shifting doesn't make a cost disappear; it just places it elsewhere. There is no such thing as a free lunch.


Amazon isn't paying a thing. WE'RE PAYING because the bogus 'delivery charge is ON TOP of their cut. In fact, I'm not even sure it's in the TOS.

That's free money they get far in excess of the actual cost of serving the file.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Someone said:


> When you have hoards of people that cost you money to do business with them, sending them off to a competitor to do that business and cost the competitor money is sound business. Where is the harm in that? Customers buy something while OTOH people who only frequent your business to get "free" stuff are just people who want "free" stuff. I don't think it would bother Amazon at all if there was a message that said "we aren't a provider of free stuff".
> Many authors will tell you there is a difference between a freebie customer and a book buying customer. In fact, it is getting to be such a well-established fact that, when a mailing list reaches numbers which come with higher cost, discussions about segmenting one's mailing list in a free stuff vs paid stuff manner start to take place. Relatively speaking, authors are quite behind when it comes to mailing lists, however many are learning there are hoards of free loaders out there and their presence makes the difference between a quantity driven mailing list and a quality driven one.
> 
> If one insists permafreebies offers an overall no loss, no cost and even positive benefit, then they should have no problem bearing the delivery cost. Would you be willing to pay the delivery cost of your permafreebie? I'll even make that question more beneficial to authors and change it up to bearing the cost of your first in a series permafreebie. If you will not, how can argue that it is beneficial for Amazon to do so?


Since I said in a previous post that the next author that says free downloaders don't buy books I would send a bill to, please find the enclosed bill for $75. Will be back with the exact bill tomorrow. It will probably be higher.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

> Amazon isn't paying a thing. WE'RE PAYING because the bogus 'delivery charge is ON TOP of their cut. In fact, I'm not even sure it's in the TOS.
> 
> That's free money they get far in excess of the actual cost of serving the file.


You may see it that way but what does that have to do with the permafreebie cost? Even though it doesn't have anything to do with the cost of permafreebie delivery, I'll humor myself by refuting the point.

If the above is your explanation for how permafreebies' delivery cost is paid for, then what about authors that don't have permafreebies? Are they not bearing the cost of other people's freebies by having the cost shifted onto them and shifted without their consent? Yes they are. File delivery is not free. All books which generate income pay file delivery costs and all authors who publish books and generate profit have to pay delivery costs. So in your argument argument isn't the cost of other author's permafreebies being shifted onto authors who don't have permafreebies? Yeah, you are trying to present an argument that states cost shifting isn't occurring and basing it on cost shifting that comes down to the delivery cost of the freebie either being shifted to Amazon or other authors. Your argument does nothing but refute your "there is no cost shifting" point.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. One may eat a lunch for free but they are only eating for free by shifting the cost onto someone else.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

> Since I said in a previous post that the next author that says free downloaders don't buy books I would send a bill to, please find the enclosed bill for $75. Will be back with the exact bill tomorrow. It will probably be higher.


Send away and, by applying your flawed argument of absolutes to me paying the bill, wait for Paypal to notify of you of the deposit. Because just as everyone must be like you, all people who download books must be a profitable customer for Amazon, my absolute is that everyone who receives a bill pays their bill. Or you could argue fairly and without employing the flaw.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

I will gladly send them $1 USD for every 20,000 free downloads my books get.

And that's me overpaying because the number's actually 26,000 or higher.

Meanwhile, I wonder if they'll be willing to send me my piece of cin's $75... Oh wait, they changed the associates TOs specifically to make sure I don't get compensated for all the Amazon products A Girl And Her Monster brings in to them each year.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Someone said:


> Send away and, by applying your flawed argument of absolutes to me paying the bill, wait for Paypal to notify of you of the deposit. Because just as everyone must be like you, this all people who download books must be a profitable customer for Amazon, my absolute is everyone who receives a bill plays their bill. Or you could argue fairly and without employing the flaw.


I do not plan on holding my breath while waiting. 
And I think between the two of us the only we have proved that is absolute is absolute zero.


----------



## No longer seen (Aug 17, 2013)

vlmain said:


> Except Amazon doesn't use $1/GB hosting. They own banks of servers, all of which are very, very expensive, and they're paying the people who run them, provide security to make sure our credit card numbers and identity aren't stolen, and all the other expenses that go along with running a network of their size. Their costs are not remotely comparable to the examples you gave.


These factors mean the cost to Amazon is FAR smaller than ordinary $1/GB hosting.

They benefit from the economies of scale. They are far more efficient than any ordinary hosting company
or cloud service can afford to be -- only Google and similar tech giants who have their own acres of 
server farms and in-house techs can compare.

Hosting and letting prospects download permafrees is not free to Amazon, but the hardware and energy cost is probably
close to their smallest line item expense. It's minimal compared to the server reserve capacity they must 
maintain for random surges in traffic. That's how they got into the cloud provider business.

I don't know what they're planning, but I believe if they decide to eliminate permafrees it'll be for a 
strategic reason, not to get rid the relatively tiny expense.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

> And I think between the two of us the only we have proved that is absolute is absolute zero.


I agree and agree in Kelvin


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

vlmain said:


> Except Amazon doesn't use $1/GB hosting. They own banks of servers, all of which are very, very expensive, and they're paying the people who run them, provide security to make sure our credit card numbers and identity aren't stolen, and all the other expenses that go along with running a network of their size. Their costs are not remotely comparable to the examples you gave.


Actually if anything I'm making their costs too LARGE. Those selfsame servers run the rest of the store and AWS. AWS is something tons of other companies and governments pay for, so the bandwidth that carries our books are massively subsidized. Possibly down to $1/TB, not GB.

You'll also notice that Amazon is the only sales channel that wants a delivery fee despite none of _them_ having AWS paying for it.

The idea that permafree is costing them anything beyond the cost of the shovels they need to move all the cash it brings in for them is a joke.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

> I will gladly send them $1 USD for every 20,000 free downloads my books get.
> 
> And that's me overpaying because the number's actually 26,000 or higher.


Okay. Lemme know how setting another business' price - demanding where another business should set their price - works for ya'. The outcome will definitely be interesting, especially after you have repeatedly asserted that Amazon is acting in a manner to set vendor price and argued how they have no business doing such. 
Hmmm, you can set Amazon's price on bandwidth but Amazon has no business setting any of your prices...
There's a problem with logic there.

But at least you finally conceded the point that there is real and actual cost in permafree delivery, that delivery cost is currently being shifted onto someone else, and realizing your argument did nothing but argue it was being shifted onto non-permafree publishing authors. 
And let's not pretend the only cost of permafreebies is file delivery. It's not.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

vlmain said:


> They won't. They can't. If they give up the exclusivity so authors can sell those books on Scribd and Oyster, as well as others, what would be the purpose of subscribing to KU?


So I can easily read books on my Kindle--I can only read books from Scribd on my iPad, and I prefer eInk.

Betsy


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

I actually have no idea what you're on about now.

The $1 figure is incredibly generous on my part considering that I'm offering to pay for something that makes them money.

And I've conceded nothing. Permafree costs them nothing net. In the absolute worst case scenario, the average reported permafree 'pays' for itself four times over on falsified delivery costs alone. That's not including the sell-through commissions, the other products bought, the free advertising...

Why am I not being paid to put up permafrees is the real question. Oh wait,s again, I used to before they changed the associates rules.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> So I can easily read books on my Kindle--I can only read books from Scribd on my iPad, and I prefer eInk.
> 
> Betsy


That's kind of ironic considering what Apple did, killing hybrid eInk...


----------



## TheGapBetweenMerlons (Jun 2, 2011)

Of course there are costs associated with delivering a Kindle book. There's also a cost to you for turning on your CFL bulb for a couple seconds to figure out what went bump in the dark. Tiny fractions of a cent, but still a cost.

If you think "permafree e-book delivery costs" actually matter to Amazon, feel free to review their quarterly financials: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=97664&p=irol-reportsOther You won't find any reference to _any_ e-book delivery costs; in fact, I don't think you'll find anything about e-books at all, other than generically in passing reference to "content" (which almost certainly includes higher-bandwidth content like video).

Costs alone are not bad, just as revenues alone are not good. Profit is what matters.

If you look at the history of Amazon I'm fairly sure you won't find that they built up to having tens of billions of dollars in annual revenue by fretting tiny costs, even if some of those trivial costs were slightly higher because vendors "shifted costs"* onto Amazon. They've grown to be an economic powerhouse through aggressive business practices and savvy sensitivity to customer preferences. They've taken customer-oriented risks that have been much costlier than the trivial expense of delivering books (free or otherwise). They have _billions_ in cash reserve. The fact that the Kindle is the only e-book platform charging authors delivery fees is a symptom of aggressive business practices, not that they're struggling to pay their hosting and bandwidth costs.

* Vendors "shifting costs" is hardly uncommon, despite comments in this thread implying otherwise. An informed buyer will be aware (as I'm sure Amazon is -- they actively assist authors in this "manipulation," even if "permafree" is not yet a checkbox in KDP), and a buyer can choose to end a relationship as a result of unacceptable cost-shifting. (Don't get me started on the cost-shifting that occurs after minimum wage hikes, hurting the low-income people those hikes were supposed to help. Oops, I guess I got started.) However, disrupting a vendor relationship "on principle" for something that is extremely common would show far less business acumen than Amazon has shown over the years.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

> Costs alone are not bad, just as revenues alone are not good. Profit is what matters.


First of all, thanks for the great comment Crenel. I agree with a lot of what you said. About what is quaoted above. Agree 100%. I let myself get way too far into the cost argument due to the incessant and incorrect assertion of permafrees being cost free. My bad. The real question, of course, is not only if permafreebies are profitable after cost analysis but if, down the road, Amazon will see the permafree option as an unnecessary interfering competitor to their author incentive programs and to the point of overcoming the benefits they bring to the table .

I enjoyed your talk about AMZ's financials and their history. I am well acquainted with both too. I've been an active investor for quite some time and one can't be one without being well aware of Amazon's margin and the occasional investor fatigue/angst that pops up about a few things. For me, I look at a lot of that and say meh. I like AMZ as a company to do business with and as long as that continues, I feel they will be a sound investment. I like that they are very competitive and set a very high customer service bar. A sound business model like that is rewarded by customer loyalty.

Amazon puts Amazon first, customers second, other crucial parties next, and vendors somewhere further down the list and that can make a very frustrating place for vendors to do business. If they didn't do this, they wouldn't have the market they have to offer to vendors but that doesn't stop a lot of vendors sulking about not being able to have their cake and eat it too.


----------



## D-C (Jan 13, 2014)

Lady Vine said:


> I think they'll do a Google and reduce the visibility of freebies, make it a real chore to locate them, remove permafrees from the Top 100 Free lists, that sort of thing. There are more effective ways of killing freebies than actually _killing_ them.


Are they not already doing this, to a degree?


----------



## beccaprice (Oct 1, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> Select Free Days stopped working years ago.
> 
> By Amazon's own hand no less.


I don't know about that. I'm doing an unadvertised free giveaway through Select of Child of Promise, my sort-of Christmas story. I mentioned it here, and in my newsletter to those who signed up for it, and that's all, and I just noticed today that it's #11 in it's genre, children's folk tales. And that's without doing any advertising what so ever.


----------



## Mystery Maven (Sep 17, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> I will gladly send them $1 USD for every 20,000 free downloads my books get.
> 
> And that's me overpaying because the number's actually 26,000 or higher.
> 
> Meanwhile, I wonder if they'll be willing to send me my piece of cin's $75... Oh wait, they changed the associates TOs specifically to make sure I don't get compensated for all the Amazon products A Girl And Her Monster brings in to them each year.


What's changed about the way associates are paid? Somehow I missed that. Is there a thread about it?


----------



## Darryl Hughes (Nov 17, 2014)

John Donlan said:


> I don't have any permafree at all at the moment, since both my books are in select. If it's true though, it could be interesting, in that it might make the select free days more worthwhile if they go down that route.


I agree. Amazon didn't kill the effectiveness of Select free days permafree did. Eliminating permafree benefits those of us still in Select. And it wouldn't suprise me either. Amazon eliminated tags and listmania when folks were abusing them, why not eliminate permafree if it undercuts their own program. Seems an Amazon thing to do.

Dee


----------



## Darryl Hughes (Nov 17, 2014)

Avis Black said:


> I could see Amazon doing this since a bunch of KULL's best-selling authors are leaving the program due to dropping income. Amazon would want to keep KULL viable, and they undoubtedly see KULL as a real boon to Kindle sales, which in turn is a way to establish massive market share.


Exactly. Ultimately it benefits Amazon to eliminate permafree.

Dee


----------



## zoe tate (Dec 18, 2013)

I have no horse in this race (I've never given my work away free and don't intend to). But ...



Briteka said:


> Every time we set a book free at another site, we are breaking Amazon's rules. If they wished to, Amazon could require us to change the price on the other site or remove the book from Amazon.


Clearly. They're simply choosing - for now - not to enforce existing rules, over this issue.



Briteka said:


> While permafree helps us as writers, it really does nothing for Amazon. Helping me increase sales doesn't really increase sales for Amazon. If people didn't spend money on my book, they'd spend it on someone else's book.


No disrespect, but this is easy to assert and very difficult to prove. I'm not at all convinced that it's _universally_ true.



Briteka said:


> Google is the only true competitor of Amazon. They've shown that they're willing to engage in the same tactics that Amazon used to destroy Apple and BN, and as long as Google allows us to post our books for free, Amazon will as well.


Possibly. It's an attractive argument, anyway.



Darryl Hughes said:


> Ultimately it benefits Amazon to eliminate permafree.


This must be so, in my opinion.

I don't think many people _seriously_ imagine that "permafree" on Amazon is going to last for ever, anyway? Do they?


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

I heard a rumor that permafree will go away when ALL kindle owners have ALL the permafree books on their devices.
Oh and who is paying my permafree bill?  Amazon gets expensive in a hurry.


----------



## KL_Phelps (Nov 7, 2013)

I hear Bob Dylan singing times they are a changin


----------



## BillSmithBooksDotCom (Nov 4, 2012)

There's been some discussion on several threads as to if Amazon wants to eliminate permafree, if they wanted to allow it, etc.

1) Amazon (if they have a brain, which they do) must consider permafrees part of the cost of doing business.

No, they probably don't WANT to allow permafree (they'd love to charge as much as they can for every product they sell, that's the nature of business) ... but they realize that they HAVE to allow permafree because competitors are offering it.

2) On the other hand, maybe Amazon doesn't mind permafree all that much.

http://www.amazon.com/b?node=2245146011

https://www.amazon.com/gp/digital/fiona/kcp-landing-page?ie=UTF8&ref_=sv_kstore_3
To quote:
"Read Free Books
Read thousands of free books including popular classics like The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, Pride and Prejudice, and Treasure Island."

Notice, not limted to classics, says "including classics."

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_ex_n_1?rh=n%3A133140011%2Cp_36%3A0-0&bbn=133140011&sort=review-rank&ie=UTF8&qid=1419646100
On the above link, just an observation that there are over 76,000 free ebooks. If permafrees are something Amazon wants to stop, they really are failing spectacularly.

If Amazon wanted to give permafree the boot, they could just stop listing free titles with their own bestseller list. I'm not saying Amazon necessarily loves permafree. But they do realize it is a necessary function of doing business and it would be a bad business move for them to put a stop to it.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

Removing permafree does not equate to AMZ not having any free books.
Amazon can still offer free books via Select and via however else they decide to run their business. And how they want to run their business is the point of the argument. Will they see permafrees hindering their author incentive programs to the point where they, running their own business as they want to, want to stop the price-match manipulated permafree? Is the obvious, undeniable decline of permafree visibility a sign of a sea change or isn't it? Who knows.

I just won't stake my business model on permafrees with the assumption AMZ wants free books. Although I do utilize permafree, I don't and will not count on it. Permafree is and will not a stool leg of my business model until the ability to list a book as permafree is available in the KDP dashboard. YMMV and that's fine by me.


----------

